• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I assert that it is POSSIBLE there are gods…

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
14,102
Reaction score
3,919
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
…it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods.

Quag disagrees.

Rather than clog up the thread where we were discussing it, I am opening this new thread devoted specifically to that topic.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist...it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods.
 
A consensus on exactly what constitutes or defines a "god," would be in order before any pointed discussion could take place.
 
Really? This **** again?
 
I disagreed with the wording you used here Frank,

Frank Apisa said:
Yup...I have said that myself several times.

But until you ESTABLISH that it is impossible for gods to exist...

...it is POSSIBLE THEY EXIST...just as it is POSSIBLE they do not.

Jeez.



It IS possible that it might be possible for gods not to exist.

You really cannot let discussions of this sort get to you quite the way this one has gotten to you, Ramoss.
Click to expand...


What you should have said was It is possible they COULD exist just as it is possible they COULD NOT exist.
 
Frank Apisa said:
…it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods.

Quag disagrees.

Rather than clog up the thread where we were discussing it, I am opening this new thread devoted specifically to that topic.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist...it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...

Usually, when presenting an argument, one includes the premises, not just the conclusion.
 
1. Above is correct, definition of god/premises not provided, you aren't really claiming anything to debate.

2. Regardless, you use the general form :
-> A exists or A does not (possible god exists or not)

Is the law of excluded middle, it's a restatement of a law of logic, it doesn't actually inform you, me, quag, or anyone, about reality.
for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.


Please accept our correct analysis on this. If you want to know what your reasonable options are, they are:
a. believe using faith, which requires no evidence.
b. believe using reason, that the typical god definition results in the statement "gods do not exist" as true.
c. stay silent, or say "I don't know", etc. Silence is best though, because "i don't know" reveals you read the arguments, and didn't understand them, and gave up. I'd rather just not know you refused reasonable argumentation, personally. Maybe you would too? (notice it's the same logical two choices a, not a...or silence)
 
s4Xbi.gif


It's possible that you're right Frank. It's also possible that you're wrong.
 
Captain America said:
A consensus on exactly what constitutes or defines a "god," would be in order before any pointed discussion could take place.
Click to expand...

Stephen Curry was unbelievable the other night.
 
Frank Apisa said:
…it is also POSSIBLE that there are no gods.

Quag disagrees.

Rather than clog up the thread where we were discussing it, I am opening this new thread devoted specifically to that topic.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist...it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between faith and logic. Logic does not require faith, and faith does not require logic. SOme people use both, and no, they are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO, there is no reason why a reasonable person could not agree that both states of belief could exist simultaneously, where one believes it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and believe that it is POSSIBLE that gods do not exist.

Those that have unquestioned faith, will by definition of their faith, never be able to accept the latter because they unquestionably have faith in the former. The same is true in reverse for true atheists.

What you describe, some may call agnostic.
 
Ok, let me put it this way. The word possible can be used to describe:

1) the possible states of something that is unknown, where the unknown is in one those states. Flip a coin, catch it and slap it down, keep your hand on it. It's possible to be heads or tails, but it only 1 or the other, and it has happened and can not be changed. "Possible" disappears when you lift your hand as it only related to the state of the coin being unknown. This is possibility from ignorance.

2) something that can potentially come to pass, but has not happened. It describes potential. It is possible for the red Sox to win the 2016 world series. This is possibility from potential. Like wise the round square is impossible because there is no potential for it to exist.

Some of us (me) are hung up on the coin scenario. Since gods either exist(heads) or not(tails), it has been decided and can not be changed. It only seems both are possible because it is unknown. But whichever it is, it can not be changed, and the opposite was never actually possible. If I were omniscient it would be simple.

You, frank, seem to be hung up on words. You want to say possible, quag wants to say could. The 2 are interchangeable and synonymous the way they're being used. You could use "might exist" and it wouldn't change the meaning of your statement. They all refer to a possibility from ignorance, not potential.

