Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 239 of 3207 (676499)
10-23-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by TrueCreation
10-22-2012 8:31 AM


Rational Swans
TrueCreation writes:
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.
I understand what God being unconstrained by nature tells us.
I agree that such a God would not be contradictory (or irrational) in itself.
What I'm talking about is that proposing the idea for such a God is not based on any information we have on hand (our "data set"). In this way, I find the proposal of the idea to be irrational (and therefore justifiably discarded as irrelevant).
We have never encountered anything that is unconstrained by nature or observation.
We have had many ideas proposed for things being unconstrained by nature or observation before (claims of magic or miracles, roman/greek gods...), but they have turned out to not exist upon further investigation (so far, for all the ones we've been able to check).
These are things I think are important when we want to seriously consider if something is rational or not.
In seriously considering if quantum mechanics is rational, we can look at the strange ideas it proposes... but we can also see a direct link from the data we do have that indicates the possibility of such strange ideas.
I have not heard of any direct link from the data we have that would indicate God being unconstrained by nature or observation is a possibility.
I think this is an important difference, and one that should require indication. This is what I'm calling splitting between irrational and rational.
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?
I'm not trying to say that this makes God irrational. I'm trying to say that the proposal of this idea is irrational because there is no indication from the data we do have to lead us towards this idea.
Example:
Let say we live in an area where only white swans exist. We study the swans, we understand the evolution of the swans. But all the ones we study and understand are always white.
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is irrational to propose the idea that "maybe black swans exist."
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is irrational to propose the idea that "maybe blue swans exist."
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is irrational to propose the idea that "maybe plaid swans exist."
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is rational to say "I know that all swans are white and that black swans do not exist."
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is rational to say "I know that all swans are white and that blue swans do not exist."
  • I'm saying that given this scenario, it is rational to say "I know that all swans are white and that plaid swans do not exist."
    Now, given the data set in the example and given the definitions of the words I have explained (and also think align with how most people use the words in everyday language...) I still think that all rational/irrational statements above are correct/valid.
    Now, lets take into account the following information:
    1. You and I know that black swans do, in fact, exist.
    2. I do not absolutely know if blue swans exist (personally, I've never heard of them, I have yet to attempt a googling, and I do not understand what makes black swans black... that is, I don't know if there are any known restrictions on the colour shift).
    3. I do not absolutely know if plaid swans exist.
    I would then alter the following statements to be:
  • (I would remove the black swan statements, as they are clearly false)
  • It is now rational to propose the idea that "maybe blue swans exist."
    -That is, I understand that swans are not restricted to being white only. There can be black swans. Why not other colours? Blue, especially, is rather close to black. It is possible that upon investigation there is some restriction in the swans' DNA that causes either white or black but nothing else... in which case I would have to revise this statment again. But here, with the data I do have, this is "rational" as I use the term.
  • It is still irrational to propose the idea that "maybe plaid swans exist."
    -Going to one colour is one thing, all of a sudden considering multiple colours in a specific pattern would require some sort of indication from the data set before it became "rational."
  • It is now irrational to say "I know that all swans are white and that blue swans do not exist."
  • It is still rational to say "I know that all swans are white and that plaid swans do not exist."
    (-same reasoning as above)
    This is how I'm trying to use the terms. If we take this same usage and apply it consistently to the proposed idea of God being unconstrained by nature or observation... then I must find such a thing irrational because there is no indication of such an idea from our data set.
    If I were to accept that such an idea of God was rational, and valid... then I could no longer say that "I know plaid swans do not exist."
    I find such a defintion to be unusable and not to align with the way I think of "knowing things" in everyday life.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 196 by TrueCreation, posted 10-22-2012 8:31 AM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 253 by TrueCreation, posted 10-23-2012 2:43 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 248 of 3207 (676516)
    10-23-2012 1:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
    10-23-2012 12:11 PM


