Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 3207 (675550)
10-12-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Stile
10-12-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Thanks for all the fish
I wouldn't test it at all. I would leave it up to anyone who wants to define the word "God" to be "the sun."
If we are going to define God to be the sun, then I would retract my statement. I can no longer say that I know God does not exist because the sun does exist and God is a bunch of chemical reactions in a ball of flaming gas that most certainly does exist.
I would be wrong... and the search for God would be over.
However, if someone does not accept such a definition and thinks that God is something more than the sun, something more along the lines of the popular definition of our times... then my statement still stands. I know that God does not exist.
That's why I said that as it sits, "I know that God does not exist", doesn't really tell us that much without understanding what you're talking about with the word "God".
I'm just saying that you've never actually tested for a god, all you've tested is what people have told you they believe about a god.
What more can be done?
I don't know. But I think that reduces the confidence you can have in your knowledge and eliminates any establishment you could have about gods.
I think that your statement here still comes back around to making an irrational claim that I havn't tested for "a god" that you have yet to define... which leads us again into the absurd.
I'm not seeing it.
So when you're saying that you know that god doesn't exist, its not in a way that you've actually established anything.
Except that we have established it for all the places we are able to possibly check.
But the sun does exist and people have worshiped it as a god. So were they just wrong or are you? Where's that been established?
I think it does stand up, although it does hinge very much on a strict defintion of "how we know things" which comes from holding a personal priority on rationality and epistemology.
That, and what you mean by "God".
I just think that my statement does rationally flow from the definitions I've provided.
Seems alright to me... but as you say:
quote:
my statement is easily taken out of context and can seem like it's overstepping it's boundaries.
By itself, it isn't really conveying much meaning.
And I think that those who deny that my statement is acceptable are simply equivocating on the term "know" so that it means some sort of absolute-truth-sense for this statement... but those same people do understand that the term "know" does not include that same absolute-truth-sense when they use it in every day language for other non-God ideas.
As I said:
quote:
you to have become convinced that the concept that you invoke with the word God does not exist, and therefore know that it doesn't.
I think it'd be better with further qualifiers on what you mean by "God".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 10:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 3207 (675551)
10-12-2012 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
10-10-2012 2:27 PM


Your reasoning bears a striking resemblance to the epistemic reasoning of intelligent design.
Moreover, I feel you bestow infinitely too much credibility on the inventions of theologians by implying that their notions of God are all that is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 10-10-2012 2:27 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 12:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 63 of 3207 (675556)
10-12-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2012 10:58 AM


Definition of God
Catholic Scientist writes:
Stile writes:
Except that we have established it for all the places we are able to possibly check.
But the sun does exist and people have worshiped it as a god. So were they just wrong or are you? Where's that been established?
I think I took your meaning to be something different as I went through that line of reasoning before.
I thought you meant defining God as the sun (the inanimate object).
But perhaps you meant defining God as the sun but also having some living-like properties such as caring about humans and having some sort of relationship with them? Those that worshipped the sun did extend those sorts of properties onto "the God" they worshipped.
As for that definition, then my statement does still stand. I know that "the sun as an entity that cares about humans and has some sort of relationship with them" does not exist. The sun as an inanimate object certainly exists... but inanimate objects do not have those properties and therefore that definition of God does not exist.
I think it'd be better with further qualifiers on what you mean by "God".
True.
When I started the thread, I was simply thinking of the popular idea held by our current society... That God is a rational concept of some entity that sits back and governs good things and helps out people who pray to Him and used to do grand miracles but hasn't felt like it since we started to monitor such things.
But now I think it will hold for any and all conceivable definitions of God that do not include God being an inanimate object and do include God being at least "something more" than humans and relates somewhat to the popular idea held by our current society. And the proposal, of course, must be rational as well.
  • Inanimate object clause
    I don't think anyone has ever proposed God as being an inanimate object anyway... but we'll keep this clause in just to be clear.
    If God were to be defined as an inanimate object such as the sun or a chair or a carbon rod... then I think that the person proposing this definition of God is being extremely disengenuous about what the word "God" means within our culture. I am willing to listen to anyone who would like to claim that an inanimate object should be considered to be "God"... but I'm guessing there will not be any takers.
    In the case that this does happen, as I explained before I would be forced to concede that my statement is false.
  • More than human clause
    As for God being something more than humans and relating to the popular idea currently held... if God is not such a thing... I think it is then honestly up to the individual asking to define what it is they mean when they use the word "God." I think I've attempted to make my definition of "God" as broad as possible, but I'm open to new ideas. Afterall, if "God" isn't what everyone uses the term as... how am I supposed to rationally frame a statement about it?
  • Rational clause
    This is simply obvious. The statement is a rational conclusion about the existance of God based upon the data we have and the rational analysis. How can we possibly make a rational conclusion about something if the thing in question isn't rational in the first place? If we are admitting that the defintion of "God" is irrational in the first place, then there is no reason to say whether or not we know He exists because we all know that irrational ideas don't deserve any rational consideration in the first place.
    It should be noted that if we're going to define "God" as something like "that which cannot be defined" or "whatever God is if God actually exists" that these are irrational concepts and do not deserve any rational consideration.
    And, really, I do not understand an argument of the form "You can't say that because you are not considering the irrational!!!" ...um, really?
    Edited by Stile, : Spelt argument wrong again, and it is beginning to irritate me. Art students can spell argument correctly. I am as smart as art students, damnit!!

