Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I agree with you, Sculptor1. Unfortunatley, such beliefs do interfere all too often with other people's lives. For example, gay people are told they are going to some hell, women who need an abortion are tormented with guilt, and my tax money is being spent to prop up reilgiosly based schools which perpetuate such nonsense when it should rightly, IMO, be going to govenment schools that teach real science and not young earth creationism. And as yu say, such beleifs perpetuate magical thinking and a denial of truth which helps no one.

Exacty.

The missing bullet yesterday might spell the most dangerous turn for democracy. I regard MAGA as such a relgion and as they are allied strongly with the Christian Right that incidence might well be the turning point for the end of the USA as we know it. They are prepared to "Take it Back" Whatever TF "it"might be.
If you can you would be well advise to leave the US.
Democrats are impotent against the hatred of bigotry.
We have seen such toxicity spill over to the UK, France, Germany, and elsewhere.
If you are worried about schools teaching religion; how long before they are teaching TrumpYouth.

[Lagayascienza]

Yup. I'm glad I live in Australia. If Trump gets back in the USA is screwd and may never recover. Unfortunately the evil, the hatred and the violence won't be confined to the USA. It's so sad, and frightening, to see the people of what was once perceived as the world's greatest democracy, a shining light on the hill, allowing this to happen to themselves. And it has a lot to do with that worst of mind viruses, fundamentalist religion.

[Belinda]

Yup. I'm glad I live in Australia. If Trump gets back in the USA is screwd and may never recover. Unfortunately the evil, the hatred and the violence won't be confined to the USA. It's so sad, and frightening, to see the people of what was once perceived as the world's greatest democracy, a shining light on the hill, allowing this to happen to themselves. And it has a lot to do with that worst of mind viruses, fundamentalist religion.

I agree and I think we may see that American fundamentalism is rooted in American history. American fundamentalism attracts the lower labouring class and lower middle class. This is because these classes in America, for historical reasons ,generally don't trust intellectualism which is seen to pertain to more prosperous and more powerful upper middle and upper social classes. Trump has developed a popular image of himself as a plain spoken champion of the people who understands his disempowered people and will make America great again for them.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Burden of proof is with the original claim.

There is no "burden of proof", but only which of the near-infinite number of unanswerable questions you choose to consider. Or not.

There is an absolute and unavoidable burden of proof.

Headline: "Pattern-chaser arrested, and held in police custody, pending charges under the Philosophy Act 1487."


No, serious and considered discussion is a voluntary pastime. There are no rules or laws, but only an expectation of courtesy. If I assert X, and fail to offer justification or proof, that only diminishes the consideration it might gain from others. No "burden".

Unanserable questions are not questions, but fantasies.

And yet here you are, discussing the possible existence of God... Why are you wasting your time on "fantasies"?

Ans since there are a near-infintie number. Name two!

1. Are we 'brains in vats'?
2. Does God exist?

[Sculptor1]

...Burden of proof is with the original claim.

There is no "burden of proof", but only which of the near-infinite number of unanswerable questions you choose to consider. Or not.

There is an absolute and unavoidable burden of proof.

Headline: "Pattern-chaser arrested, and held in police custody, pending charges under the Philosophy Act 1487."


No, serious and considered discussion is a voluntary pastime. There are no rules or laws, but only an expectation of courtesy. If I assert X, and fail to offer justification or proof, that only diminishes the consideration it might gain from others. No "burden".

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Unanserable questions are not questions, but fantasies.

And yet here you are, discussing the possible existence of God... Why are you wasting your time on "fantasies"?

No. Once again you are wrong. But now wrong in your own terms. I am not discussing the possible existence of god at all.
I really have no idea what you mean by god, and since you have cowered away from even saying what you think that is, then I do not think that is going to change.
But if you had any courage, rather than hiding behind empty words and protestations you might want to give it a try.
Until you say what you mean by "god" then we cannot discuss any possible existence for it.

Ans since there are a near-infintie number. Name two!

1. Are we 'brains in vats'?
2. Does God exist?

1. Obvious not.
2. WTF do you mean "god"?

[Sy Borg]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

Brains in vats is purely a thought experiment to make a point and is clearly an absurd notion that would not be possible in this reality.

God breaks every possible physical law we know, and then some. However, you think that naysayers have the burden of proof.

If that's a reasonable claim, then it's reasonable to expect you to demonstrate how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible too. Not that you ever would, or could. It's impossible to prove that something is impossible, and it's an unreasonable request. All we can ask for is a decent amount of evidence, and the amount of evidence that has debunked Biblical claims is huge.

[Pattern-chaser]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

If you were or are a brain in a vat, *everything* that you know, or have experienced, would remain exactly as it is now. The point is that the yes or no options are *indistinguishable* from one another. That's why the question is unanswerable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Brains in vats is purely a thought experiment to make a point and is clearly an absurd notion that would not be possible in this reality.

OK, please quantify this absurdity. In what way is it absurd? What evidence do you have of this absurdity? How is it not "possible in this reality" when there is no difference to "this reality"? What do you know, that philosophers throughout history have failed to realise?

[Pattern-chaser]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Why are we trying to 'dumb down' philosophy, to Make Philosophy Great Again?
Why are we shying away from apparent conclusions that we just don't like?
And why are we attacking these ideas using ridicule, and unjustified assertions, when serious and considered discussion seems to be the optimal tool?

