Philosophy Discussion Forums

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:22 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 10:31 am I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

First of all, you cannot prove that I cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist. You can only hope that I either can or cannot.

Maybe that will give you a taste of an ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is just too far away from sound philosophy.

I don’t need a taste of ignorantiam fallacy

Hope is all you or I have have that there is or isn’t a God.

Stop kidding yourself.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 10:31 am I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

But that's the level of philosophy which goes like this:

"Anything could exist and anything could happen and anything could be an illusion etc., so we can't say anything about anything. The End."

So what is this philosophy good for?

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:42 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:22 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 10:31 am I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

First of all, you cannot prove that I cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist. You can only hope that I either can or cannot.

Maybe that will give you a taste of an ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is just too far away from sound philosophy.

I don’t need a taste of ignorantiam fallacy

Well, maybe you're right about that one. Why would you need it when you have lots of it in storage.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:42 pm Hope is all you or I have have that there is or isn’t a God.

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 9:30 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:42 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:22 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 10:31 am I always offer sound philosophy.If you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist then you have no option to admit that God might exist.Simple.Don’t over complicate things.Sound Philosophy is not complicated.

First of all, you cannot prove that I cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist. You can only hope that I either can or cannot.

Maybe that will give you a taste of an ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is just too far away from sound philosophy.

I don’t need a taste of ignorantiam fallacy

Well, maybe you're right about that one. Why would you need it when you have lots of it in storage.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 3:42 pm Hope is all you or I have have that there is or isn’t a God.

Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

Your philosophy is flawed and the reason is, you focus on proof.

You can’t produce evidence that there isn’t a God either.

Philosophy doesn’t just work one way.It couldn’t care less about your belief systems.

My philosophy is totally sound.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 1:00 am
Your philosophy is flawed and the reason is, you focus on proof.

Ha! That's funny: the one who actually argued with the word "proof" now claims it is not something one should focus on.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 1:00 am You can’t produce evidence that there isn’t a God either.

I certainly can, but the point is that I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the one who affirms its existence.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 1:00 am Philosophy doesn’t just work one way.It couldn’t care less about your belief systems.

Why should you? What I believe is not the issue, but whether belief in deities is justified or not, based on logical or inductive arguments. So far, only faith, but faith in said proposition does not imply faith in the opposite. Lack of belief is not another belief.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 1:00 am My philosophy is totally sound.

Only in your dreams.

Proof is a “red herring” and so all anyone has is hope.You can’t definitively prove that there is or isn’t a God,no more than I can prove that there is or isn’t.There is no burden of proof therefore on either party so why are you claiming that there is?

You can either believe that there is or isn’t a God and exercise your faith in that belief.The same for me.Why are you claiming otherwise?

Are you trying to invent a new philosophy? Your philosophy is flawed.

My philosophy is sound.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 8:58 am Proof is a “red herring” and so all anyone has is hope.You can’t definitively prove that there is or isn’t a God,no more than I can prove that there is or isn’t.There is no burden of proof therefore on either party so why are you claiming that there is?

You can either believe that there is or isn’t a God and exercise your faith in that belief.The same for me.Why are you claiming otherwise?

Are you trying to invent a new philosophy? Your philosophy is flawed.

My philosophy is sound.

Jacob!

In some way, if one is forced to use logic (other than the ontological argument) one can use Apophatic Theology to make their case, hence:

1. In Christianity, God is an impossibility just like the concept of resurrection is an impossibility.
2. Consciousness itself is an impossibility because it transcends formal logic (bivalence, LEM, etc.).
3. The nature of all existence is an impossibility (improbability is better said but you get the idea) because there exists no ToE (and even if there was, it's still only a theory).

The way to think about a concept of God is that it's appropriate for God, in many ways, to be 'logically impossible' to exist. The concept of God itself, would have no meaning (nor would there be a need to have such a concept) otherwise. Just like feelings, it' okay to consider metaphysical things, in some ways, to be logically impossible. One could even think of it another way: who really knows how you see your own self, much less the mind of some one else (the mind of God). Impossible? It's impossible for me to be you.

Accordingly, one could view that sense of knowing or the logic associated with knowing (epistemology) as the distinctions between objective and subjective truth's. For instance, if I assert I saw God, who can convince me otherwise? Or if I had a 'religious experience', etc. etc.. Just another thought experiment... .

