Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:19 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm The “truest” thing that’s been said in this thread is that both the atheist and the theist believe they know something that only the agnostic can tell them is unknowable.

Well then, you must have missed this:


To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

1. To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist, correct?

If this would NOT suffice, then WHY does your CLAIM, supposedly, WORK?

2. Is what you wrote here REALLY, EXACTLY, what you wrote BEFORE, which you CLAIM here WAS MISSED?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

But one could just DEFINE the word 'God' in a way that 'It' could NEVER exist, and therefore KNOW, WITHOUT DOUBT, that God does NOT exist.

Also, and AGAIN, one could KNOW God does NOT exist, simply by having faith, and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist, correct?

If no, then WHY does it, supposedly, "work" one way but NOT the other way?

Age, much as you want to, you cannot reverse the logic here! How would having FAITH that there is NO God, provide evidence that indeed, there is no God?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:12 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:53 pm ...a Realist!

A "realist" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

...the unreal!

So, do ONLY 'those' who profess to be "realists" KNOW what is NOT, so-called, 'unreal'?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:19 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am

Well then, you must have missed this:


To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

1. To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist, correct?

If this would NOT suffice, then WHY does your CLAIM, supposedly, WORK?

2. Is what you wrote here REALLY, EXACTLY, what you wrote BEFORE, which you CLAIM here WAS MISSED?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 12:27 am To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

But one could just DEFINE the word 'God' in a way that 'It' could NEVER exist, and therefore KNOW, WITHOUT DOUBT, that God does NOT exist.

Also, and AGAIN, one could KNOW God does NOT exist, simply by having faith, and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist, correct?

If no, then WHY does it, supposedly, "work" one way but NOT the other way?

Age, much as you want to, you cannot reverse the logic here! How would having FAITH that there is NO God, provide evidence that indeed, there is no God?

I NEVER said it did. What I did was just ADD ON AFTER, the words; 'and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist.

I just did EXACTLY what you DID, "attofishpi".

I questioned you about the 'accuracy' of you CLAIMING that just 'having FAITH' and how that would be successful in knowing God exists, to which you NEVER responded to me, but then went on TO ADD the words, "AND THEN God giving U the 'individual evidence' that it exists", in a later post.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:17 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:12 am

A "realist" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

...the unreal!

So, do ONLY 'those' who profess to be "realists" KNOW what is NOT, so-called, 'unreal'?

Sounds realistic to me!

Age wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Age wrote: 1. To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist, correct?

If this would NOT suffice, then WHY does your CLAIM, supposedly, WORK?

Age, much as you want to, you cannot reverse the logic here! How would having FAITH that there is NO God, provide evidence that indeed, there is no God?

I NEVER said it did. What I did was just ADD ON AFTER, the words; 'and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist.

I just did EXACTLY what you DID, "attofishpi".

NO. You DIDN'T do exactly what I did!!! FFS.

Logically how could your question 1. possibly work!!?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:12 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:25 pm WHAT IS AN ATHEIST?
Its relative, to a Christian anyone who does not believe the mythology.

And by the USE of the word 'mythology' are you implying that whatever you are referring to is ABSOLUTELY NOT true?

Age,

Yes of course, it's all mythology until you believe it literally, have you ever heard the expression, mythology is the other man's religion. Certainly, Christians do not believe in all the other gods that are available they have no problem identifying other's beliefs as myths, and that's directly from the mouth of the talking snake. Actually, mythology itself is and was meant to give people an orientation of how to be in the world. Undoubtedly even the desert religions of east would have fallen into this category but in this day and age, they are just silly and do not better equipt the individual to live in the modern world, mainly because they are told they must believe the absurd. The one thing that is certain in a world of change, that which does not change is unnatural, read unhealthy.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:44 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:17 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:32 am

...the unreal!

So, do ONLY 'those' who profess to be "realists" KNOW what is NOT, so-called, 'unreal'?

Sounds realistic to me!

Sounds like a joke, to me.

According to this "logic", then;

ONLY a "theist" KNOWS that God exists.
ONLY an "atheist" KNOWS that God does NOT exist.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

If ONLY a so-called "realists" KNOWS what IS 'real', then EVERY one would be SAYING and CLAIMING that they are "realists".

And, if ANY SAYS or CLAIMS that they do NOT know what IS 'real', then EVERY other thing they SAY or CLAIM they could NOT, consistently anyway, SAY or CLAIM IS 'real'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:18 am

Age wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Age, much as you want to, you cannot reverse the logic here! How would having FAITH that there is NO God, provide evidence that indeed, there is no God?

I NEVER said it did. What I did was just ADD ON AFTER, the words; 'and then getting the 'individual evidence', that God does NOT exist.

I just did EXACTLY what you DID, "attofishpi".

NO. You DIDN'T do exactly what I did!!! FFS.

Logically how could your question 1. possibly work!!?

LOGICALLY, that WAS and STILL IS what I AM QUESTIONING you about, and WAITING for you to CLARIFY.

That is; HOW could 'you', LOGICALLY, CLAIM:
To know God does exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does exist?

AND,

WHY is this, SUPPOSEDLY, LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, but CONVERSELY the OPPOSITE IS NOT?

You made the CLAIM. So,

WHEN, and IF, you EVER EXPLAIN 'this', then we can PROCEED and MOVE ALONG. Until then 'we' are JUST WAITING, PATIENTLY.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:12 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:25 pm WHAT IS AN ATHEIST?
Its relative, to a Christian anyone who does not believe the mythology.

And by the USE of the word 'mythology' are you implying that whatever you are referring to is ABSOLUTELY NOT true?

Age,

Yes of course, it's all mythology until you believe it literally, have you ever heard the expression, mythology is the other man's religion.

So, UNTIL 'you' INFORM us EXACTLY of what the 'it' IS, then 'I' AT LEAST have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what 'you' SEE as being ABSOLUTELY NOT true.

Which, by the way, now that you have AGREED to this, you are ONLY REAFFIRMING your OWN BELIEFS here.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:26 am Certainly, Christians do not believe in all the other gods that are available they have no problem identifying other's beliefs as myths, and that's directly from the mouth of the talking snake. Actually, mythology itself is and was meant to give people an orientation of how to be in the world. Undoubtedly even the desert religions of east would have fallen into this category but in this day and age, they are just silly and do not better equipt the individual to live in the modern world, mainly because they are told they must believe the absurd.

BUT, 'you' would NEVER BELIEVE 'the absurd', would 'you' "popeye1945"?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:25 pm The one thing that is certain in a world of change, that which does not change is unnatural, read unhealthy.

Is there ANY 'thing' that 'does NOT change'?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

THE BIBLE!

Your a believer, but your an atheist about all the other gods aren't you???

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:07 am THE BIBLE!

Your a believer, but your an atheist about all the other gods aren't you???

Are you responding to 'me' here?

If yes, then I suggest that you QUOTE 'me' so that I get NOTIFIED that you responded.

Now, if you are responding to 'me' here, then are you suggesting that 'the bible' does NOT change?

If yes, then maybe you MISSED where there have probably been a countless number of DIFFERENT 'bibles' written and ALL CHANGED from the previous versions.

Or, do you REALLY BELIEVE that there is ONLY One BIBLE that has be UNCHANGED since ITS FIRST CONCEPTION?

As for your ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION and CLAIM above, that is; IF it was intended for 'me',

1. I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing.

2. I am NEITHER an "atheist" about ANY nor ALL the other so-called 'gods', ALSO.

So, if that CLARFIYING QUESTION of YOURS was posed to 'me', then there is MY ANSWER.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:07 am THE BIBLE!

Your a believer, but your an atheist about all the other gods aren't you???

Poppy!

I don't want to offend you again, but something that does grind my (and many others) gears, is when 'your' is used where "you're" should be used..

I shall explain: If you are writing something where 'you are' could be used, then please use you're.(it's what is called, an abbreviation)

Within the brackets, I just used one.. IT IS, IT'S.

..and apologies to everyone that has read my OP of Simulation or Divine Reality - - I could not believe the amount of times I used "it's" incorrectly.

Age wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
1. To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

WHY is this, SUPPOSEDLY, LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, but CONVERSELY the OPPOSITE IS NOT?

The fact that I have to explain this speaks volumes as to your level of intellect.
God demanded that we must have faith to know it exists. Ergo, IF there is a God, then all it takes is for this intelligence (God) to convince the one of faith to know it exists.

Age wrote:

attofishpi wrote:2. To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

AGE HERE has a converse argument: “To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist.

Again, I will ask you HOW does having faith that God does NOT exist ever provide one evidence of EVERYTHING about the universe and possibly the multiverse, such that one can know that God does not exist?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:39 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:07 am THE BIBLE!

Your a believer, but your an atheist about all the other gods aren't you???

Are you responding to 'me' here?

If yes, then I suggest that you QUOTE 'me' so that I get NOTIFIED that you responded.

Now, if you are responding to 'me' here, then are you suggesting that 'the bible' does NOT change?

If yes, then maybe you MISSED where there have probably been a countless number of DIFFERENT 'bibles' written and ALL CHANGED from the previous versions.

Or, do you REALLY BELIEVE that there is ONLY One BIBLE that has be UNCHANGED since ITS FIRST CONCEPTION?

As for your ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION and CLAIM above, that is; IF it was intended for 'me',

1. I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing.

2. I am NEITHER an "atheist" about ANY nor ALL the other so-called 'gods', ALSO.

So, if that CLARFIYING QUESTION of YOURS was posed to 'me', then there is MY ANSWER.

I realize the bible over the centuries has been picked apart censored and used for political reasons, but today and for a few centuries I think the King James version is what believers go by today. I have some born-again Christan friends that were in the closet for many years. I know there is no room for change in their beliefs. The non-sense of genesis is literally believed. So what then, you are agnostic when it comes to all the other gods? My statement in this thread was simple, both the atheist and the believer are guilty of the same logical fallacy claiming certainty where certainty is not possiable, The atheist considering the probabilities, I would say is leaning toward the light the believer is guilty of a self-performed lobotomy. Truely if there were not so many of them they would be hustled off to the psych ward. If these holy scriptures changed with the knowledge of the times as would be healthy and natural the fast-food versions that are written in concrete to be mindlessly consumed hopefully would vanish.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:35 pm

Age wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
1. To know God exists simply requires having faith, and then God giving U the individual evidence, that it exists. (my case)

WHY is this, SUPPOSEDLY, LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, but CONVERSELY the OPPOSITE IS NOT?

The fact that I have to explain this speaks volumes as to your level of intellect.

And that you continually resort to ATTEMPTING TO 'attack the individual' speaks volumes for your lack of ability to argue.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:35 pm God demanded that we must have faith to know it exists.

LOL If 'you' KNEW God, then 'you' WOULD KNOW that God does NOT and would NOT 'demand' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

Also, are you saying or suggesting here that the ONLY way to know God exists, one MUST HAVE 'faith' first?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:35 pm Ergo, IF there is a God, then all it takes is for this intelligence (God) to convince the one of faith to know it exists.

LOL What do you mean by, "IF there is a God". Is there a God, or NOT?

And, would one of 'faith' that God exists, REALLY NEED to be 'convinced' that God exists?

Oh, and by the way, if it is ONLY the ones 'of faith' that can be 'convinced' that God exists, then, REALLY, it would NOT take one of ANY intelligence to be ABLE TO 'convince' them of this.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:35 pm

attofishpi wrote:2. To know God does NOT exist, requires knowing EVERYTHING about the universe, and possibly multiverse, should other 'verses' exist.

AGE HERE has a converse argument: “To know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist.

I NEVER EVER USED that as an 'argument', let alone 'it' is my 'converse argument'. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS, I asked you;

HOW could 'you', LOGICALLY, CLAIM:
To know God does exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does exist?

AS WELL AS,

WHY is this, SUPPOSEDLY, LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, but CONVERSELY the OPPOSITE IS NOT?

That is;
If to know God does NOT exist simply requires having faith, and then getting individual evidence, that God does NOT exist, does NOT suffice to you, then WHY does your CLAIM, supposedly, WORK, but the OPPOSITE does NOT?

Do you UNDERSTAND the QUESTIONS here?

If yes, then WILL you ANSWER them?

If no, then WHY NOT?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:35 pm Again, I will ask you HOW does having faith that God does NOT exist ever provide one evidence of EVERYTHING about the universe and possibly the multiverse, such that one can know that God does not exist?

1. WHEN did you ask me this the FIRST TIME?

2. I do NOT 'have faith' that God DOES, nor DOES NOT, exist, therefore I do NOT KNOW HOW 'having faith', EITHER WAY, would provide one with 'evidence', EITHER WAY.

3. I ASKED you CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, FIRST, about what you WROTE and CLAIMED, which we are STILL WAITING FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, but you come across here now as DEMANDING that I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION here, which as far as I am aware you had NEVER asked me PREVIOUSLY.