    Re: A good foundation
    ringo writes:
    I have.
    Yes, you have said all these things previously. I apologize for requesting you to repeat them. It's just nice to have a concise summary sometimes and it certainly did make it easier for me to understand your position. Thank-you.
    I now understand your definition for "knowings things." I just disagree with it.
    I do admit that if we use your definition, then I certainly cannot say "I know that God does not exist."
    I disagree with your definition because I find it unacceptable that I cannot say "I know that the sun will rise tomorrow." I think that saying such a thing is part of the general use of the idea for "knowing things" in the general population. I think people would find it silly if I told them I didn't know if the sun was going to rise tomorrow or not. I will attempt to explain this below:
    I have said that knowledge can be demonstrated
    I agree with this statement, but not in the way you intend. I agree that knowledge can be demonstrated, but I do not agree that it is a requirement that knowledge be immediately demonstrated in order to know something about the future.
    That is, I think the sun rising can be demonstrated in the way of sitting and watching it for a few days (months, years?) and verifying that it does, indeed, rise every day (in our part of the world, anyway).
    I think that the lack of the sun "not rising" on everyday-we-have-accumulated-data-for-such-a-thing is enough indication from our data set in order for us to conclude that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."
    It is in the same manner that I think the lack of God "existing" in the data we have been able to accumulate after testing is enough indication in order for us to conclude that "I know God does not exist."
    I think that this restriction you've placed on "knowing things" leads to a few very peculiar concepts. Such as you knowing you can bake cakes... but you do not know that you can bake a cake tomorrow. I understand that there are a bunch of absolute truth problems standing in the way (you may not have a kitchen and ingredients available, or could get hit by a bus, or might forget how...). Even if we could assure that you will have a kitchen and ingredients available that you would not get hit by a bus, you could always forget how or somehow "end up with lasagna," as Straggler has mentioned.
    And yet these sorts of things (even if we do not include kitchen insurance and bus-free zones) don't seem to stop any other chef from saying they "know how to bake a cake tomorrow."
    In my experience with other people these sorts of as-yet-unindicated possibilities are assummed to be irrelevant whenever anyone says they know anything.
    It seems to me, that these sorts of possibilities, again, are only taken into account if there is some sort of indication from the data set that leads us to think that they are likely to occur.
    If we are stranded in the desert, I would not find it strange for you to say "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow." But if we're at your house, and we just came home from the grocery store, and planned to bake tomorrow morning, I would find it very strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow."
    Sure, we can think of other possibilities... maybe you're sick? Maybe we haven't paid the electric bill in some time?
    But without there being some indication from our data set that these ideas (or any other cake-blocking ideas) are actually valid concerns... it would seem incredibly strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow."
    I think that the way "knowing things" are genearlly understood in everyday concepts is important to defining the terms. I agree that there can be special cases, such as specifying "for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake." But I think that special cases should be reserved for special situations, not used in such a way to confuse the generally-accepted sense of the idea.
    Even cakes in the past... it's possible that you dreamed all those cakes. So you cannot say "I knew how to bake a cake yesterday." You can only say "I know how to bake cakes" at the moment you are actually baking a cake. Really? This sounds extremely restrictive, and I find it unacceptable.
    I have also said that "God" is a possible entity with powers that are not yet understood.
    Fair enough. With this definition for "God," I simply wouldn't say anything as we're not really talking about anything. I find it confusing to discuss an unidentified idea for which there is no indication it could even possibly be valid. We could be talking about aliens... which are most certainly not God's... Gee, we could even be talking about some strange species of ape that can live in some area of the world we thought was uninhabitable for apes. Wouldn't that be "a being" (an ape) "with powers that are not yet understood" (the ability to live in an area we considered uninhabitable)? Does it makes sense to call such things "God's"? The definition seems so broad as to render it useless. In order to not add confusion, I simply find the definition from Message 63 to be more aligned with what most people think about when they hear of "God." That is:
    quote:
    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
    In conclusion:
    Similarly, you don`t "know" that God doesn't exist - unless you define God as something that you haven`t found yet. You believe that God doesn't exist. There's a gray area between belief and knowledge and our disagreement is over the shade of gray.
    I do not think our basic disagreement is over the gray area between belief and knowledge. I think it is simply over the gray area for the definition of just "knowing things."
    I prefer to keep my gray as clean as possible.
    I try to do that as well. I just find that some dirtyness may be required in order to "know things" about my past, present and future based on an analysis of the data I have been able to accumulate. I find that to be acceptable.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 249 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:02 PM Stile has replied
     Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2012 12:14 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 250 of 3207 (676520)
    10-23-2012 2:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 249 by ringo
    10-23-2012 2:02 PM


