We have people here who are fairly certain...
...that there are no gods...or it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
We also have people here who are fairly certain that there is at least one GOD...or that it is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are none.
And both groups are using essentially the same ambiguous evidence and considerations to arrive at their "certainty."
That, in itself, should give both groups pause.
There also are people here who acknowledge, "Beats the hell out of me" in response to the issue. That group seems to be much in the minority.
I know of at least three or four other forums where the same situation exists.
I just watched a press conference where one particular god was invoked in supplication. I watched the Democratic Party National Convention...and at least one god was called upon often...and from what I've read about the Republican Party National Convention...they were doing the same.
What is going on?
The "Beats the hell out of me" group should be the largest BY FAR.
Why isn't it?
Anybody?
We also have people here who are fairly certain that there is at least one GOD...or that it is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are none.
And both groups are using essentially the same ambiguous evidence and considerations to arrive at their "certainty."
That, in itself, should give both groups pause.
There also are people here who acknowledge, "Beats the hell out of me" in response to the issue. That group seems to be much in the minority.
I know of at least three or four other forums where the same situation exists.
I just watched a press conference where one particular god was invoked in supplication. I watched the Democratic Party National Convention...and at least one god was called upon often...and from what I've read about the Republican Party National Convention...they were doing the same.
What is going on?
The "Beats the hell out of me" group should be the largest BY FAR.
Why isn't it?
Anybody?
Comments (17)
I think it evident that philosophers, as a result of their critical eye, look to coherence. The notion of God is incoherent.
Those who accept a christian or islamic god appear able to live with contradiction.
Others have sought to re-describe god in various ways in attempts to achieve coherence; but most see this as special pleading.
It's not surprising.
The christians say that there is a god, even if they don't know his real name.
The muslims say that there is a god.
the hindus believe that there is a god, even if they are not sure about all of its forms.
So why should there not be lots of gods? If one is possible so then are more. I bet that if someone opened a temple to worship Thor there would be plenty of people there. I might even be tempted to go if Zeus opened shop around here.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Desperate people do desperate things in desperate times.
Thank you, Banno.
I doubt, however, that "I do not know what the REALITY is" is special pleading. Nor is the concept, "Something quite different" considered incoherent?
Why, oh, why, is it so hard for people to simply acknowledge, "I do not know?"
Desperate people do, indeed, do desperate things.
But we do not know if there is a single god...many gods...or no gods. We do not know what the REALITY is.
Why is it so difficult for humans to simply acknowledge that they do not know?
Given several months of doggedly refusing to directly or indirectly corroborate your claim that 'all positions for or against "gods" are "blind guesses"', it's reasonable to ask you, Frank, also to answer:
Why is it so hard for YOU to simply acknowledge "I do not know whether or not others know what I don't know"?
:victory: :sweat:
Quoting Frank Apisa
The notion is incoherent. As such, it's not the sort of thing that could be known; moreover, it's not even the sort of thing that could not be known. It's not a sort of thing...
Neither Snark nor Boojum...
In order to proceed, it's up to you to tell us what god is, in a way that makes sense. Until then, this conversation cannot progress.
Okay!
I do not know whether others know or do not know what I do not know.
It is my opinion that anyone who asserts "There is a GOD" is asserting a blind guess that there is a GOD...almost certainly their GOD.
In my opinion that anyone who asserts "There are no gods" is almost certainly asserting a blind guess. Knowing that is just about impossible. But, I acknowledge that I do not know whether anyone else knjows what I do not know about that also.
That wasn't so hard, 180. I've done it dozens of times in various fora.
Considering the way this comment is addressed, I am not sure if you are asking me or 180.
If you are addressing it to me...I've given the answer a least a half-dozen times already.
Here are three of my answers again (all variations on the same theme.)
When I use the word "god" or "gods" in these discussions, I mean:
1) An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”
2)
Predicates:
It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.
Secondly, even in this thing we humans call “the universe” is "all that there is" there may well exist entities here in this universe that are not discernible to human senses in any way.
Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.
Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)
3) What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”
I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.
Confession, they say, is good for the soul. Thanks, Frank.
No "confession." l I have acknowledged that dozens upon dozes of times...in many Internet discussions. I especially acknowledge it with theists...who at least MAY KNOW there is a GOD. A GOD could reveal itself...although whenever I encounter a theist asserting that his/her god HAS revealed itself, I normally ask, "How do you KNOW you are not deluding yourself?" And usually, I cut off the discussion. No way to discuss that.
As for people who assert "there are no gods" I normally acknowledge it the way I did up above. BUT in order for a person to KNOW there are no gods, one would almost have to be a god him/herself. No human can actually KNOW there are no gods. At best, one can just guess. (No shortage of that on the Internet.)
And you have been answered at a least a half-dozen times already.
...you know this is not the god of the Christians.
...you used the stacked term "entity" to avoid discussion of such things as personhood
...and you posit something that is not part of the universe, despite the universe being everything; you attempt to avoid this by inventing a bigger universe that you call "nature", you reject the supernatural, despite it being, for everyone else, an essential aspect of god; that is, you indulge in special pleading.
It's been explained that the notion of something pre-existing the universe in a temporal sense is incoherent, since space-time is what the universe consists in; you have not provided a sense of pre-existing that is coherent.
In so far as the notion of god you invented is coherent, it is no longer god. But that ne notion of god is itself not so coherent.
But why bother.
Your opinion is presumably based on the fact that there is no evidence or reasoning available to reach this conclusion, so my presumption must be wrong.
What does the "god of the Christians" have to do with this???
I was asked for a coherent description of "gods."
I gave one.
Imagine that! I used the word "entity" to describe an "entity."
And I avoided things like "personhood."
Of course I did. Why would I not do it? Why would anyone question my doing it?
I spoke of "what we humans call 'the universe"...which I noted, may not be all of what actually is. If you think there is no possibility that THE UNIVERSE is greater than we humans now suppose it to be...fine. Anyone can make a stupid mistake.
It has not "been explained." It has been asserted. That is what you people do...assert things that may not be so...and pretend you know things that you do not know.
No problem. As I said, anyone can make a stupid mistake.
The notion I suggested is a POSSIBILITY If you want to pretend it is not a possibility, fine with me. People who assert "there are no gods" and people who assert "there is at least one GOD" just swing that way.
Enjoy it.
You should answer that, Banno. You appear to be the one bothering...and bothered.
I said NOTHING about it being wrong. How would I possibly know it is wrong?
If you are blindly guessing "there are no gods"...you may be correct. Of course, if you are blindly guessing that there is at least one GOD...you also may be correct.
That's the way it is with blind guesses.
Sorry for being unclear. The point is that there is evidence and reasoning. If there were no available evidence or reasoning then it could truly be a blind guess.
It IS a blind guess.
There is NO unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods. People who assert "there are no gods" use the same evidence that people who assert "there is at least one god" use.
The "evidence" is worthless.
As for the reasoning...that is nonsense. People who assert "there are no gods" claim their reasoning is flawless...and people who assert "there is at least one god" feel that same way.
The supposed "reasoning" is merely confirmation bias.