/thread, /thread, and /thread.
 
shagg said:
Ok, let me put it this way. The word possible can be used to describe:

1) the possible states of something that is unknown, where the unknown is in one those states. Flip a coin, catch it and slap it down, keep your hand on it. It's possible to be heads or tails, but it only 1 or the other, and it has happened and can not be changed. "Possible" disappears when you lift your hand as it only related to the state of the coin being unknown. This is possibility from ignorance.

2) something that can potentially come to pass, but has not happened. It describes potential. It is possible for the red Sox to win the 2016 world series. This is possibility from potential. Like wise the round square is impossible because there is no potential for it to exist.

Some of us (me) are hung up on the coin scenario. Since gods either exist(heads) or not(tails), it has been decided and can not be changed. It only seems both are possible because it is unknown. But whichever it is, it can not be changed, and the opposite was never actually possible. If I were omniscient it would be simple.

You, frank, seem to be hung up on words. You want to say possible, quag wants to say could. The 2 are interchangeable and synonymous the way they're being used. You could use "might exist" and it wouldn't change the meaning of your statement. They all refer to a possibility from ignorance, not potential.

/thread, /thread, and /thread.
Click to expand...


Actually I said "could be possible", not just "could".
If Frank had simply written the way I said there would be no debate between us. Or he could have said it even less ambiguously and stated.
Either God(s) exist or do not exist.
By using the term "possible" he inadvertently opened a can of worms that I dont think he has fully grasped yet.
If God(s) are possible it does not mean that God(s) exist, only that it is possible that they exist. Possibility does not mean it is, only that it CAN be. Conversely impossibility means that it does NOT exist.
 
Captain America said:
A consensus on exactly what constitutes or defines a "god," would be in order before any pointed discussion could take place.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. There has been so many gods over time. If we are talking about the one supreme creator of the universe and everything in it that I believe in then I believe it is possible. I think it is more likely than all this is just random. If we are talking about beings that are simply more evolved than us and may have had a helping hand in our evolution then I also believe they are possible. I think it is very likely our evolution has been tampered with. We seem to have evolved quite a bit faster than all other species on this planet. Plus all our different cultures seem to believe a god of some sort took a hand in our being here in the past.
 
Captain America said:
A consensus on exactly what constitutes or defines a "god," would be in order before any pointed discussion could take place.
Click to expand...

I have indicated what I mean when I use the word god.

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it, is the thing to which I refer.
 
Quag said:
I disagreed with the wording you used here Frank,




What you should have said was It is possible they COULD exist just as it is possible they COULD NOT exist.
Click to expand...

And I am telling you I can say what I want to say the way I want to say it...rather than defer to the way you want me to say it.

What I said is spot on.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist. It also is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
 
shagg said:
Usually, when presenting an argument, one includes the premises, not just the conclusion.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with "It is POSSIBLE gods exist; it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods"...please tell me what your disagreement is...and we can discuss it.
 
Mach said:
1. Above is correct, definition of god/premises not provided, you aren't really claiming anything to debate.

2. Regardless, you use the general form :
-> A exists or A does not (possible god exists or not)

Is the law of excluded middle, it's a restatement of a law of logic, it doesn't actually inform you, me, quag, or anyone, about reality.
for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.


Please accept our correct analysis on this. If you want to know what your reasonable options are, they are:
a. believe using faith, which requires no evidence.
b. believe using reason, that the typical god definition results in the statement "gods do not exist" as true.
c. stay silent, or say "I don't know", etc. Silence is best though, because "i don't know" reveals you read the arguments, and didn't understand them, and gave up. I'd rather just not know you refused reasonable argumentation, personally. Maybe you would too? (notice it's the same logical two choices a, not a...or silence)
Click to expand...

If you disagree with "It is POSSIBLE gods exist; it is also POSSIBLE there are no gods"...please tell me what your disagreement is...and we can discuss it.
 
Nilly said:
s4Xbi.gif


It's possible that you're right Frank. It's also possible that you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, Nilly.

