Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote:

Wyman wrote:
You were supposed to say:

No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?

Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

I thought who was the Chinese prime Minister?
Hu is the Chinese PM? Yes I know.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Wyman wrote:
You were supposed to say:

No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?

Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

I thought who was the Chinese prime Minister?
Hu is the Chinese PM? Yes I know.

This has to be one of the best Johnny Carson skits regarding who, what, when and why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2IdZSuP0kA

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:
Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

I thought who was the Chinese prime Minister?
Hu is the Chinese PM? Yes I know.

This has to be one of the best Johnny Carson skits regarding who, what, when and why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2IdZSuP0kA

I think Abbot and Costello got there first.

Dubious wrote:

Wyman wrote:
You were supposed to say:

No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?

Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

There you go. Humor is difficult in writing. Makes you appreciate guys like Dave Barry who can make
you laugh out loud when you read his books.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you have an absolute belief in God's existence you have not aquired it through philosophy.

I heard this strong assumption a lot of time, but i never see any proof of it, nor any convincing argument for it.
It seem that some people believe "i don’t see how to prove or disprove X", is a proof for "X is unprovable".

It is funny how a lot answer to Jaded Sage by saying what he/she say is wrong, when it is simple logic.

If god = love, then because love exist, god exist.

It you define god to be love (and only that), then god exist. (if you take for granted that love exist, that is not a very strong assumption)
Good, but then god didn’t create the universe, god is not omnipotent, and god is not benevolent. (it have no meaning to say love is benevolent)
It is true but pretty uninteresting.

dionisos wrote: I heard this strong assumption a lot of time, but i never see any proof of it, nor any convincing argument for it.
It seem that some people believe "i don’t see how to prove or disprove X", is a proof for "X is unprovable".

I think the best philosophy can do is to arrive at a probability. If you definitely believe God exists you may be right but you are not a philosopher. You should be visiting a religion forum, not a philosophy forum.

Harbal wrote: I think the best philosophy can do is to arrive at a probability.

Why do you believe it ?

I don’t believe in god, more precisely, i think it have no meaning to "believe god exist", or "believe god don’t exist", before giving at least some properties of what is god.
And most of the time, the given properties are incoherent properties, and then it is possible to prove god doesn’t exist.
And other time god are defined in a way its existence is tautological. (and generally this kind of definition are empty, they don’t permit to conclude anything of values, outside of the fallacies that people make from it afterward)
And yes maybe sometime god is defined in a way, that make him unprovable, but we need a proof to know it is, and it doesn’t make any potential definition of god unprovable.

What i believe, is that god is most of the time a pretty stupid concept, not because it is unprovable, but because it is ill-defined.

dionisos wrote: Why do you believe it ?

I don’t believe in god, more precisely, i think it have no meaning to "believe god exist", or "believe god don’t exist", before giving at least some properties of what is god.
And most of the time, the given properties are incoherent properties, and then it is possible to prove god doesn’t exist.
And other time god are defined in a way its existence is tautological. (and generally this kind of definition are empty, they don’t permit to conclude anything of values, outside of the fallacies that people make from it afterward)
And yes maybe sometime god is defined in a way, that make him unprovable, but we need a proof to know it is, and it doesn’t make any potential definition of god unprovable.

What i believe, is that god is most of the time a pretty stupid concept, not because it is unprovable, but because it is ill-defined.

There were a couple of times I thought I understood some of the above but, in the end, it turned out not to be the case. Maybe you could try writing it again in English.

Sorry for my English.
I just wanted to say, that the provability of the existence or nonexistence of god, will depend on what "god" means. "god" is a empty word before you give some meaning to it, before you explain some properties it should has.
And i heard many definitions of gods, and for some the existence of god was provable, and for some the nonexistence of god was provable.

I think the best philosophy can do is to arrive at a probability.

I would know, if you mean it as a general case, "all things philosophy can speak of, it could only assign probability to its conclusions", or only about the particular case of "god".

And in all cases, why do you think that.

dionisos wrote:Sorry for my English.

I'm sorry for criticising it.

I just wanted to say, that the provability of the existence or nonexistence of god, will depend on what "god" means. "god" is a empty word before you give some meaning to it, before you explain some properties it should has.
And i heard many definitions of gods, and for some the existence of god was provable, and for some the nonexistence of god was provable.

Yes, you're right. God is different things to different people. I suppose I was thinking of the Biblical God which, to the best of my knowledge, can neither be proved nor disproved.

I would know, if you mean it as a general case, "all things philosophy can speak of, it could only assign probability to its conclusions", or only about the particular case of "god".

And in all cases, why do you think that.

In general, really. Once something is known it is no longer a subject for philosophy. You may "know" that God exists ( the God of the Bible) but only by intuition. If you stick to the principles and criteria that philosophy demands you cannot arrive at a conclusion regarding the existence of God. If that is not the case then my understanding of what philosophy is is wrong.

Harbal wrote:suppose I was thinking of the Biblical God which, to the best of my knowledge, can neither be proved nor disproved.

can we really talk about the biblical god as if i were a single clear concept

the Bible and God are very different for, say, a liberal theology professor from Chicago, and for a baptist paster from rural alabama

Spot the difference

Kayla wrote: can we really talk about the biblical god as if i were a single clear concept

the Bible and God are very different for, say, a liberal theology professor from Chicago, and for a baptist paster from rural alabama

True, but there is a common factor: A conscious entity with an agenda and the power to carry it out. To some it seems self evident that there must be such an entity whereas to others it seems like a ridiculous idea but, either way, it;s not something that can be proven.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Spot the difference

The only thing that immediately occurs to me is that the man in the second picture doesn't seem to be having as much fun as the other one.