Knowing you dont know.

[Questionmark]

Does God exist? Maybe yes maybe no, is the only substantive correct answer.

No, it isn't 'the only substantive correct answer'.

How come?

[Wyman]

Does God exist? Maybe yes maybe no, is the only substantive correct answer.

No, it isn't 'the only substantive correct answer'.

How come?

Let me take a crack at it.

The compound proposition 'p v not p' is known as a tautology. Tautologies are only trivially true. The opposite of 'trivial' is 'substantive.' So, when you say 'either god exists or god does not exist,' you are expressing a tautology, for there is no third choice in this context.

A 'substantive' assertion would be 'God exists.' Another substantive assertion would be 'God does not exist.' But to say 'Either God exists or God does not exist' is to state a trivial tautology, not a 'substantive correct answer.'

[Questionmark]

I always liked my English teacher, and one day he gave us a test, statements that where either correct or false. At a certain point just after we all handed the test in, a girl asked whether a premise was correct or not. This was the scenario;

Girl; Teacher, question five, was the answer yes or no?
Teacher; Yes.
Girl; Thank God, I was right.
Teacher; I did not say that.
Girl; But you said yes.
Teacher; And you asked if the answer was yes or no.
Some one else; So yellow is wrong?

Expressing the original tautology to be existing as p0 and claiming the same to be part of fiction as p1 results in a (unnecessary) pleonasm, and seems there for illogical, yet this is the point.

Take for example whether a unicorn comes to see me tomorrow and the tautology statistically would say its 25% or 33 %, anyway less than 50%, because you cannot put rule out the question if a unicorn exists in the first place. (often used as an argument by atheist I'm sure you are aware of too)

Anyway, your first paragraphs "So, when you say 'either god exists or god does not exist,' you are expressing a tautology, for there is no third choice in this context." and the second "... to say 'Either God exists or God does not exist' is to state a trivial tautology, not a 'substantive correct answer." Yes, my only point is that these those options cancel each other out (in the broad sense), and I dont know the answer.

If I'm not mistaken your point is invalid because its whats been called 'ignoratio elenchi'. But since we agree upon the fact this tautology is indeed correct, what would be the correct answer according to you?

Does God exist? Yes/No, include certainty and reason.

I will look forward to your response Wyman, or any one else.

Mark :)


[Edit; you may also replace 'Does God exist' with 'claims about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable' and see what your own opinion is)

[Wyman]

I always liked my English teacher, and one day he gave us a test, statements that where either correct or false. At a certain point just after we all handed the test in, a girl asked whether a premise was correct or not. This was the scenario;

Girl; Teacher, question five, was the answer yes or no?
Teacher; Yes.
Girl; Thank God, I was right.
Teacher; I did not say that.
Girl; But you said yes.
Teacher; And you asked if the answer was yes or no.
Some one else; So yellow is wrong?

Expressing the original tautology to be existing as p0 and claiming the same to be part of fiction as p1 results in a (unnecessary) pleonasm, and seems there for illogical, yet this is the point.

Take for example whether a unicorn comes to see me tomorrow and the tautology statistically would say its 25% or 33 %, anyway less than 50%, because you cannot put rule out the question if a unicorn exists in the first place. (often used as an argument by atheist I'm sure you are aware of too)

Anyway, your first paragraphs "So, when you say 'either god exists or god does not exist,' you are expressing a tautology, for there is no third choice in this context." and the second "... to say 'Either God exists or God does not exist' is to state a trivial tautology, not a 'substantive correct answer." Yes, my only point is that these those options cancel each other out (in the broad sense), and I dont know the answer.

If I'm not mistaken your point is invalid because its whats been called 'ignoratio elenchi'. But since we agree upon the fact this tautology is indeed correct, what would be the correct answer according to you?

Does God exist? Yes/No, include certainty and reason.

I will look forward to your response Wyman, or any one else.

Mark


[Edit; you may also replace 'Does God exist' with 'claims about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable' and see what your own opinion is)

I don't understand most of what you said here. However, I will say this. Your teacher was being either trivial or making fun of the poor girl (i.e. being an ass). What she wanted was a substantive answer.

