Frank Apisa wrote:I'm having some trouble understanding what you are getting at here, Monger, but I stand by my statement completely exactly as presented.
What I'm getting at is that a belief there are no gods is based on logic (you've also stated as much), and a belief there are gods isn't.
If you agree, we can discuss why relying on logic is important in the analysis of an undefined thing. If you disagree, please answer the question below.
Monger, if you read your "question" you will see that it is a very difficult "question" to comprehend -- and it is clouded by the fact that you are trying to present arguments at the same time as you are presenting your question.
Ask me a specific question -- or several -- and I will definitely respond.
I'd bolded my questions. Here they are:Monger wrote:What sense do you see in the claim?
What claim?
Quote:[I'm guessing you'll say "none," which I agree with but theists obviously don't.]
I do not understand what you are saying here.
Quote:[/color][/i] If "theists haven't got a leg to stand on," as you've said before, then why do you feel the existence of gods is more plausible than the existence of other religious/spiritual concoctions (such as spirits living in the moon)?
If someone is going to throw out something like "purple certified public accountants on a moon of Saturn" or "spirits living in the center of the moon" -- and tell me that if I do not treat those notions seriously than I am being hypocritical treating the possibility that there is a God or gods involved in the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY?" -- then we are simply going to part company without a response.
When dealing with the question "What is the nature of REALITY?" -- I DO NOT consider the POSSIBILITY "There is a God (or gods) involved" to be absurd or preposterous.
When dealing with atheists trying to rationalize their guesses about REALITY -- I do consider "Well how about spirits residing in the center of the Moon" to be preposterous.
If you view that position as inconsistent or illogical or hypocritical -- I guess I'll have to live with it. But I consider arguments of that sort to be the atheistic equivalent of the theistic argument "If you agree that love, hate, sorrow, or elation exist, why don't you agree that God exists."
I think it is a phony argument -- and I have trouble treating it seriously.
But I consider you a serious person, Monger, and I want to treat your questions respectfully, so please pursue it if you think it is important, and I will be as responsive as I can be.
Monger wrote:What I'm getting at is that a belief there are no gods is based on logic (you've also stated as much), and a belief there are gods isn't.
The problem is that Frank is talking about generic gods. There are no generic gods.
There is no such thing as a generic god, there are only specific, well-described gods that man has invented for himself.
As such, we can evaluate those gods, find that they are logically impossible and reject them safely and logically. Once we realize that *ALL* gods are simply things that man has invented for himself, then we can safely say that there are no real gods, since they are simply creations of the human mind.
Does that mean that somewhere out there, there might not be something godlike hiding in the shadows? Nope, but why worry about it unless it shows up and makes itself known?
Frank,
Should I stop posting my questions? I've done so twice and am not sure if you have seen them or not. If you have I'll forget it already.
Frank,
Are you agnostic about who your dad is?
Are you agnostic about whether you are straight or gay?
Are you agnostic about whether you are real or an illusion?
When Setanta said that there is an element to this discussion that will simply lead us to the quote Ican uses in his signature ("Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!") he is spot on.
Setanta
I agree with your "strictly logical" non-equivalence.
As an aside...Intellectual theists in fact have several modes of existence for "God" including "a non-interventionist" mode which would of course be immune from the gathering of "evidence". It would not surprise me either if such theists viewed "logical thought" as a "divine gift" which is incapable of analysing its origins !
Cephus wrote:The problem is that Frank is talking about generic gods. There are no generic gods.
May I respectfully ask how you know that?
Quote:There is no such thing as a generic god, there are only specific, well-described gods that man has invented for himself.
May I respectfully ask how you know that?
Quote:As such, we can evaluate those gods, find that they are logically impossible and reject them safely and logically. Once we realize that *ALL* gods are simply things that man has invented for himself, then we can safely say that there are no real gods, since they are simply creations of the human mind.
Your reasoning here is very faulty.
It is possible that every god ever conceived or invented by humans is an absolute absurdity -- and that there is a God anyway.
If EVERY reported sighting of a UFO or of an "alien being" ever reported on planet Earth is an absurdity and absolutely false -- that does not prove there are not alien beings elsewhere in the universe.
Quote:Does that mean that somewhere out there, there might not be something godlike hiding in the shadows? Nope, but why worry about it unless it shows up and makes itself known?
I agree. But this entire exercise started when I questioned one person who asserted that there are no gods or goddesses.
In the final quote, you acknowledge that there might be something godlike hiding out there.
In the next to last quote, you that we can assume there are no real gods.
Which is it?
I'd have to agree with him. I'm glad that you do not demand certainty in all things. Your life would be an odd one.
As an aside...Intellectual theists in fact have several modes of existence for "God" including "a non-interventionist" mode which would of course be immune from the gathering of "evidence". It would not surprise me either if such theists viewed "logical thought" as a "divine gift" which is incapable of analysing its origins !
Hell, Craven, I don't even demand certainty on this question. I've mentioned that several times -- and I cannot help but wonder why it never seems to get through to theists or atheists.
All I would like to see is some evidence that cannot be used by both sides to bolster their conflicting and mutually exclusive guesses.