    Re: A good foundation
    ringo writes:
    That's exactly why I prefer a tighter definition. We have a tighter definition than the general population for "theory". Why not for "knowledge" too?
    Well, you can if you'd like.
    I thought it would be nice if we just used the terms that are already in use.
    I would say, more precisely, that the data suggests that it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have a high level of confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.
    ...
    I'd say that I plan to bake a cake tomorrow and I have a fairly high level of confidence in my abilty to do so.
    And I would say that I understand you, however I would wonder why you speak so strangely and just don't say that "you know" such things like everybody else does.
    So you fnd it confusing to discuss God. If I was interviewing you for the job of God-finder, that wouldn't give me much confidence in your ability to do the job.
    Not exactly.
    I only find it confusing to discuss God with you. As this definition of "God" that you've proposed is simply confusing.
    But I would agree that if you were interviewing for God-finders... the pool of "atheists" may not be the best place to start. Might be a good place to finish after something concrete's turned up... but I don't think they'ed have the same passion as a theist in the beginning.
    This is why I also emphasize that irrational ideas should be pursued by those with the passion to do so. It's pretty likely that it'll come up with nothing... so they won't be wasting anyone elses time. However, if something objective does indeed turn up, then I fully endorse further investigation.
    I do not think "irrationallity" is all that negative a thing. I just think that it has it's place, and it's good for us to be able to identify that place and keep it there.
    I irrationally choose weird stuff off food menus sometimes. Like things I've tried before and didn't like (sometimes tried many times and didn't like it every time, even). Just in "the hopes" of something being different. It's not rational, but it's fun (for me). And it has the possibility of opening my data set into areas that are rational and interesting (and maybe even yummy!). Although such a concept in it's entirety is rational... it doesn't change the fact that the initial step... the idea of trying something in hopes of it tasting better after I've already tried it many times in the past and always disliked it... that's irrational and remains so.
    But really, if you like your definitions better, and think they serve you better... then by all means continue.
    I just like my definitions better, and I think they serve me better.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 249 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:02 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 252 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:39 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 280 of 3207 (677033)
    10-26-2012 12:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 257 by New Cat's Eye
    10-24-2012 12:14 PM


    Re: A good foundation
    Catholic Scientis writes:
    You'd say that people knew the Earth was flat... and that's just a load of horseshit
    I don't see a problem with saying that.
    I don't think that "knowing something" implies that it is absolutely true.
    I think that "knowing something" simply implies that an analysis of the data at hand has been done, and this is the result. That is, more than "just a guess."
    I mean, right now I would say "People in the 1800's knew that doctor's cannot grow lost limbs back."
    Is this a "load of horseshit?"
    It's certainly possible (maybe even likely?) that if the species continues to develop as fast as it has been medically and scientifically for the next 1000 years... that doctor's will be able to grow lost limbs back.
    If that happens, you're saying that this statement suddenly becomes silly to say? Isn't that what people in the 1800's knew about medical abilities? Regardless of what happens in the future?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2012 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2012 12:18 PM Stile has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 282 of 3207 (677040)
    10-26-2012 12:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 253 by TrueCreation
    10-23-2012 2:43 PM


    Re: Rational Swans
    If we cannot agree on a simple example, we're never going to agree on the subject of Gods.
    Let's just stick to that and see if we can work anything out.
    TrueCreation writes:
    I don't understand how you cannot see the absurdity of maintaining your position in the wake of an example like this. It is not remotely irrational to propose that "maybe black swans exist" unless you have unstated premises such as "A necessary characteristic of Swan-ness is being the color white" or that the premise that "we understand the evolution of swans" is equivalent to saying that "we understand the evolution of swans sufficient to claim that there can be no black swans". Your supposedly rational statement that "I know that all swans are white and that black swans do not exist" is absurd. Science would be incompetent drunkards if it were valid. I think that this shows precisely how epistemologically bankrupt your original claim is.
    There is no unstated premise such as "a necessary characteristic of Swan-ness is being the colour white."
    This isn't preventing black swans as much as it isn't preventing plaid swans.
    However, if we have studied swans all over the world, and we have never seen or heard of a black swan... you really think it's absurd to say: "I know that all swans are white and that black swans do not exist?" Why?
    I assume you think it's equally absurd to say "I know that all swans are white or black and that plaid swans do not exist?" Why?
    It is not remotely irrational to propose that "maybe black swans exist"
    Yes, it is. As irrational as it is to propose that "maybe plaid swans exist" such that we can no longer say "I know that plaid swans do not exist."
    Can you explain to me how such a statement about black swans could be rational based upon the example?
    If all the swans we've ever heard of or seen are always white... how is it rational to propose that "maybe black swans exist?"
    I fully admit that it can be an idea. But how is it possibly rational? Especially scientifically... how would you test it? Wouldn't you just watch the birth of swans for a while? And if they all, always, came out white... wouldn't you say that the proposal is falsified and therefore invalid?
    I'm saying that these tests have already been done (in the example we've studied swans and only ever seen white swans).
    I think the proposal would be rational if we just saw some white swans today for the first time. But if we've studies them... for years... and white swans always gave birth to white swans... and we never saw or heard of any black swans... how are you describing the proposal as rational? How else could you scientifically test it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 253 by TrueCreation, posted 10-23-2012 2:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 289 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 7:41 AM Stile has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 283 of 3207 (677042)
    10-26-2012 12:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 281 by New Cat's Eye
    10-26-2012 12:18 PM


    Re: A good foundation
    Catholic Scientist writes:
    I see people thinking the Earth was flat as being "just a guess" as opposed to a result of an analysis of the data. But maybe I'm just ignorant of the data that they did have that suggested that the Earth was flat. I'm having trouble imagining much data for that because the Earth is not flat. How would they go about establishing a flat Earth?
    Perhaps the flat Earth is simply a bad example.
    I was just assuming that they had data that did indicate the Earth was flat for them (maybe by not travelling very far, thinking it was a fact that there was an "edge of the world"... that sort of thing).
    But you do seem to agree with the other example?
    I would say that people in the 1800's knew that doctors could not grow limbs back, but I wouldn't say that they knew that doctors in the future would be unable to grow limbs back.
    This is all I'm saying.
    I'm saying that today I know that God does not exist.
    I wouldn't say that I know God is never going to exist in the future.
    I also say that I know the sun will rise tomorrow.
    But I wouldn't say that I know there will never be a day where the sun doesn't rise.
    There is an inherent acknowledgement of possible-wrongness included in anything anyone says they "know."
    All they mean is that it's their best result obtained from the data they have available to them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2012 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


    Message 294 of 3207 (677342)
    10-29-2012 10:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 289 by TrueCreation
    10-29-2012 7:41 AM


    Re: Rational Swans
    TrueCreation writes:
    You only seem to think that inference directly from available data is rational, which would, if accepted by the scientific community, almost entirely incapacitate investigation. It certainly would impugn nearly all of my work in theoretical geophysics.
    No, not necessarily "directly."
    Let's say we know white mice exist, and we know that black mice exist.
    Let's say we know white wolves exist, and we know that black wolves exist.
    Let's say we know white blackbirds(!) exist, and we know that black blackbirds exist.
    Then let's say we know white swans exist... and all the swans we know of (but we haven't checked the entire world) are white.
    Now I think it is quite rational to think that black swans may exist.
    ...but this comes from the data we have (as described in the example).
    What if we did check the entire world, and we still never found any black swans? What if we studied swans for 50 years, all over the world, every single swan... and all of them were always white?
    Then I think it is rational to say "I know that black swans do not exist."
    In the same way that I think it is rational to currently say "I know that plaid swans do not exist."


    Added By Edit
    You mentioned that black swans are native to Australia.
    I would like to add to the example that (to make things easy) all white swans are restricted to everything-but-australia and black swans are restricted to australia.
    Lets say australia hasn't been discovered yet. Therefore black swans haven't been discovered yet.
    All swans in the entire world (as we know) are always white.
    We learn that there's "a new area" called australia to go and explore (and that's all we've heard about it...)
    I'm saying that at this point it's still rational to say "I know that black swans do not exist" because there is no indication that black swans are going to exist in australia. To propose that they would, given that all the swans we know are always white... would be going against the evidence we have collected. Such a decision doesn't seem like an honest analysis of the data.
    It's like calling the idea "maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow" a rational thought. It's a thought, but there's nothing rational about it. It completely goes against all the data we do actually have.