What I am attempting to do is to get this argument out of a thread where it was an off topic subject.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That's the difference between faith and logic. Logic does not require faith, and faith does not require logic. SOme people use both, and no, they are not mutually exclusive.

IMHO, there is no reason why a reasonable person could not agree that both states of belief could exist simultaneously, where one believes it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and believe that it is POSSIBLE that gods do not exist.

Those that have unquestioned faith, will by definition of their faith, never be able to accept the latter because they unquestionably have faith in the former. The same is true in reverse for true atheists.

What you describe, some may call agnostic.
Click to expand...

My comment has NOTHING whatever to do with what anyone "believes" or guesses.

Either there are gods...or there are no gods.

It is POSSIBLE there are gods; it is also POSSIBLE that no gods exist.
 
shagg said:
Ok, let me put it this way. The word possible can be used to describe:

1) the possible states of something that is unknown, where the unknown is in one those states. Flip a coin, catch it and slap it down, keep your hand on it. It's possible to be heads or tails, but it only 1 or the other, and it has happened and can not be changed. "Possible" disappears when you lift your hand as it only related to the state of the coin being unknown. This is possibility from ignorance.

2) something that can potentially come to pass, but has not happened. It describes potential. It is possible for the red Sox to win the 2016 world series. This is possibility from potential. Like wise the round square is impossible because there is no potential for it to exist.

Some of us (me) are hung up on the coin scenario. Since gods either exist(heads) or not(tails), it has been decided and can not be changed. It only seems both are possible because it is unknown. But whichever it is, it can not be changed, and the opposite was never actually possible. If I were omniscient it would be simple.

You, frank, seem to be hung up on words. You want to say possible, quag wants to say could. The 2 are interchangeable and synonymous the way they're being used. You could use "might exist" and it wouldn't change the meaning of your statement. They all refer to a possibility from ignorance, not potential.

/thread, /thread, and /thread.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that it is possible that gods exist...and it is possible that no gods exist?
 
Frank Apisa said:
And I am telling you I can say what I want to say the way I want to say it...rather than defer to the way you want me to say it.
Click to expand...
Of course you can, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you appear to want it to mean.

What I said is spot on.

It is POSSIBLE gods exist. It also is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...
Again you have changed what you said, which version do you want to discuss? the one that was in error that you changed when starting this thread or the new one?
It is rather difficult to discuss precise phrasing when you keep changing the phrasing you are using.
 
Quag said:
Actually I said "could be possible", not just "could".
If Frank had simply written the way I said there would be no debate between us. Or he could have said it even less ambiguously and stated.
Either God(s) exist or do not exist.
By using the term "possible" he inadvertently opened a can of worms that I dont think he has fully grasped yet.
If God(s) are possible it does not mean that God(s) exist, only that it is possible that they exist. Possibility does not mean it is, only that it CAN be. Conversely impossibility means that it does NOT exist.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I wrote...or how I worded it.

You apparently think it appropriate to tell me I must change my wording in order for what I said to be logical.

You are incorrect. What I said is logical the way I said it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yeah.
Click to expand...

But you have offered nothing new at all. In a way just spammed the forum with another thread arguing the same point that perhaps got too derailed in the other thread(s) on this same exact subject.

Why do we need a new thread on this? What new philosophical point are you trying to discuss?
 
Quag said:
Of course you can, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you appear to want it to mean.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily...but what I said (in the various forms) ARE ALL CORRECT as I have written them.


Again you have changed what you said, which version do you want to discuss? the one that was in error that you changed when starting this thread or the new one?
It is rather difficult to discuss precise phrasing when you keep changing the phrasing you are using.
Click to expand...

Pick out the wording you are saying is illogical or wrong...and I will defend it, because I am correct on this.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not necessarily...but what I said (in the various forms) ARE ALL CORRECT as I have written them.
Click to expand...
Nope the one I have repeatedly pointed out as being incorrect is..... incorrect.


Pick out the wording you are saying is illogical or wrong...and I will defend it, because I am correct on this.
Click to expand...

Post #4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom