I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods…

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2016

sookster said:
The very nature of God, an all powerful being, which is what we are debating, cannot be proven or disproven at this point.

Unicorns we can prove doesn't exist, by the countless eyewitness testimony by billions of people around the world.

Really? The "countless eyewitness testimony"?? You mean the testimony that they've never seen a unicorn? Or that they've never seen God?

You have seen every square inch of this earth and can say with unequivocal certainty that there is not a single unicorn in the universe?

Yet God merely can't be disproven?

No bias in that thought process!!

C'mon!!

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
Right, you agree then that when you use the terms, you use them as follows...

'possible' is defined as 'it may or may not be'

'gods' is defined as 'beings capable of creating what we call the Universe'

Is there literally or practically any disagreement between us on this?

Not that I can see right now.

Let's see what you do with it.

These are YOUR definitions of EXACTLY how you use those words when you use them in this Forum and, you will not use those words to impart any other meaning or sense without telling your fellow posters beforehand?

That is exactly how I am using those words in this context. I may...or may not...use them in the same way in other situations.

If, for example, I am talking about the gods of ancient Rome...I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "gods" the same way I am using it here.

And if I were saying, "It is possible I can teach a pig to fly" (being very sarcastic) I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "possible" the same way I am using it here.

Why not just leave it that for the purpose of discussing this particular issue...I explained that is how I am using those words. And I will acknowledge that your rendition of what I mean...seems spot on to me.

Remember that this forum is a means of communication and using words only in a way that you understand communicates nothing.

Okay.

But let me ask you this: When I said, "It is possible gods do not exist."...what did YOU think I was saying? How did YOU think I was using the words "gods" and "possible" in that context?

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

Critter7r said:
I have enough ego for me and you and the next 3 people you meet, Frank.

I'm disappointed in you Frank. I expected much more from you. I had hoped for in depth conversation on beliefs and logic and reasoning and instead had a conversation with a parrot.

You can keep offering up your back-handed "woe-is-me" lines, I've lost all faith for your ability to debate in any sort of intellectually honest manner.

If that sad dirge has made you feel better about yourself, Critter...I am happy I was able to be of use to you.

For someone with as much ego as you say you have...you certainly seem to need it massaged an awful lot.

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

Just an aside, if I may...and of course, I may.

I hope everyone here realizes there is a significant difference between the following two sentences:

A) It appears that unicorns do not exist.

B) It appears that unicorns do not exist on planet Earth at this moment in time.

William Rea · Mar 15, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
...But let me ask you this: When I said, "It is possible gods do not exist."...what did YOU think I was saying? How did YOU think I was using the words "gods" and "possible" in that context?

Frank, I answered this several times in several ways but, I will try again perhaps in terms that will help you to understand.

I don't guess. It's just just like you don't guess about the nature of reality, I don't guess about the nature of your use of English or grammar.

It is not up to me to guess at what you meant, I did the civil and polite thing which was to ask you to clarify and you rebuffed that several times.

Now, as you are continuing to do little asides rather than stay focused I will split this away and add that, I know you don't seem to think that anything but, a direct insult is rude but, the way that I was brought up, it is rude to just rebuff someone if they ask a simple question. Maybe we were brought up in different cultures in different ways but, your reaction to my perfectly polite and civil question was such that you might as well have just flung a direct insult at me. I understand that you don't understand this, it is apparent in your posts and I will try to make allowance for it but, I will bring it to your attention because, no one is ever too old to learn good manners. That's just the Englishman in me.

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
Frank, I answered this several times in several ways but, I will try again perhaps in terms that will help you to understand.

I don't guess. It's just just like you don't guess about the nature of reality, I don't guess about the nature of your use of English or grammar.

It is not up to me to guess at what you meant, I did the civil and polite thing which was to ask you to clarify and you rebuffed that several times.

Now, as you are continuing to do little asides rather than stay focused I will split this away and add that, I know you don't seem to think that anything but, a direct insult is rude but, the way that I was brought up, it is rude to just rebuff someone if they ask a simple question. Maybe we were brought up in different cultures in different ways but, your reaction to my perfectly polite and civil question was such that you might as well have just flung a direct insult at me. I understand that you don't understand this, it is apparent in your posts and I will try to make allowance for it but, I will bring it to your attention because, no one is ever too old to learn good manners. That's just the Englishman in me.

You have been the model of propriety and good manners in this thread, Bill. Never an insult from you to anyone.

Right?

I mean, you could post examples of me being rude...and I would not be able to find examples with you being much ruder.

Right?

William Rea · Mar 15, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
Not that I can see right now.

Let's see what you do with it.

That is exactly how I am using those words in this context. I may...or may not...use them in the same way in other situations.

If, for example, I am talking about the gods of ancient Rome...I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "gods" the same way I am using it here.

And if I were saying, "It is possible I can teach a pig to fly" (being very sarcastic) I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "possible" the same way I am using it here.

Why not just leave it that for the purpose of discussing this particular issue...I explained that is how I am using those words. And I will acknowledge that your rendition of what I mean...seems spot on to me.