[Sculptor1]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Why are we trying to 'dumb down' philosophy, to Make Philosophy Great Again?

Is that the "Royal we?"
Well that is a question you might want to re-phrase for yourself.
You should be asking. " Why am I always dumbing down Philosophy?"

Why are we shying away from apparent conclusions that we just don't like?

Yes - what are you?

And why are we attacking these ideas using ridicule, and unjustified assertions, when serious and considered discussion seems to be the optimal tool?

What ideas.
You will need to present a case if you are to be taken seriously. But all you do is dig up medieval questions, and never define your tems.
Then worst still you cut off a person's post halfway through, rather than answer the whole thing, avoidng tricky bits.

There is no "we", take responsibility for your comments. Don't tar others with the same brush.

[Lagayascienza]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Why are we trying to 'dumb down' philosophy, to Make Philosophy Great Again?

Is that the "Royal we?"
Well that is a question you might want to re-phrase for yourself.
You should be asking. " Why am I always dumbing down Philosophy?"

Why are we shying away from apparent conclusions that we just don't like?

And why are we attacking these ideas using ridicule, and unjustified assertions, when serious and considered discussion seems to be the optimal tool?

What ideas.
You will need to present a case if you are to be taken seriously. But all you do is dig up medieval questions, and never define your tems.
Then worst still you cut off a person's post halfway through, rather than answer the whole thing, avoidng tricky bits.

There is no "we", take responsibility for your comments. Don't tar others with the same brush.

The use of the royal "we" is ridiculous. It's aim is to indicate that the user is above the common fray, that he or she belongs to a select few who know what they are talking about. It looks down on the opinions of others. It is also a strategy for putting newcomers or the less articulate or less knowledgeable in their place. In philosophical discussion, it is a very bad strategy because it stifles the airing of different opinions and diverse ways of seeing things. It is about shoreing up the status of the one using the Royal "we" rather than about exploring philosophical implications of an issue.

[Sculptor1]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Why are we trying to 'dumb down' philosophy, to Make Philosophy Great Again?

Is that the "Royal we?"
Well that is a question you might want to re-phrase for yourself.
You should be asking. " Why am I always dumbing down Philosophy?"

Why are we shying away from apparent conclusions that we just don't like?

And why are we attacking these ideas using ridicule, and unjustified assertions, when serious and considered discussion seems to be the optimal tool?

What ideas.
You will need to present a case if you are to be taken seriously. But all you do is dig up medieval questions, and never define your tems.
Then worst still you cut off a person's post halfway through, rather than answer the whole thing, avoidng tricky bits.

There is no "we", take responsibility for your comments. Don't tar others with the same brush.

The use of the royal "we" is ridiculous. It's aim is to indicate that the user is above the common fray, that he or she belongs to a select few who know what they are talking about. It looks down on the opinions of others. It is also a strategy for putting newcomers or the less articulate or less knowledgeable in their place. In philosophical discussion, it is a very bad strategy because it stifles the airing of different opinions and diverse ways of seeing things. It is about shoreing up the status of the one using the Royal "we" rather than about exploring philosophical implications of an issue.

Yes, I think that in this case he has used the phrase to avoid responsibility, and to avoid addressing the issues I raised by pretending that I am no better than he.
Yet I am raising ossues, and he is just deflecting.
He first hits me with this "Headline: "Pattern-chaser arrested, and held in police custody, pending charges under the Philosophy Act 1487."
"
To avoid hsi responsibilty to define what he means by "god". and when I respond ironically with a refelctive sarcasm he brings the "royal we" ammo.

[Raymonda Onwuka 1]

First of all God is a loving father and everything that comes from him is perfect. Do not forget that in this game of spirituality God is not the only player. This is clear in the book of Job and when Jesus said to Peter " Satan has demanded tge right to test each one of you but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" Just like this world has order and principles so do the spiritual world.

Additionally God is all knowing in the sense that he knows all the infinite choices you can choose from and all their outcomes. But as a human, you have your own freewill in the sense that God can but will never force you to pick a choice.

[Lagayascienza]

Thank Raymond Onwuka 1 you for that little homily.

The probem is that you have offered no evidence to suggest that we should believe in such a god of your scripture. It is one thing to quote scripture the words of Middle Eastern Bronze Age herders which was eventually written down by later scribes. It quite another to show that it is the innerant word of an omnipotent, omiscient, omnibebnevolent god. You have not demostrated that. And what distinguishes your scripture from that of Isalm, hinduism or Budhism? Why should we believe your scripture any more than we should believe theirs? Why should we believe any of them?

[Belinda]

First of all God is a loving father and everything that comes from him is perfect. Do not forget that in this game of spirituality God is not the only player. This is clear in the book of Job and when Jesus said to Peter " Satan has demanded tge right to test each one of you but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not" Just like this world has order and principles so do the spiritual world.

Additionally God is all knowing in the sense that he knows all the infinite choices you can choose from and all their outcomes. But as a human, you have your own freewill in the sense that God can but will never force you to pick a choice.

Does "Satan test" a little baby, a person undergoing an amputation without anaesthetic, a woman dying in childbirth, or a demented person?
If a loving and all-knowing father can protect his child from terrible and helpless suffering yet fails to do so , how come you call him "loving"?

Job resolved his problem with almighty God , not through human comforters or reasoning, but through faith.