In any case, since you did ask your questions twice -- I assume you had a point to make about my answers.
Frank Apisa wrote:Hell, Craven, I don't even demand certainty on this question. I've mentioned that several times -- and I cannot help but wonder why it never seems to get through to theists or atheists.
All I would like to see is some evidence that cannot be used by both sides to bolster their conflicting and mutually exclusive guesses.
In any case, since you did ask your questions twice -- I assume you had a point to make about my answers.
I did have a point Frank, but I did not want to set off one of your rants about how agnosticism is the superior choice.
My point is there: certainty is impossible as we both agree. So we will have to use probablity.
Do you seriously contend that the body of information presented to you perfectly balances each other out so as to make you rate the probability as EXACTLY 1:1?
It would be very interesting if this question, with it's untold nuance coincidentally balances itself out with perfect equilibrium in your mind.
More realistic would be a slight inclination toward one side while not being enough for you to take a different stated position.
Interesting that you should consider my honest opinion to be ranting.
Or not use "probability" if it appears that the "probability" one way or the other really cannot be determined.
I call to your attention that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to guess one way or the other on this issue. It makes fine sense to simply acknowledge that one does not know -- and that one does not see enough evidence in either direction to make a guess.
Well, to be honest, I don't see very much evidence in either direction -- but I have noted this:
The same information is available to both sides -- and proponents of theism suggest to me that "the likelihood of the existence of God" makes much, much, much more sense than "the likelihood that there are no gods."
And proponents of atheism suggest to me that "the likelihood that there are no gods" is so much more reasonable and logical than the alternative, that even considering the possibility of the existence of gods is illogical.
And mind you, the proponents of both sides are mostly reasonable, intelligent, well-intentioned, honest, ethical individuals.
And you are right! I do consider resolving this thing that way to be superior to guessing in either direction. I have trouble understanding why you don't
It does!
Neither side, or so it seems to me, has ANY unambiguous evidence upon which to base these guesses they are touting as reasonable and logical.
Quote:More realistic would be a slight inclination toward one side while not being enough for you to take a different stated position.
I think not.
Much more realistic would be to acknowledge that there appears to be no inclination toward one side or the other -- and leave it at that.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Interesting that you should consider my honest opinion to be ranting.
I don't think "rant" is negative. It implies passion. I rant all the time.
Quote:Or not use "probability" if it appears that the "probability" one way or the other really cannot be determined.
I call to your attention that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to guess one way or the other on this issue. It makes fine sense to simply acknowledge that one does not know -- and that one does not see enough evidence in either direction to make a guess.
I have long agreed, but you did not claim that agnosticism is a superior position to atheism ONLY if the individual does not see said evidence. You claimed that agnosticism is a superior position period.
Quote:Well, to be honest, I don't see very much evidence in either direction -- but I have noted this:
The same information is available to both sides -- and proponents of theism suggest to me that "the likelihood of the existence of God" makes much, much, much more sense than "the likelihood that there are no gods."
And proponents of atheism suggest to me that "the likelihood that there are no gods" is so much more reasonable and logical than the alternative, that even considering the possibility of the existence of gods is illogical.
And mind you, the proponents of both sides are mostly reasonable, intelligent, well-intentioned, honest, ethical individuals.
Smart people say all kinds of dumb things, my question is not one of those "aha gotcha" ones. The "point" I had was simply to better understand your position.
Besides what each camp says do you see anything that would sway the probability either way?
I ask because I'd like to compare it to the accessment you have made on the probability of there being unicorns that are all around us but that can only be seen if you believe in them completely.
Quote:And you are right! I do consider resolving this thing that way to be superior to guessing in either direction. I have trouble understanding why you don't
Well, I am trying to show you. Do you think that one should be agnostic about the existence of unicorns that can only be seen by special people?
Quote:Neither side, or so it seems to me, has ANY unambiguous evidence upon which to base these guesses they are touting as reasonable and logical.
Odd, I would ahve rated that as improbable. Perfect equilibrium is very rare.
Quote:Quote:More realistic would be a slight inclination toward one side while not being enough for you to take a different stated position.
I think not.
Much more realistic would be to acknowledge that there appears to be no inclination toward one side or the other -- and leave it at that.
I have no qualm if you do so. Heck I have no right to a qualm. My point is simply that perfect equilibrium does not exist in nature and I find it unlikely here as well.
I would note that in aid of the strawman statement about what atheists are saying, Frank continues to characterize an atheist's rejection of the theist's position as a "guess," rather than the criticism of the other position which it acutally is.
Frank's argument, a neat little game of logic, with no valuable contribution to make to the controversy, only stands up if an equivalency between the two positions can be established.
Frank hasn't done that, he's only posited that atheists are "making a guess" which is equivalent to the theists "making a guess." And, it is all nonsense, with which Frank wishes to to display his "ethical superiority."
O.K., Frank, you win. We'll mail you your prize.
Bye Frank.
You don't think "ranting" has a negative connotation -- and you don't think "fence sitting" has a negative connotation.
But you are an intelligent individual -- and surely you see that both are seen as having a negative connotation by huge numbers of people.