Okay...

See Frank, you raised a really interesting point there, you see how good this is? I am fascinated by your comment, 'I am talking about the gods of ancient Rome...I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "gods" the same way I am using it here' but, we can come back to that.

So, I am going to take it that in the context of this thread, those two definitions are exactly what you mean and what I understand you to mean. If I am wrong about that then we can go back and have another try.

OK, so, now we have another point to get past. Are we treating the OP assertion, 'I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods… …it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods' as one sentence with, 'and' substituted such that, it would say 'I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods and it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods' or are we splitting them into two separate assertions, the first being 'it is POSSIBLE there are gods' and the second being, 'it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods'.

I do not care how you want to approach this, I was fine as we previously agreed that it would be two separate assertions but it is your shout. The only thing I would ask is that you make it clear by not using ellipses, regardless of how you use them, they normally indicate an edit.

William Rea · Mar 15, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
You have been the model of propriety and good manners in this thread, Bill. Never an insult from you to anyone.

Right?

I mean, you could post examples of me being rude...and I would not be able to find examples with you being much ruder.

Right?

Frank, I never said that I had not been rude. I am quite aware of it.

I am trying to explain to you how people might react to how you post, do you want me to explain it or not? If you don't then fine, we'll stick to just the basics but, by the same token, don't expect me to react lightly to your ongoing asides that suggest that I should guess what you mean. Like you Frank, I don't think that it is a good idea to guess and, to suggest that I should is insulting! Do you see that at all? Would you be pleased if I said that you are a bit stupid because you don't guess about reality? Think Man. C'Mon!

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
See Frank, you raised a really interesting point there, you see how good this is? I am fascinated by your comment, 'I am talking about the gods of ancient Rome...I would not expect you to suppose I am using the word "gods" the same way I am using it here' but, we can come back to that.

So, I am going to take it that in the context of this thread, those two definitions are exactly what you mean and what I understand you to mean. If I am wrong about that then we can go back and have another try.

OK, so, now we have another point to get past. Are we treating the OP assertion, 'I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods… …it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods' as one sentence with, 'and' substituted such that, it would say 'I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods and it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods' or are we splitting them into two separate assertions, the first being 'it is POSSIBLE there are gods' and the second being, 'it is POSSIBLE that there are no gods'.

I do not care how you want to approach this, I was fine as we previously agreed that it would be two separate assertions but it is your shout. The only thing I would ask is that you make it clear by not using ellipses, regardless of how you use them, they normally indicate an edit.

Use them as co-joined...or separate.

I will state them both ways for you here:

It is possible gods exist...and it also is possible no gods exist.

It is possible gods exist. It also is possible there are no gods.

You choose which one you want to discuss.

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
Frank, I never said that I had not been rude. I am quite aware of it.

I am trying to explain to you how people might react to how you post, do you want me to explain it or not? If you don't then fine, we'll stick to just the basics but, by the same token, don't expect me to react lightly to your ongoing asides that suggest that I should guess what you mean. Like you Frank, I don't think that it is a good idea to guess and, to suggest that I should is insulting! Do you see that at all? Would you be pleased if I said that you are a bit stupid because you don't guess about reality? Think Man. C'Mon!

The point I was trying to get across as nicely as I could at that moment was: You should not be giving me lectures in how to be civil and reasonable...nor in how not to be rude.

It feels like I am getting a lecture on how to keep fit and trim from Chris Christie, Bill.

Look through my posts. You will not see one asterisk anywhere in any of them. NOT ONE (except where I am quoting someone else.) Your posts are laden with them...to me and to others.

We can have this discussion without you presuming to lecture me on how to be civil.

William Rea · Mar 15, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
The point I was trying to get across as nicely as I could at that moment was: You should not be giving me lectures in how to be civil and reasonable...nor in how not to be rude.

It feels like I am getting a lecture on how to keep fit and trim from Chris Christie, Bill.

Look through my posts. You will not see one asterisk anywhere in any of them. NOT ONE (except where I am quoting someone else.) Your posts are laden with them...to me and to others.

We can have this discussion without you presuming to lecture me on how to be civil.

I am trying to Frank but, you keep putting the snarky asides in and I am not compelled to let them slide and neither will I, I can't be sure that you even understand what you are doing at this stage so I am trying to rationalise it. If you don't understand how your posts have been just as snarky as mine then so be it, it is besides the point and if you just want to score cheap points then have at it.

William Rea · Mar 15, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
Use them as co-joined...or separate.

I will state them both ways for you here:

It is possible gods exist...and it also is possible no gods exist.

It is possible gods exist. It also is possible there are no gods.

You choose which one you want to discuss.

It makes absolutely no difference to me, it is your assertion but, to keep the thread going I will adopt the form, 'It is possible gods exist. It also is possible there are no gods' because I don't want to get bogged down in the discussion over ellipses. Do you object to using that form or do you want to go back and go over the definitions again? Just say so.

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
I am trying to Frank but, you keep putting the snarky asides in and I am not compelled to let them slide and neither will I, I can't be sure that you even understand what you are doing at this stage so I am trying to rationalise it. If you don't understand how your posts have been just as snarky as mine then so be it, it is besides the point and if you just want to score cheap points then have at it.

Let's both of us leave "snarky" aside.

In that vein...my fondest memories of life will undoubtedly include the two years I lived in Lincolnshire...courtesy of Uncle Sam. They are a highlight of my life...a time of absolute fascination with everything British. From earliest youth I had a thing for history and archaeology...two areas of interest I was able to indulge in plenty during those years. I've probably spent more total time in the Tower as any America ever...with dozens of trips looking at every facet of that place.

I wanted to see the Queen (she and her sister were beautiful in those days) more than anything...and spent many, many long hours over at the palace hoping for an opportunity. (Never came.)

Participated in archaeological digs in some areas in the south...mostly at pre-history sites.

Partook of the best fish and chips in all of England at the chippery in Upton. Became a lifelong Anglophile...something I've still not cured myself of. (Nancy has to put up with every British production on television.) Still sigh when thinking of the "Carry On" movies and of Val Parnell Show at the London Palladium. (You may be too young to appreciate those last things.)

So...to stretch a sorta metaphor...carry on.

Frank Apisa · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
It makes absolutely no difference to me, it is your assertion but, to keep the thread going I will adopt the form, 'It is possible gods exist. It also is possible there are no gods' because I don't want to get bogged down in the discussion over ellipses. Do you object to using that form or do you want to go back and go over the definitions again? Just say so.

I asked you to choose...you chose.

As for the ellipses...I can no more write without them as I can continue living without breathing. Try to endure them.

sookster · Mar 15, 2016

William Rea said:
I didn't say the definition was the same but anyway, how are you proving that Unicorns don't exist?

As I said earlier. By the billions of billions of people that haven't seen a unicorn over x amount of years. A unicorn is a horse with one horn.

You cannot compare the concept of a unicorn to a God. A God is an all knowing all powerful being. That is different than a horse with a horn.

sookster · Mar 15, 2016

Critter7r said:
Really? The "countless eyewitness testimony"?? You mean the testimony that they've never seen a unicorn? Or that they've never seen God?

You have seen every square inch of this earth and can say with unequivocal certainty that there is not a single unicorn in the universe?

Yet God merely can't be disproven?

No bias in that thought process!!

C'mon!!

A unicorn is a horse with a horn, and a God is an all knowing all powerful being.

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2016

sookster said:
A unicorn is a horse with a horn, and a God is an all knowing all powerful being.

Is he?

Come on ... you can't really be typing that with a straight face. Surely you've got to be thinking, "****, nobody's seen God either. That's gonna put a damper on my position."

Have you searched every inch of China to know for certain that there aren't any unicorns there?

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2016

sookster said:
As I said earlier. By the billions of billions of people that haven't seen a unicorn over x amount of years. A unicorn is a horse with one horn.

You cannot compare the concept of a unicorn to a God. A God is an all knowing all powerful being. That is different than a horse with a horn.

What we have here. is. a distinction. without a difference.

sookster · Mar 15, 2016

Critter7r said:
Is he?

Come on ... you can't really be typing that with a straight face. Surely you've got to be thinking, "****, nobody's seen God either. That's gonna put a damper on my position."

Have you searched every inch of China to know for certain that there aren't any unicorns there?

The fact that a God is an all knowing and powerful being, changes the state of the discussion, simply because an all knowing and powerful being could exist and not interfere with His creation. Whereas a unicorn is a horse with a horn.

No, but other people could report it. It doesn't have to be me.

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2016

sookster said:
The fact that a God is an all knowing and powerful being, changes the state of the discussion, simply because an all knowing and powerful being could exist and not interfere with His creation. Whereas a unicorn is a horse with a horn.

No, but other people could report it. It doesn't have to be me.

Maybe God is a unicorn.

sookster · Mar 15, 2016

Critter7r said:
Maybe God is a unicorn.

If that were the case, then whether or not God exists would imply unicorn as well. It doesn't change the fact that a God is an all knowing all powerful being, that doesn't have to reveal himself to his creation.

Critter7r · Mar 15, 2016

sookster said:
If that were the case, then whether or not God exists would imply unicorn as well. It doesn't change the fact that a God is an all knowing all powerful being, that doesn't have to reveal himself to his creation.

And that is only because that's the definition we gave it, not because it actually exists. Its no more plausible to believe in god than it is to believe in unicorns.

Call it belief, but don't make the case that a God has to be the answer just because we can't figure it out.

sookster · Mar 15, 2016

Critter7r said:
And that is only because that's the definition we gave it, not because it actually exists. Its no more plausible to believe in god than it is to believe in unicorns.

Call it belief, but don't make the case that a God has to be the answer just because we can't figure it out.

I don't. But I think in the possibility that there is or there is not a God, centered around the theme of coincidence, which I touched based upon before.