[Questionmark]

yeah he was making fun of her.. one of the many reasons i liked his class, anyway,

The point is that claims about the existence or non-existence of God, are unknown or unknowable.

the question is the answer

[HexHammer]

Yes, God punished your enemies and I don't understand psychology, now you finally know

<facepalm>

I'm just glad no more geniuses shared their opinions, for the love of God..

Thx for the contribution though, don't mean to come across rude

LOL ..u sure ain't too bright!

[Questionmark]

Yeah, how could i ever expect people to understand rationalism.

Thank you for your contribution, hexhammer, again in so little words, yet in such detail

All my life I've been an atheist, but in the last 4 years, I've seen things that shakes my disbelief, all my enemies has been punished severly.

[HexHammer]

Yeah, how could i ever expect people to understand rationalism.

Thank you for your contribution, hexhammer, again in so little words, yet in such detail

All my life I've been an atheist, but in the last 4 years, I've seen things that shakes my disbelief, all my enemies has been punished severly.

Was Einstein irrational, was he stupid or ignorant?

I say that intelligent people can indeed be religious, as seen with very intelligent scientists.

..but ofcause ..you are not very enlighten.

[Questionmark]

Was Einstein irrational, was he stupid or ignorant?

I say that intelligent people can indeed be religious, as seen with very intelligent scientists.

..but ofcause ..you are not very enlighten.

I have been agnostic since long before i knew there was a word describing it, yet in contrast to knowing i don't know, i like to believe with certainty of the first degree (50,00..1 % over 49.99..%) there is a pantheistic God based on the arguments provided by deism.

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist(!), preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

I hope you see where agnosticism differs from claiming to know the actual (non-)existence of God, only by emphasizing the difference between knowledge and belief.

According to the quote Einstein would agree to the following;
"the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."

They remain believable or not, but agree no one is capable of actually proving God or not.
What you consider evidence may have been altered like it may be false or correct, the problem is it seems impossible to (dis)prove any..



You agree or not?



[1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... t_Einstein]
[add; its like we're fighting over what food tastes better or what music to like, when all i'm trying to say is food a has more sugar and that song is 30 seconds longer]

[HexHammer]

I don't agree when you don't make a point and what is the point of making a thread if it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt if something exists or not?

[Questionmark]

Good point, HexHammer, because asking the right question is half the answer.

Understanding it's not about the destination but about the journey, and things like that

[HexHammer]

Good point, HexHammer, because asking the right question is half the answer.

Understanding it's not about the destination but about the journey, and things like that

This is just a parrot speech and the intend for a cozy chat, not truth.

..ergo it's a good waste of time.

[Questionmark]

You already have contradicted yourself, why still bother?
I try to understand your perspective and try to explain what i mean and all you do is avoid my questions, and probably you will continue to do so.. why do i still bother?

I asked "You agree or not?" to my earlier post, and your reply is;
"I don't agree when you don't make a point and what is the point of making a thread if it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt if something exists or not?"

"I don't agree when you don't make a point" very good, but it is very meaningless because that would mean too when someone makes a point you agree, unless of course you were implying i haven't made a coherent conclusion, But.. the second part of your quote implies no other meaning than struggling with the reality of not being able to know, what is the point in asking if i cant know the answer? and thats why 'the right question is half the answer' gives meaning to that.

Besides that all, you said "All my life I've been an atheist, but in the last 4 years, I've seen things that shakes my disbelief, ...", so you have been wrong or are wrong either way, how does this give you more certainty?

[HexHammer]

Again, you didn't make a point, you only stated some irrelevant stuff, and how can I agree to anything that doesn't have relevance?

You delude youself with pure nonsense and babble.

I feel inclined to ask what kind of job one such as you have?

[Questionmark]

and yet i do not feel inclined to answer or ask the same,

"This is just a parrot speech and the intend for a cozy chat"

ill give it one more try..

"Again, you didn't make a point(1), you only stated some irrelevant stuff, and how can I agree (2) to anything that doesn't have relevance(3)?"

1. what is the point i'm trying to make?
2. what is your point of view?
3. relevant to what?

Please include the answers of those questions in your next post, for my understanding and for keeping the discussion relevant,

thank you,

Mark