    I am also very intrigued by your implication that science is off investigating anything that is not inferenced from the data we have. Could you provide us with an example? Perhaps maybe even something you're working on (if you'd like)?
    We should note, that ringo asked if I found it rational to think that maybe a McDonald's exists on another planet. And I do agree that such an idea is rational. We know that intelligent life can evolve on planets. I find it rational to think that similar (enough) intelligent life could evolve on other similar (enough) planets. Therefore, I would not say that "I know McDonald's does not exist on any other planet in the universe."
    I find it highly unlikely that you're working on something that cannot be inferenced from the data we have. I also assume you're getting paid for your work? I find it even more unlikely that you (or perhaps your colleagues/supervisors) were able to convince someone to give you funding without being able to explain how your current work is building off the existing knowledge.
    I also would not claim that all "investigation" is necessarily rational. I think it's quite possible that some irrational investigation can lead to concrete knowledge and new possibilities. If fire-breathing dragon lovers actually did find some sort of strange komodo-dragon that breathed actual fire... I would find that fascinating.
    However, I would still say that before such was found... it was irrational to think that fire breathing dragons existed.
    Edited by Stile, : Wanted to add a chunk in about Australia

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 289 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 7:41 AM TrueCreation has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 11:49 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 296 of 3207 (677417)
    10-29-2012 3:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 285 by Connie Muller
    10-28-2012 9:17 AM


    Connie Muller writes:
    I suppose it also depends on what your definition of God is.
    Definitely. I've proposed one in Message 63 which basically boils down to:
    quote:
    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 feel free to propose another. (The post I linked to above also describes some limitations I think should exist on the definition).
    I believe there is evidence of lastmentioned. Very visible evidence. The most recent post on my website gives detail - Giants in Greece.
    Very visible evidence would certainly give me cause to investigate and see if I should change my mind...
    Well, at least my ignorance has provided some mirth.
    That will teach me to do proper research before posting.
    Message 295
    ...but it seems you don't fully agree that it's very visible anymore?
    As you seem new to the site, if the thread goes into "summation mode" (where you can only post 1 more message) but you still have questions/comments about the topic... feel free to create a new thread about the topic. Or you can see if your comments might be on-topic in some of the other open threads.
    And if you want to know how I did all the fancy quotes and post-linking (or anything else you see in any other post)... just click on the "Peek" button in the bottom-right of a post. That will show you what was typed into the reply box in order to create that specific post.
    Welcome to EvC and hopefully you have fun!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 285 by Connie Muller, posted 10-28-2012 9:17 AM Connie Muller has not replied

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


    (2)
    Message 302 of 3207 (677512)
    10-30-2012 10:32 AM


    I know that God does not exist
    I think things are best summed up in the way suggested early on in the thread:
    Modulous writes:
    If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
    If I can say I know there are no fairies
    If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
    Then I say I know there is no God.
    ---From, interestingly, Message 42
    I ended up using a similar version near the end of the thread:
    Stile writes:
    I'm saying that today I know that God does not exist.
    I wouldn't say that I know God is never going to exist in the future.
    I also say that I know the sun will rise tomorrow.
    But I wouldn't say that I know there will never be a day where the sun doesn't rise.
    There is an inherent acknowledgement of possible-wrongness included in anything anyone says they "know."
    All they mean is that it's their best result obtained from the data they have available to them.
    ---From Message 283
    There seem to be two large factors to keep in mind:
    1. The definition of "knowing things" as given in Message 1. Remember that saying "I know ...." always includes a certain level of fallibility. If we change the definition of "knowing things" to mean something more along the lines of absolute truth, then the conclusion about God does not follow. To me, forcing "knowledge" to be equivalent to "absolute truth" removes the ability for us to say that we know many of the things we understand.
    2. The definition of God as given in Message 63. I attempted to use a definition of God that is as broad as possible, with a few caveats indicated in the linked message. Again, if we change the definition of "God" to be something other than discussed, of course the conclusion does not follow. I have yet to understand any reason to accept any alternative proposals of "God." Of course, God is a very personal concept and therefore it should be expected for this definition to vary greatly.
    As for TrueCreation's final message where I requested an example of scientific work that cannot be inferenced from existing data, my only point is to indicate that I've never requested for anything to be "demonstrably inferred from the data," only "rationally inferred from the data, as a possibility."
    To me, his provided examples are clearly rationally inferred possible lines of investigation from the previously existing data.
    Others may have alternative views, but I've run out of time for further discussion.
    After the thread, I conclude that my original statement of "I know God does not exist" stands up as a valid statement as long as I remember to keep in mind the fallibility of knowledge and my proposed defintion of God.
    I fully admit that if someone uses their own definition for "knowing things" or their own definition of "God," then yes, of course, my conclusion will not necessarily follow.
    Edited by Stile, : Spelling is for losers! If you feel the need to point out any existing spelling mistakes, I will feel the need to hunt you down. I won't... but I'll feel the need. Like a Top Gun pilot. All cool and playing volleyball and stuff.