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2012 10:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-15-2012 10:28 AM Stile has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    (1)
    Message 64 of 3207 (675560)
    10-12-2012 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
    10-12-2012 11:08 AM


    A Summary
    TrueCreation writes:
    Your reasoning bears a striking resemblance to the epistemic reasoning of intelligent design.
    If you have a better idea for understanding "how we know things" than the one I have proposed, I would be interested in hearing about it.
    Moreover, I feel you bestow infinitely too much credibility on the inventions of theologians by implying that their notions of God are all that is possible.
    This isn't what I'm doing, although I understand how you may have jumped to that conclusion.
    I do not think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God is impossible.
    However, I do think the following:
    All rational concepts of God known to us have been tested and found to be false.
    It is impossible to test an irrational concept.
    It is impossible to test a concept that is as-yet-undiscovered.
    Therefore, we have investigated the idea to the best of our abilities.
    Therefore, we can rationally conclude that "I know God does not exist."
    I will repeat the addition of tentativity in "how we know things" again:
    quote:
    But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
    We don't.
    But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
    I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
    *"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.
    Message 1
    Again, I do not think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God is impossible. I just think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God in some undefinable as-yet-undiscovered area of existance is an irrational idea. If you do not think so, I would ask for you to show me how any current data we do have is rationally indicating that God may exist in a certain place.
    With that in mind, I think that it is an error to think that an irrational idea should have an effect on a rational conclusion from the data we do have.
    Following through with that (and remembering the tentativity I quoted above), we come to the rational conclusion of:
    I know that God does not exist.
    Edited by Stile, : Too many "rational"-s. Changed "rational data" to simply "data." Data isn't rational or irrational, it's just the facts.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 11:08 AM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 65 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 1:22 PM Stile has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 65 of 3207 (675581)
    10-12-2012 1:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
    10-12-2012 12:02 PM


    Re: A Summary
    quote:
    If you have a better idea for understanding "how we know things" than the one I have proposed, I would be interested in hearing about it.
    Well, I think science works pretty well. Science is the greatest source of knowledge because statements of fact about unobserved things are constrained by observations of nature. Your demonstration of the non-existence of a thing called god requires that observation statements necessarily constrain unobservables which happen to be exceptions to rules of nature. It doesn't necessarily work. You must either devalue your claim to knowledge or you must couple a non-scientific method with philosophical statements about the nature of the relationship between natural observables and the existence of a certain type of god.
    quote:
    All rational concepts of God known to us have been tested and found to be false.
    Qualifying that the god must be rational is interesting because it seems to demand that it be amenable to some form of testability, but a paradox arises because there is no reason to believe that a concept of god must be demonstrated as rational by this criterion. Accordingly, falsifications are only possible if one demonstrates that characteristics of god necessitate certain observations in nature. This is the best case scenario. The actual scenario, of course, is that no one knows neither the characteristics of gods even if one does exist, nor its relationship to nature. Even in the case of the popular gods, one may provide plentiful reasons to believe they are fabrications, but these are not demonstrations of truth about a negative.
    Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 12:02 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 67 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 2:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 66 of 3207 (675582)
    10-12-2012 1:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 51 by Stile
    10-12-2012 8:14 AM