As no definitive proof is provided one way or the other concerning the possibility or impossibly of God then it is also logically possible that God exists.

I really don’t see where you are going with this.

My philosophy is sound.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 10:48 am As no definitive proof is provided one way or the other concerning the possibility or impossibly of God then it is also logically possible that God exists.

I really don’t see where you are going with this.

My philosophy is sound.

Jacob!

I apologize, what is your philosophy?

My philosophy is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0..1,1 logic possibilities rather than 0,1…1,0 logic possibilities.

Nature agrees with my philosophy and doesn’t agree with Half Philosophy.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 11:15 am My philosophy is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0..1,1 logic possibilities rather than 0,1…1,0 logic possibilities.

Nature agrees with my philosophy and doesn’t agree with Half Philosophy.

....alrighty then!!!?!!!!!



Oh, you may want to explore the notion behind the statement: God of the Impossible.

Be well my brother!

God the impossible.Why would I want to entertain that notion?

You just need to look at natures logic and natures known magnetic forces rather than that unknown force gravity.

When 2 off magnetic forces interact in the 4 off possible ways you get 0,0..0,1…1,0…1,1 logic and the combination interactions are not the same which proves that these 2 off forces in nature are not the same.

That is all we need to know to confirm that 0,1….1,0 logic is incorrect and 0 doesn’t = 1 and 1 doesn’t = 0.

All sciences are interconnected.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 9:30 pm
Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

I could go on and on and on. There are pages and pages of evidence. Of course to atheists, the evidence is not "convincing evidence" or "persuasive evidence". Juries can doubt eye witnesses; they can suspect delusion; they can consider the motives of the witnesses. But the witnesses are not barred from "giving evidence".

My fellow atheists and agnostics would do well to stop making argments that are so blatanly and obvously incorrect.

Ecurb wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 5:54 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 8th, 2022, 9:30 pm
Says who? You? Pfff... I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences.

I read this kind of nonsense constantly. The reality: there is lots of evidence for the existance of God, including, but not limited to: 1) Eye witness accounts of Him appearing in burning bushes; 2) Eye witness accounts of His only begotten Son raising people from the dead; 3) Eye witness accounts of His crucified Son rising from the grave and walking the earth; 4) Personal testimonials from millions of people who have contacted Him 5) Angels singing His praises to a bunch of shepherds.

I could go on and on and on. There are pages and pages of evidence. Of course to atheists, the evidence is not "convincing evidence" or "persuasive evidence". Juries can doubt eye witnesses; they can suspect delusion; they can consider the motives of the witnesses. But the witnesses are not barred from "giving evidence".

My fellow atheists and agnostics would do well to stop making argments that are so blatanly and obvously incorrect.

The difficulty with evidence for the existence of God is it's impossible to identify Him objectively. He has no DNA, dental records, fingerprints or personal documentation. God will not appear in any identity parade.
The existence of God may be ascertained by defining him as love, truth, goodness, or beauty, and producing evidences of love,truth, goodness, or beauty
I don't mean like a top-down Platonic Form of love, truth, goodness, or beauty. More like the black box that conceals the common cause of multiple evidences .

Belindi wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 6:36 pm
The difficulty with evidence for the existence of God is it's impossible to identify Him objectively. He has no DNA, dental records, fingerprints or personal documentation. God will not appear in any identity parade.
The existence of God may be ascertained by defining him as love, truth, goodness, or beauty, and producing evidences of love,truth, goodness, or beauty
I don't mean like a top-down Platonic Form of love, truth, goodness, or beauty. More like the black box that conceals the common cause of multiple evidences .

Of course. The"existance" of an incorporeal Being is always shaky. Like the existance of "consciousness" or other incorpoereal things. But it's not true that God is always incorporeal (acc. the stories). Christians think he took human form and walked the Earth (and rose from the dead). Muslims think he sent an angel to dictate the Quran. Zeus, Aphrodite, and Artemis had mortal lovers, and some had mortal children.

I suppose it depends what (or who) we call "Gods". But the Greeks called Zeus, Artemis and Aphrodite Gods, despite their remarkable lack of omnipotence, omniscience, and (even) good manners. I mean, Hermes stole all those cattle from Apollo. God the thief!

W.B. Yeats chips in with "Leda and the Swan":

A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

Did Leda (I wonder) think there was "no evidence" of God's existance? The "Me Too" movement suggests we trust her, expecially when her daughter Helen was hatched out of an egg.