(May 4, 2025 at 5:07 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Is this the kind of thing you're thinking of? I'm curious about what you mean.

Hmm to summarize the conversation: I think that openness to evidence requires openness to possibility. Meaning, the very act of seeking evidence for X implies that X is treated as possible. But of course, many here do not think the existence of God is even possible, and therefore I think them asking for evidence is illogical.

My threshold for possibility is simple: If a proposition is at least conceivable and coherent, and not contradictory, then I'm open to its possibility. But people want me to give objective evidence for possibility itself. And I think that's a weird request. So, with your boar example, I would say the possibility is already there, and the evidence you showed simply makes the case for its actuality. I don't think there is such a thing as objective evidence of possibility itself, because possibility is abstract, it is rational rather than empirical.

Edit: For context, I'm imagining a scale that roughly progresses thus: Conceivable, Possible, Probable, Actual. Most here concede to the first, but we've been stuck on the second for the last 20 pages.

Thank you, I'm a little more up to speed now.

Yes, in the wild boar example, the possibility of there being a boar is not in question. We know such animals exist, we know there have been similar sightings elsewhere. So in that case, we are not looking to demonstrate the possibility of their existence, but whether or not they happen to exist in this case. 

To go a little further down the scale, suppose one of my crazy neighbors told me that there's a colony of wild hippopotami in the neighborhood. I would reject this claim as impossible, because I know that certain conditions would be required to support such a colony, and those conditions don't exist. So the boar example is more about true or false, the hippo example is more about possible or impossible. 

So to apply this to the God debate: the argument that there is or is not a God is different from the argument that a God is or is not possible. Different kinds of arguments would apply. 

There might be ways of defining "God" in such a way as to guarantee that such a thing is impossible. Something like the square circle. But that would be different from saying that God is possible but not in evidence. 

It might be that some people are so committed to an empirical epistemology that they believe only those things which are empirically demonstrable are possible. But that isn't self-evident, and of course it's not a position that can be demonstrated empirically. 

So, yeah, I don't see how anyone could demonstrate that it's impossible for God to exist. If they're making that claim, it would require some serious argument.

(May 4, 2025 at 8:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: To go a little further down the scale, suppose one of my crazy neighbors told me that there's a colony of wild hippopotami in the neighborhood. I would reject this claim as impossible, because I know that certain conditions would be required to support such a colony, and those conditions don't exist. So the boar example is more about true or false, the hippo example is more about possible or impossible. 

Hmm what do you mean by conditions in this scenario? I would say there's a difference in possibility between the herd being in the neighborhood, and being in your closet, for example. It wouldn't be possible in the closet because of the inconcistency between the size of your closet and the size of the herd.

So I would argue that there is a possibility of the herd being in the neighborhood, even though the probability is zero.

(May 4, 2025 at 8:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 8:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote: To go a little further down the scale, suppose one of my crazy neighbors told me that there's a colony of wild hippopotami in the neighborhood. I would reject this claim as impossible, because I know that certain conditions would be required to support such a colony, and those conditions don't exist. So the boar example is more about true or false, the hippo example is more about possible or impossible. 

Hmm what do you mean by conditions in this scenario? I would say there's a difference in possibility between the herd being in the neighborhood, and being in your closet, for example. It wouldn't be possible in the closet because of the inconcistency between the size of your closet and the size of the herd.

So I would argue that there is a possibility of the herd being in the neighborhood, even though the probability is zero.

Well I'm no expert on hippos, so I wouldn't want to get too focussed on my example. 

I'm pretty sure hippos need a certain kind of environment, and we don't have that here. The local river is pretty shallow, for example, and probably doesn't have a lot of whatever it is hippos eat. I don't think it's possible for them to live sustainably -- but you are certainly right that if I'd imagined them in my closet instead the example would be clearer. 

My closet is really full already.

(May 4, 2025 at 6:26 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 6:22 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Lets get this back on track. Everyone misquoted everyone, we call it even and stop using it as a deflection to avoid answering questions.  Cool?  Cool

I am out for now, life's too short...

Take it easy.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Thank you, I quoted that same post above, in response to his claim, now I wonder if he will retract the claim that I imagined it.

He won't. He will retreat further into semantics and wordplay. He's trolling this audience, each and every one. I wrote a couple hundred posts or so back --

(May 1, 2025 at 12:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You're starting to appear disingenuous here.

His dishonesty stands larger than any point he is making, and tells the real reason he is here. Why look for deep engagement with him? Why do you think he asks for you to come back to the discussion even as he admittedly won't engage it?

He's not here for honest discussion. He won't answer hard questions. He won't give his reasons for believing even through multiple queries. He pretends he's answered them but he hasn't. And yet he demands everyone else to answer his questions immediately.

Classic troll behavior. Snuff the candle.

(May 4, 2025 at 7:15 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 6:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's difficult for contemporary christians to walk in faith.  Their witchdoctors and shamans preach on it every weekend but it doesn't seem to matter.  That's why we end up with all of this claptrap.  The faithful have been indocrinated into our shared culture, and they want to tell us that they have answers, that they know of a rational path between here and truth of christs promise.  It's a lie, and, at least thematically speaking, part of life's test, as they tell it.

I wouldn't dare argue against your analysis. You have a decade of experience in these forums after all, and an interest in religion and anthropology.

You're boring.  You know you don't have to take my word for it.  Just like every other bit of completely dishonest bullshit you've been gracing these boards with.

(May 4, 2025 at 5:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 5:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Thank you, I quoted that same post above, in response to his claim, now I wonder if he will retract the claim that I imagined it.

Surely, you implying is not the same as me claiming?

This post shows one more reason why you'd ought not play semantics in this crowd. An implication is delivered, and an inferral is received. Neither Sheldon nor myself "implied" anything; you did. We inferred that from your semantic dancing.

If you want to play word-games, boy, I'm your huckleberry.

(May 5, 2025 at 12:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This post shows one more reason why you'd ought not play semantics in this crowd. An implication is delivered, and an inferral is received. Neither Sheldon nor myself "implied" anything; you did. We inferred that from your semantic dancing.

If you want to play word-games, boy, I'm your huckleberry.

Thanks for the correction. You inferring is not the same as me claiming, is it?

Some asshole told us about conversations and implacatures, I wonder which of you is correct. You said what you said. No one will be surprised that you don't believe it...again. Maybe next time you spin this bit up don't say it?

(May 5, 2025 at 12:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 5, 2025 at 12:31 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This post shows one more reason why you'd ought not play semantics in this crowd. An implication is delivered, and an inferral is received. Neither Sheldon nor myself "implied" anything; you did. We inferred that from your semantic dancing.

If you want to play word-games, boy, I'm your huckleberry.

Thanks for the correction. You inferring is not the same as me claiming, is it?

You implying it is not the same as me inferring it. Language up, bro.

Put shortly, you imply something when you don't have the balls to claim it, but want to own it all the same. An inference is when someone is sharp enough to see you trying to slip an idea in without owning it -- kinda like you're doing here when you try to equivocate an implication with a claim.

You ain't as slick as you think you are.