    Re: Good Summary
    I suppose I'm just trying to discuss the thought process behind all the "If's" and "Then's" in order to make sure everything lines up and that I understand the foundation.
    The problem you tend to run into, and the one in this thread it looks like, is when we're talking about the unfalsifiable. How can you essentially assert the falsity of that which cannot be established as false?
    Which is why I keep it in the conditional. If that's the angle someone wants to go at I'm fine with that - but we then are forced to say that we can't know that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. I mean he might be intangible but 'inspire' gift giving using his aura of kindness or something.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 8:14 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 2:43 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    (1)
    Message 67 of 3207 (675585)
    10-12-2012 2:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 65 by TrueCreation
    10-12-2012 1:22 PM


    Not really sure what you're saying
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm going to try and parse what you've said so that I can understand it... but I might be wrong.
    TrueCreation writes:
    Science is the greatest source of knowledge because statements of fact about unobserved things are constrained by observations of nature.
    I think you're saying that science makes predictions of things we may not fully understand yet by analysing and understanding the things we do have and understand?
    If so, I agree. And I would say that this is the same method I'm attempting to describe here.
    Your demonstration of the non-existence of a thing called god requires that observation statements necessarily constrain unobservables which happen to be exceptions to rules of nature. It doesn't necessarily work.
    I'm having a tough time with this one. What are the "observation statments?" What are the "unobservables which happen to be exceptions to the rules of nature?"
    Are you trying to say that in restricting my method to the rational, that I've excluded God from the get-go because God is necessarily irrational? That is, that God is necessarily an exception to the rules of nature? Therefore, I need to accept irrational ideas (your suggestions about using philosophical statements...) in order to "correctly" ponder this question?
    When you say "rules of nature" are you trying to say something equivalent to "the things we rationally understand" such as Einsteins laws and our theories of how the world works? If not... do you know of any "rules of nature" that are not things that we rationally understand? If so... then if you are saying God is an exception to the rules of nature... you are defining God to be something that we "do not understand." In which case, again, God is something irrational.
    My point is that if we define God to be an irrational idea, that is the only part that actually "doesn't necessarily work." This is not a fault in my method, but a fault in those that choose to define God in this way.
    To borrow an example from Catholic Scientist, I think that ancient people were actually being somewhat rational when they worshipped the sun as a God. After all, the sun brings warmth, warmth brings the season of Spring, Spring brings new life to almost all animals. If this is our data set, it is a rational conclusion to think that the sun is a God. Eventually we investigated the sun to expand our data set and were able to rationally determine that the sun is just another inanimate object. Therefore it does not do any of the other things we tend to attach to a definition of God. This doesn't rationally mean that God must be somewhere else. This rationally means that the sun is not God and we need to find another line of rational reasoning to point us to thinking that God may exist somewhere else. And we did. We thought God was in the moon, in the stars, in the night sky itself, doing this, doing that... and we have investigated all these rational ideas. We have also discovered that they are all inanimate objects, and that nothing at all actually "does this or does that" (prayer healing, helping good people.... etc.).
    What we are left with, is no more "rational ideas" for where God may exist. We do, however, have plenty of "irrational ideas" where God may exist. Maybe in another dimension, maybe "beyond our universe", maybe many other places we can put words in a certain order to describe. However, we still must accept that there are no more "rational ideas" that point us to think that God might actually be in a certain place. Like the sun. This is a significant point in the search for God.
    At this point, it is rational to say "I know that God does not exist."
    Maybe it might be possible that some new rational idea for where God may actually exist might enter our area of understanding. And if that point does occur, then it is no longer rational to say "I know that God does not exist." Because then we would need to expand our data set and investigate such an area before being able to rationally conclude so. However, until that day comes, it is irrational to think that "I know that God does not exist" is unacceptable.
    "But you're demanding for God to be rational! What if God just happens to be irrational?!!"
    1. Let us assume that God is irrational.
    2. Therefore God exists.
    3. It is irrational for something to exist and not exist at the same time.
    4. Taking 1 and 3 together, we get that He is irrational and still doesn't exist!! Because that as well, is irrational, which we just assumed is an attribute of God.
    5. Therefore, I can still say "I know that God does not exist" anyway.
    Irrational ideas do not have an effect on rational analysis and rational conclusions.
    "I know that God does not exist" is a rational conclusion based on a rational analysis of the data we have.
    It doesn't acknowledge the irrational because doing so leads to the absurd.
    If you're going to open the door to irrational ideas, then you have opened the door into the absurd. I've also attempted a different explanation of this in Message 52 that leads us to no longer be able to say that we know 2 + 2 = 4.
    Of course, maybe this wasn't what you were saying at all and this post of rambling is all for naught. If so, please try to explain what it is you're trying to say again and I will try to understand it again.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 1:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 3:14 PM Stile has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    (1)
    Message 68 of 3207 (675586)
    10-12-2012 2:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
    10-11-2012 4:32 PM


