Anyone here a Category 7?

[Shell B]

It's worth noting that the god people go in for at 6...is just another case of the gods they go in for at 7.  Replace god with some other object -

I'm absolutely sure that dragons don't exist, but I reserve judgement on whether or not some other flying firebreathing lizards might be out there.

It works better with the god question for several reasons. One, we can easily debunk the gods of religion. Two, we cannot easily debunk that there is some entity with partial or total control over some or all of the universe. It’s not even that far-fetched, even if it’s unlikely. Actually, I was going to say the sheer scale of the universe makes the gods question harder, but that applies to dragons too. There could be a fucking dragon planet. You don’t know. You can’t know, and it’s really possible, more possible than gods.

[Huggy Bear]

1 and 7 are all dishonest answers.

Only 7 is a dishonest answer.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Actually, I was going to say the sheer scale of the universe makes the gods question harder, but that applies to dragons too. There could be a fucking dragon planet. You don’t know. You can’t know, and it’s really possible, more possible than gods.

Difference is we know how to determine if what we are looking at is a dragon. You can't do that with gods because they are meant to be undefinable.

For example, are gods still gods if they have local jurisdiction? Or are gods mutually exclusive, as in there can only be one correct creation myth? In which case size of the universe only applies to dragons.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's worth noting that the god people go in for at 6...is just another case of the gods they go in for at 7.  Replace god with some other object -

I'm absolutely sure that dragons don't exist, but I reserve judgement on whether or not some other flying firebreathing lizards might be out there.

It works better with the god question for several reasons. One, we can easily debunk the gods of religion. Two, we cannot easily debunk that there is some entity with partial or total control over some or all of the universe. It’s not even that far-fetched, even if it’s unlikely. Actually, I was going to say the sheer scale of the universe makes the gods question harder, but that applies to dragons too. There could be a fucking dragon planet. You don’t know. You can’t know, and it’s really possible, more possible than gods.

 I don't think that it does, I think that's uneccessary compartmentalization.  I'm not, in any of this, telling you that you're wrong.  We all decide what we're confident enough to say we know or don't know.

I can know, for example, that the question that a person is asking me when they ask whether or not dragons exist has nothing to do with a dragon planet, and that were there a dragon planet.,.they would only be dragons by convention of naming them so....not by any truth content or truth referent to the subject of dragons. A komodo dragon is as much of a dragon as the dragons on dragon planet, if dragon planet exists.

This is the same..to me, as asking about gods.  Positing a powerful entity with control over some part of the universe is to posit something other than a god.  It may be similar to what we call a god....but..for what it's worth..-we- fit that description, and it won't alter our knowledge of what gods are in the first place. That entity, if it it existed... has no relationship to the ticks of our minds.

[Lucanus]

Only 7 is a dishonest answer.

No U

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd add, to the above, that the "you don't know, you can't know" objection works equally well with all of the gods people do rule out.  You don't know whether or not there's a Zues planet.  A Jesus Planet.  A Thor planet. You can't.

Are any of those planets really more or less improbable than a dragon planet, since we're positing the existence of planets on the other side of the universe where human fiction miraculously accords with reality?

Should a person have to know about them to know..in effect, anything (as this example can be repeated with absolutely any proposition)?

While we're on the subject of the universe..and things on the other side of it. Could anything actually be omniscient if it didn't know what was happening right here on this side of the universe, right now? Seems like it's "knowledge engine" whatever that is..would have to move quite a bit faster than the speed of light to inform it of what I'm thinking right here..if it was on the other side of the universe (in addition to being able to read my mind...ofc). Anywhoo, these are the continuity errors that keep me, personally, giggling about gods.

[Shell B]

Actually, I was going to say the sheer scale of the universe makes the gods question harder, but that applies to dragons too. There could be a fucking dragon planet. You don’t know. You can’t know, and it’s really possible, more possible than gods.

Difference is we know how to determine if what we are looking at is a dragon. You can't do that with gods because they are meant to be undefinable.

For example, are gods still gods if they have local jurisdiction? Or are gods mutually exclusive, as in there can only be one correct creation myth? In which case size of the universe only applies to dragons.

Some gods have jurisdictions.

[Shell B]

I'd add, to the above, that the "you don't know, you can't know" objection works equally well with all of the gods people do rule out.  You don't know whether or not there's a Zues planet.  A Jesus Planet.  A Thor planet. You can't.

Are any of those planets really more or less improbable than a dragon planet, since we're positing the existence of planets on the other side of the universe where human fiction miraculously accords with reality?

Should a person have to know about them to know..in effect, anything (as this example can be repeated with absolutely any proposition)?

While we're on the subject of the universe..and things on the other side of it. Could anything actually be omniscient if it didn't know what was happening right here on this side of the universe, right now? Seems like it's "knowledge engine" whatever that is..would have to move quite a bit faster than the speed of light to inform it of what I'm thinking right here..if it was on the other side of the universe (in addition to being able to read my mind...ofc). Anywhoo, these are the continuity errors that keep me, personally, giggling about gods.

Uh, what? I specifically said the gods we know of as described in religions. There can’t just be a Thor planet and then it makes all the shit they say happened true. We literally live in the planet where they say this shit happened. We can investigate.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point, exactly, Shell. There can be a "thor" planet and it still wouldn't make gods existent..just as there can be a "dragon" planet and this wouldn't make dragons existent..and just as there can be a being that has control over some portion of the universe (like..ourselves)..and this..like every other example..won't make gods existent.

Were it not for what I see, in my way of describing what I can and do know, an uneccessary compartmentalization, this inconsistency wouldn't even present itself.

This is why, while I accept that you don't know.....I would suggest that I can and do know. This unavailability of knowledge is personal to you and how you deal with knowledge. Gods don't exist, I don't have to know whats happening on the other side of the universe to know that. No matter what's happening on the other side of the universe..I still know that.

[Fireball]

I'd add, to the above, that the "you don't know, you can't know" objection works equally well with all of the gods people do rule out.  You don't know whether or not there's a Zues planet.  A Jesus Planet.  A Thor planet.  You can't.

Are any of those planets really more or less improbable than a dragon planet, since we're positing the existence of planets on the other side of the universe where human fiction miraculously accords with reality?

Should a person have to know about them to know..in effect, anything (as this example can be repeated with absolutely any proposition)?

While we're on the subject of the universe..and things on the other side of it.  Could anything actually be omniscient if it didn't know what was happening right here on this side of the universe, right now?  Seems like it's "knowledge engine" whatever that is..would have to move quite a bit faster than the speed of light to inform it of what I'm thinking right here..if it was on the other side of the universe (in addition to being able to read my mind...ofc).  Anywhoo, these are the continuity errors that keep me, personally, giggling about gods.

It's the Russell's Teapot fallacy, for all those things claimed to exist without proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot