Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 3207 (676351)
10-22-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Stile
10-19-2012 11:33 AM


Re: Remaining Rational
quote:
t's just that something (anything... regardless of it being God or not) being "unconstrained by nature or observation" seems irrational to me. Which is why I then dismiss the rest of your entire argument... because if your defintion of God is irrational, then it doesn't have an effect on my rational conclusion. (Do you agree with that? ... "if" such a definition was irrational?)
I think the mistake is that you are conflating an epistemic or methodological irrationality with an ontological irrationality. That god is unconstrained by nature or observation only tells us that we cannot necessarily use nature or observations to understand god. This does not mean that god is irrational in itself, such as would be the case if god was presumed to have contradictory characteristics, such as being a married bachelor. Although I don't think I've even gone into details about what an appropriate definition of god would be, even if I did I don't think anything would be said that would make god itself irrational. I have only maintained that making truth claims about god is what is irrational.
quote:
If it is true that all things we have ever known "to exist" are all constrained by nature or observation, then wouldn't it be irrational to suggest that anything (regardless of it being God or not) exists that is not contrained by nature or observation?
Well, we do not know if all things are constrainable by nature or observation. It is conceivable, for instance, that we will never know how our universe came into existence because no aspect of our universe may be used to predict the properties or behavior of the universe at t=0, let alone t<0. Science is trying it's best, but it might fail. Similarly, you talked about quantum mechanics--yes it is apparently true that the quantum world behaves in accord with certain rules, but it remains that some metaphysical theories about quantum mechanics are indeterministic--i.e., precise behaviors cannot be constrained. I don't think that just because the rules of quantum mechanics suggests that ever electron in your body is actually occupying the entire volume of the universe that it or quantum mechanics does not exist.
Nevertheless, the real problem is, what do you do when it is supposed that god is a supernatural entity? Why does this make god irrational? For all we know it could be even more rational than quantum mechanics by, for instance, operating in a fully deterministic system. In addition, entire theodicies are based on explaining quantum mechanical indeterminism by invoking the supernatural domain of god (e.g. see John Russell's book "Alpha and Omega"). This 'supernatural system' may be constrained by a new set of rules which we may never be able to access or infer from observation of natural systems. This doesn't mean that god is irrational. I means that it is irrational to make truth claims about god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 11:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 11:45 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 197 of 3207 (676355)
10-22-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tangle
10-21-2012 3:55 AM


Imagination without experience?
Those that had evidence of elephants knew they existed. Those that had no evidence didn't imagine them.
We know that man imagined gods to explain things that weren't explicable at the time. That's why there are so many disgarded gods.
Don't you think this is a contradiction? How did the early humans imagine something they had no experience with? I see this as very advanced thinking on the part of the early humans. Other animals don't appear to recognize the sun or moon as supernatural beings, but just as facts of nature. Their activities are regulated by them, but how do they imagine a supernatural existence of which they have no experience?
People imagine non-existent animals that have properties they dream of, horses with wings, dragons, sea monsters, unicorns (I don't know why.)
Right. We construct reality based on our experiences. Yes, we imagine things that aren't there. Yes, our imaginations are powerful and can create powerful images that can frighten and control, but these images are based on our experiences; they don't materialize out of nothing.
It's fun to imagine super poweful things to 'explain' things we don't have answers to yet - but it's not rational.
Maybe this is true in modern man, but I don't think it explains how the idea of a supernatural being came to be in the first place.
Wouldn't it make more sense that early humans had experience with the supernatural. Then when they tried to pass on that experience to subsequent generations they could only build on images and experiences that they had. For example, lets say a human has an encounter with a supernatural being and he tries to describe that encounter to another human, say in a different tribe. He tells them "Unga, brite light, hurts eyes, can't look at, me scared!" Now those that he is relating the story to can imagine the sun, so they make that connection and begin to think of the sun as the thing responsible for the encounter.
Subsequent generations began to imagine this encounter in even different ways, like giving them anthropomorphic qualities, making them human like, etc...
Why can't your statement read: "Those that had evidence of the supernatural knew they existed. Those that had no evidence didn't imagine them." And then once they imagined them, they could imagine all kinds of crazy things about them. But don't you think that at least the first imaginations needed some kind of foundation for their imagination?
So is it possible that the supernatural is both based on human experience and a product of human imagination? Obviously gods like Thor and Zeus are products of human imagination, but the concept of the supernatural would seem to have its origins in human experience.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 3:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Tangle, posted 10-22-2012 11:39 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 10-22-2012 12:07 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 198 of 3207 (676356)
10-22-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by herebedragons
10-22-2012 10:54 AM


Re: Imagination without experience?
herebedragons writes:
Don't you think this is a contradiction? How did the early humans imagine something they had no experience with? I see this as very advanced thinking on the part of the early humans.
Imaging things is what humans do - it's part of us and probably a side-effect of language. It's normal and global. Children do it from virtually the year zero. There's an article here which explains it better than I can in a few words:
404 Not Found
Other animals don't appear to recognize the sun or moon as supernatural beings, but just as facts of nature. Their activities are regulated by them, but how do they imagine a supernatural existence of which they have no experience?
This hardly bears answering - animals don't have our brain.
Right. We construct reality based on our experiences. Yes, we imagine things that aren't there. Yes, our imaginations are powerful and can create powerful images that can frighten and control, but these images are based on our experiences; they don't materialize out of nothing.
We can imagine virtually anything. People that are creative in a normal state can imagine the most bizarre things; the mentally ill and the drug induced (Shaman) even more so. Our brain is capable of some astonishing thoughts. Imagining that there's a father in the Sky that created the earth and all that's in it is extremely trivial - it's simply an extension of ourselves.
Wouldn't it make more sense that early humans had experience with the supernatural.
No, it would just be an alternate explanation; but one that has no evidence to support it.
Obviously gods like Thor and Zeus are products of human imagination,
That's obvious to us now - but it certainly wasn't then. People made up a solution to the problem of thunderbolts that was wrong - that's all.
but the concept of the supernatural would seem to have its origins in human experience.
Well it does - but the experience is not of a god, it's of having a creative, curious brain imagining a plausable solution for a problem.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2012 10:54 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 3207 (676357)
10-22-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by herebedragons
10-22-2012 10:54 AM


Re: Imagination without experience?
HBD writes:
How did the early humans imagine something they had no experience with? I see this as very advanced thinking on the part of the early humans.
Do you mean this guy...?
Yeah - it must have been difficult to imagine...erm...a big flying man.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2012 10:54 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 200 of 3207 (676382)
10-22-2012 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tangle
10-21-2012 6:30 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:
Just because it's not possible to totally exclude the existence of a god does not magically make one exist.
And nobody is saying that it does. But it does preclude knowledge of his non-existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 6:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 10-22-2012 2:18 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 10-22-2012 2:20 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 201 of 3207 (676383)
10-22-2012 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by ringo
10-22-2012 2:04 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
ringo writes:
But it does preclude knowledge of his non-existence.
My problem with this kind of statement is that I don't think it actually means anything.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:04 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 202 of 3207 (676384)
10-22-2012 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by ringo
10-22-2012 2:04 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
And nobody is saying that it does. But it does preclude knowledge of his non-existence.
Depending on one's definition of "knowledge." As was said very early in this thread, there's a very large difference between "knowledge implies certainty," and "knowledge implies a tentative position that is currently thought to be the position vastly more likely to be accurate than alternatives."
By the former, I do not "know" anything. By the latter, I "know" that there are no ghosts, I "know" that we are not in the Matrix, I "know" that extant organisms evolved from ancestors over many generations, I "know" that the Earth is billions of years old, and I "know" that the things called "gods" do not exist.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:38 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 203 of 3207 (676386)
10-22-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rahvin
10-22-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Rahvin writes:
... "knowledge implies a tentative position that is currently thought to be the position vastly more likely to be accurate than alternatives."
Rahvin writes:
... and I "know" that the things called "gods" do not exist.
There is no standard current thought on whether that position is more or less likely than the alternatives. That alone disqualifies it as "knowledge".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 10-22-2012 2:20 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Rahvin, posted 10-22-2012 2:43 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 204 of 3207 (676387)
10-22-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by ringo
10-20-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:
They were only a product of our imaginings until we found them.
Were they even a concept before anyone had found them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 205 of 3207 (676388)
10-22-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by ringo
10-22-2012 2:38 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
There is no standard current thought on whether that position is more or less likely than the alternatives. That alone disqualifies it as "knowledge".
Appeal to popularity. The fact that there is no "standard current thought" is irrelevant. For centuries the "standard current thought" was that the Earth was flat, even after an educated few had become aware of the evidence for a roughly spherical planet.
I "know" that there is no "god" for the same reason I "know" a pen is not on my desk. I looked. The absence of conspicuous, strongly expected evidence strongly implies absence. I am not certain, because all knowledge is tentative and I am absolutely certain of nothing, but if I can say that I "know" whether a pen is on my desk, I can with the same level of confidence assert that I "know" there are no "gods" by any definition of the term you or I would recognize.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 3:01 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 206 of 3207 (676389)
10-22-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ringo
10-20-2012 2:39 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Ringo writes:
Possibilities lead to knowledge.
What makes you think that gods are even a possibility other than our ability to imagine them as such?
Why are gods to be considered any more of a possibility than immaterial unicorns or any other baselessly conceived entity I can pluck from my humanly-imaginative-arse?
Seriously - Why are they worthy of any more consideration?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 207 of 3207 (676392)
10-22-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Straggler
10-22-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Straggler writes:
Were they even a concept before anyone had found them?
How can you find something that isn't even a concept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 2:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 2:56 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 208 of 3207 (676393)
10-22-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ringo
10-22-2012 2:54 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Well if no-one had conceived of elephants before finding them they would be discovered before being conceived of.
Duh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 3:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 209 of 3207 (676395)
10-22-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rahvin
10-22-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Rahvin writes:
For centuries the "standard current thought" was that the Earth was flat, even after an educated few had become aware of the evidence for a roughly spherical planet.
And they didn't "know" that the earth was flat.
Rahvin writes:
... but if I can say that I "know" whether a pen is on my desk, I can with the same level of confidence assert that I "know" there are no "gods" by any definition of the term you or I would recognize.
As I've already pointed out more than once, you're not using the same goalposts for the gods as you're using for the pen. You know that there's no pen "on your desk" and you know that there are no gods "where you have looked". But you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of all the places you'd need to look before you could know that gods don't exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rahvin, posted 10-22-2012 2:43 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Rahvin, posted 10-22-2012 3:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 210 of 3207 (676397)
10-22-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Straggler
10-22-2012 2:49 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Straggler writes:
What makes you think that gods are even a possibility other than our ability to imagine them as such?
What makes you think anything is a possibility?
This is how science works: We imagine a possibility. Then we devise ways to test that possibility. Only when every test has failed can we say that something is impossible. The catch is that we can never know if we have tried every possible test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 3:15 PM 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