    Re: Neener
    subbie writes:
    You don't actually maintain an agnostic position on the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a real person.
    Allow me to tweak your example slightly. I have a book which purports itself to be an actual biography of James Bond. It tells what "really" happened in some of Bond's adventures and it also contends that some of them were just made up by Ian Fleming.
    Nothing in the book suggests that it is fiction. So yes, I do maintain an agnostic position on whether James Bond was real. It's plausible that he was, just as it's plausible that Sherlock Holmes or Jesus was real. The one difference in Sherlock Holmes is that he was billed as fiction.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by subbie, posted 10-11-2012 4:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 69 of 3207 (675587)
    10-12-2012 2:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
    10-12-2012 1:39 PM


    Re: Good Summary
    Modulous writes:
    The problem you tend to run into, and the one in this thread it looks like, is when we're talking about the unfalsifiable. How can you essentially assert the falsity of that which cannot be established as false?
    Yes. It is a significant problem (to me, anyway).
    Your method avoids getting into this problem, which is very good to keep things succinct and get the point across.
    Part of the purpose of my method (and this thread) was to reveal this problem (or any others), to see if I could actually rationally defend them so I can tell if I actually understand the concept myself or not.
    I do happen to know that you've been through a lot already in formulating your understanding of such things. I consider this thread part of my process for formulating (maybe just double-checking?) my own understanding.
    For a note of interest, I am becoming more and more confident that my summary at the bottom of Message 60 is pretty solid:
    quote:
    I thank you very much for your replies. I wasn't sure how my stance would stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
    I think it does stand up, although it does hinge very much on a strict defintion of "how we know things" which comes from holding a personal priority on rationality and epistemology. (And honesty... but honesty is kind of assumed as a priority in any sort of academic thought experiment, I would think?)
    I do agree that if those things are not a personal priority, then my position is not a requirement.
    I also agree that if we do not remember the tentativity and non-absolute-truth-ideal that is included when "knowing things" then my statement is easily taken out of context and can seem like it's overstepping it's boundaries.
    I just think that my statement does rationally flow from the definitions I've provided.
    I also think that the definitions I've provided do match the general usage of "knowing things" that we use everyday.
    And I think that those who deny that my statement is acceptable are simply equivocating on the term "know" so that it means some sort of absolute-truth-sense for this statement... but those same people do understand that the term "know" does not include that same absolute-truth-sense when they use it in every day language for other non-God ideas.
    I might add that the equivocation on "knowing things" may or may not be consciously done. That's up to the individual to figure out and deal with on their own.
    I also may need to add something about the understanding of rationality when considering "knowing things" being another avenue for not accepting the statement...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 66 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2012 1:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 70 of 3207 (675588)
    10-12-2012 2:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
    10-12-2012 9:38 AM


    Re: Neener
    Stile writes:
    If we have checked all testable proposals, wouldn't you say that we have broadened our scope sufficiently to rationally say that "I know God does not exist?"
    How long did it take to find the Northwest Passage? We've only just begun to explore one little corner of the universe, so I think it's ludicrously premature to pretend that we've broadened our scope sufficiently.
    Stile writes:
    Do you know anything?
    I can say that I "know" how to do long division. I think we should leave it at that.
    Your idea of claiming we know something until we're proven wrong just seems silly to me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 9:38 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:22 PM ringo has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 71 of 3207 (675591)
    10-12-2012 3:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Stile
    10-12-2012 2:31 PM