So why use terms like that if you are not trying to poke at someone?
The only reason I claim agnosticism is a superior position to atheism and theism is because IT IS A SUPERIOR position to both.
You have almost no evidence that there are no gods -- and such "evidence" as you do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.. Theists have almost no evidence that there is a god -- and such "evidence" as they do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.
Every indication is that none of us knows if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and the evidence available (and used by) both theists and atheists is so ambiguous -- it is laughable that people pay it as much respect as you atheists and theist do.
I've never had anyone approach me with that possibility. Are you suggesting that it is so -- or are you simply proposing an absurd hypothetical?
Quote:Do you think that one should be agnostic about the existence of unicorns that can only be seen by special people?
Refer to my response up above.
If a proponent of a particular point of view has zero to back it up -- and a proponent of a point of view 180 degrees out of phase with that point of view has zero to back that up -- it is in perfect equilibrium.
Quote:I have no qualm if you do so. Heck I have no right to a qualm. My point is simply that perfect equilibrium does not exist in nature and I find it unlikely here as well.
You are absolutely sure of that, Craven?
Just as sure as you are that there are no gods, I suppose!
Frank Apisa wrote:
You don't think "ranting" has a negative connotation -- and you don't think "fence sitting" has a negative connotation.
But you are an intelligent individual -- and surely you see that both are seen as having a negative connotation by huge numbers of people.
So why use terms like that if you are not trying to poke at someone?
Both CAN have a negative connotation. I use it because you do sit on the fence and you do rant. I have a qualm with neither. People who deride what they consider to be "wishy washy" are often foolhardy and reckless. As to ranting everyone gets impassioned on occasion. I do not think it inherently wrong.
Quote:The only reason I claim agnosticism is a superior position to atheism and theism is because IT IS A SUPERIOR position to both.
Is it? Even if the person thinks there is plenty of evidence to one side you think your position is superior why?
Do you have any empirical proof for this? Why not remain agnostic about whether it is, indeed, a superior position. << ok that was a poke. ;-)
Quote:Do you also assert that none of us knows for sure who our fathers and mothers are and that none of us should make statements about the existence of dwarves aliens and such either?You have almost no evidence that there are no gods -- and such "evidence" as you do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.. Theists have almost no evidence that there is a god -- and such "evidence" as they do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.
What evidence do you have that Unicorns do not exist and are you agnostic about their existence?
Quote:Every indication is that none of us knows if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and the evidence available (and used by) both theists and atheists is so ambiguous -- it is laughable that people pay it as much respect as you atheists and theist do.
Do you also assert that none of us knows for sure who our fathers and mothers are and that none of us should make statements about the existence of dwarves aliens and such either?
Quote:I've never had anyone approach me with that possibility. Are you suggesting that it is so -- or are you simply proposing an absurd hypothetical?
I am suggesting that your criteria for the superiority of the agnostic position should lead you to take up the agnostic position when unicorns aliens and the like are discussed.
The evidence on those things is the same as the evidence about gods.
Do you think that one should be agnostic about the existence of unicorns that can only be seen by special people?
I missed the answer to the question because you did not answer it. Are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns and dwarves and probing aliens?
There is no emprical evidence that suggests that you are right in that your position as an agnostic is a superior one.
ossobuco wrote:
Quote:I too agree with JLN. I am void of consideration there may be a god.
I would appear that your participation in this thread contradicts your statement above.
I am not a fence sitter, Craven. I have a very clear position which I have articulated clearly and unambiguously.
I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess in either direction.
That IS NOT fence sitting.
That is taking a very clear position on the question.
But I guess people who make guesses on that issue feel defensive about the fact that they are defending a guess -- and better to portray someone willing to acknowledge that he would prefer not to guess because of the poor information upon which to base the guess -- as a fence sitter.
Quote:Quote:The only reason I claim agnosticism is a superior position to atheism and theism is because IT IS A SUPERIOR position to both.
Is it? Even if the person thinks there is plenty of evidence to one side you think your position is superior why?
Why???
Haven't you been reading my posts, Craven?
I've already explained why.
Because this "plenty of evidence" is not plenty of evidence -- and such little of it as there is, is ambiguous. That means that the guesses based on it are...inappropriate. And simply acknowledging that one does not know IS SUPERIOR TO AN INAPPROPRIATE GUESS.
Hummm...so instead of dealing with what I wrote, you want to posit an absurd hypothetical.
Quote:What evidence do you have that Unicorns do not exist and are you agnostic about their existence?
Refer to above.
Quote:
Do you also assert that none of us knows for sure who our fathers and mothers are and that none of us should make statements about the existence of dwarves aliens and such either?
No.
Quote:
I am suggesting that your criteria for the superiority of the agnostic position should lead you to take up the agnostic position when unicorns aliens and the like are discussed.
Really!
I don't agree.
Quote:The evidence on those things is the same as the evidence about gods.
No it isn't.
Quote:There is no emprical evidence that suggests that you are right in that your position as an agnostic is a superior one.
It can be shown logically -- although I suspect you are so wedded to your position that you will refuse to acknowledge it.
Don't feel bad about that, lots of theists treat all this the same way.