    Re: Not really sure what you're saying
    quote:
    I'm having a tough time with this one. What are the "observation statments?" What are the "unobservables which happen to be exceptions to the rules of nature?"
    Are you trying to say that in restricting my method to the rational, that I've excluded God from the get-go because God is necessarily irrational? That is, that God is necessarily an exception to the rules of nature? Therefore, I need to accept irrational ideas (your suggestions about using philosophical statements...) in order to "correctly" ponder this question?
    Observation statements are statements describing something that is observed. The unobservables which happen to be exceptions to the rules of nature are the entities/objects/rules which are essentially supernatural.
    quote:
    When you say "rules of nature" are you trying to say something equivalent to "the things we rationally understand" such as Einsteins laws and our theories of how the world works? If not... do you know of any "rules of nature" that are not things that we rationally understand? If so... then if you are saying God is an exception to the rules of nature... you are defining God to be something that we "do not understand." In which case, again, God is something irrational.
    More aptly, the rules of nature are the things which allow us to predict what is unobserved using what is observed. They do not necessarily need to be totally rational, but their behaviors must be 'constrainable'. For instance, quantum indeterminacy may have an irrational basis, but quantum mechanics can be described by rules sufficient to predict observations.
    The problem of god is that it is necessarily (I suppose) beyond nature. The 'nature' of gods may or may not be rational, but our capacity to evaluate the truth or falsity of statements about gods is presumptive.
    quote:
    To borrow an example from Catholic Scientist, I think that ancient people were actually being somewhat rational when they worshipped the sun as a God. After all, the sun brings warmth, warmth brings the season of Spring, Spring brings new life to almost all animals. If this is our data set, it is a rational conclusion to think that the sun is a God. Eventually we investigated the sun to expand our data set and were able to rationally determine that the sun is just another inanimate object. Therefore it does not do any of the other things we tend to attach to a definition of God. This doesn't rationally mean that God must be somewhere else. This rationally means that the sun is not God and we need to find another line of rational reasoning to point us to thinking that God may exist somewhere else. And we did. We thought God was in the moon, in the stars, in the night sky itself, doing this, doing that... and we have investigated all these rational ideas. We have also discovered that they are all inanimate objects, and that nothing at all actually "does this or does that" (prayer healing, helping good people.... etc.).
    What we are left with, is no more "rational ideas" for where God may exist. We do, however, have plenty of "irrational ideas" where God may exist. Maybe in another dimension, maybe "beyond our universe", maybe many other places we can put words in a certain order to describe. However, we still must accept that there are no more "rational ideas" that point us to think that God might actually be in a certain place. Like the sun. This is a significant point in the search for God.
    You are correct that study of observable 'things' like the Sun, the stars, the moon, etc. has made conjectures about these objects being gods rather silly, but if you don't think these observations are amenable to theological rationalization, you'll be disappointed. The important point is better highlighted by your suggestion that prayer healing, helping good people, etc. is somehow an epistemic tool. If these things did happen when we sacrificed goats to Helios, that would be something, but the point of irrationality here lay in the belief that we be certain that these qualities are necessary for the existence of god, not necessarily that an unfalsifiable notion of god is itself irrational. One might say the irrationality is epistemic rather than ontological.
    Unless one can show that (1) if god exists it is of a certain type, and (2) that this type of god can be confirmed or disconfirmed/falsified by some observation of nature, it cannot be said that one 'knows' god does not exist, inasmuch as 'knowledge' involves a demonstration of truth.
    Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.
    Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.
    Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 2:31 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 72 of 3207 (675592)
    10-12-2012 3:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
    10-12-2012 2:50 PM


    Re: Neener
    ringo writes:
    How long did it take to find the Northwest Passage?
    But, there was rational indication that something was there... land/water leading to it that no one had been to yet. And the proceeding data set showed that when we investigated land/water we hadn't been to yet, we then discovered more geographical land/water locations.
    I am most certainly not suggesting that there are no more planets to be discovered.
    We've only just begun to explore one little corner of the universe, so I think it's ludicrously premature to pretend that we've broadened our scope sufficiently.
    Are you claiming that God exists somewhere else in the universe?
    What rationally makes you think God will exist somewhere else in the universe?
    When ancient people thought the sun was God... that was a rational avenue for investigation. The sun brought warmth, warmth brings the season of Spring, Spring brings new life for many plants/animals. Such a data set provides rational indication that God may exist as the sun. After investigation it turns out that the sun is just another inanimate object and they were wrong.
    The ancients were busy people, it was hard work hunting and killing your food all day just to live another few days and do it again. But maybe there was some ancients that had the time to sit around and think of stuff like us. Maybe if those ancients considered that God was not in the sticks or stones around them.. that God was not in inanimate objects... and the sun appears more like an inanimate object than it does anything else... if that was their data set, then they would be irrational to consider God as being the sun.
    We do not have this luxury. We do have the time to sit around and consider and discuss these things.
    We also have the data set that shows that every inanimate object we find out there does not contain God. From this we know that God is not an inanimate object. Maybe we can find some more inanimate objects that we haven't yet discovered... but to think that those are going to contain God while considering what we know about inanimate objects... is irrational.
    We also have the data set that shows that every thing we have ever discovered... does not include any indication that God exists.
    We also have the data set that shows when people suggest God exists somewhere, and we check... it turns out that God doesn't actually exist there. And they were wrong. Again. Many times.
    "But maybe God exists in a way that we haven't discovered yet?!!"
    -Yes, this is a question and a concern. But it is not a rational question and not a rational concern when considering our data set.
    Therefore, it has no effect on the rational conclusion from our data set that "I know God does not exist."
    I can say that I "know" how to do long division. I think we should leave it at that.
    I don't think we can leave it at that. If you take a read through Message 52, I describe that if we're going to allow irrational ideas to affect our statements about what we know... then we most certainly cannot say that we know long division, or any of the rest of mathematics.
    Your idea of claiming we know something until we're proven wrong just seems silly to me.
    Such a thing seems silly to me as well. But, this is not my idea.
    I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.
    That's an important part on the end that you left off. That's the part that makes it rational.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by ringo, posted 10-12-2012 2:50 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 3:37 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
     Message 75 by ringo, posted 10-12-2012 3:51 PM Stile has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 73 of 3207 (675593)
    10-12-2012 3:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by TrueCreation
    10-12-2012 3:14 PM


    Ideas and Data
    I stumbled across something in my Message 72 to Ringo.
    Ringo said to me:
    Ringo writes:
    Your idea of claiming we know something until we're proven wrong just seems silly to me.
    To which I replied:
    Stile writes:
    ...this is not my idea.
    I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.
    That's an important part on the end that you left off. That's the part that makes it rational.
    That's what I've been trying to describe.
    The conclusion in your message states:
    TrueCreation writes:
    Unless one can show that (1) if god exists it is of a certain type, and (2) that this type of god can be confirmed or disconfirmed/falsified by some observation of nature, it cannot be said that one 'knows' god does not exist, inasmuch as 'knowledge' involves a demonstration of truth.
    And I agree... almost. I agree that this only rationally applies if we apply it within the data set we have available to us.
    How else can we possibly ever know anything if it is not contained within or indicated to exist by the data set we have available to us?
    I agree that it is possible to conceive of things that are not in our data set that may (if they exist) overturn some of the things we "think we know" from within our data set.
    But to take these conceivable ideas that may or may not even exist themselves... and say that they should have an effect on a rational conclusion that is based on our collective data set... that is what seems ridiculous to me.
    If there is nothing within our collective data set that doesn't even indicate that "something" may exist outside of our data set... I find it silly to consider that such a "something" should have the power to overturn rational statements of knowledge that do come from a rational analysis of the data we do have.
    Anyway, gotta go for the weekend. Likely won't reply to anything until next week.
    You've certainly helped clear up some fogginess I've had in my own thoughts, if nothing else.
    Thanks for your help.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 3:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by TrueCreation, posted 10-12-2012 3:52 PM Stile has replied

      
    TrueCreation
    Inactive Member


    Message 74 of 3207 (675594)
    10-12-2012 3:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
    10-12-2012 3:22 PM


    Re: Neener
    quote:
    Such a thing seems silly to me as well. But, this is not my idea.
    I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.
    I don't see how this is significantly different from intelligent design's epistemology of ignorance.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:22 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 75 of 3207 (675595)
    10-12-2012 3:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
    10-12-2012 3:22 PM


    Re: Neener
    Stile writes:
    Are you claiming that God exists somewhere else in the universe?
    I'm claiming that you don't "know" He doesn't.
    Stile writes:
    What rationally makes you think God will exist somewhere else in the universe?
    Not "will" exist, could exist.
    Stile writes:
    ... then we most certainly cannot say that we know long division, or any of the rest of mathematics.
    It isn't just mathematics.I also know how to bake a cake. I know how to operate a table saw. I know how an airplane flies - to the extent that I could build one. I know how to get to France.
    I think you're misusing the word "know", diluting it from something that we can use on a repeatable basis to something that just hasn't been proven wrong yet.
    Stile writes:
    I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.
    "All areas we're able to investigate" begins with nothing and we don't know where it ends. At what point on that continuum do you decide that you "know" something?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:22 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 12:02 PM ringo has replied
     Message 378 by Phat, posted 01-23-2018 3:15 AM ringo has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024