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


    Message 310 of 3207 (720744)
    02-27-2014 12:27 PM


    Evidence that God does not Exist
    This is a continuation from another thread where a response would have been off-topic.
    Here is the message I'm replying to:
    Eliyahu writes:
    I'm very interested in the proof that God does not exist. Can you give me some of that lots and lots of evidence?
    Preferably the most strong and compelling you have available.
    Message 30
    Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.
    First, you're not interested in proof.
    Proof has no meaning to you. You don't have proof for the position you already hold (assuming that you think God exists).
    Therefore, even if you did get proof for another position, it likely wouldn't mean anything to you.
    I can, however, show you the lots and lots of evidence for why God does not exist, which is what I claimed.
    Preferably the most strong and compelling you have available.
    Well, let's use a statement you've made so that it hits home with you:
    Eliyahu writes:
    Only God exists.
    Besides Him there is nothing.
    And when I say nothing I mean NOTHING.
    Of course there are always obstructionists who will claim that there is a whole universe filled with all kind of things big and small, and that therefore there do exist things beside God.
    To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God.
    Message 1
    Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing.
    And, as I said, I can show you lots of evidence that you're completely incorrect about this.
    Lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.
    What am I holding in the palm of my hand?
    The answer, of course... is "nothing."
    I'm not holding air, I'm not holding space, I'm not holding God... I'm holding nothing in the palm of my hand.
    There is nothing there.
    Certainly no God.
    That, for one... destroys all your repeated capital letters in a single blow. And all I had to do was look at my own hands.
    This is evidence that God does not exist.
    But it is not lots and lots of it.
    So, we start to look at where else God may be:
    Some say God is at church. But, no God at church.
    Some say God is in the miracle of life. But, no God when two people get together and have a baby. No God at conception, no God at birth, no God in any of the middle parts. Just two people. (That's why it's called "the miracle of life" and not "the miracle of God").
    Some say God answers prayers, but no God has ever answered a prayer.
    Some say God is in the details, but we've looked at the details and no God is there either.
    Some said God powered the weather, but we looked there and there was no God.
    Some said God created the earth, but we looked there and there was no God.
    Some said God created the universe, but we looked there and there was no God.
    We have looked everywhere anyone has ever said to look for God. No God is ever there. No sign of God, no shred of God, no God is ever found, anywhere... ever.
    This is "lots and lots of evidence" that God does not exist.
    Now, you just have to decide if you're the sort of person who thinks "following the evidence, when there is lots and lots of evidence" is something that helps lead us towards reality.
    It's certainly known to make mistakes.
    But it's also certainly known to be the best method we've ever used for understanding the way things really are.
    I'm just here to give you the information. I really don't care what you do with it... that's your life and you're free to do whatever you'd like.
    I'm not even sure if I fully believe in it.
    But the evidence is still there.
    My belief (or non-belief) in it is irrelevant.
    Your belief (or non-belief) in it is irrelevant.
    The evidence exists, and there's lots and lots of it.
    And all of it is telling us that God does not exist.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 311 by Phat, posted 02-27-2014 7:39 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
     Message 312 by Phat, posted 03-03-2014 2:27 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
     Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 316 of 3207 (721155)
    03-04-2014 10:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
    03-03-2014 11:59 PM


    Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
    You do not seem to know much of what you speak about. I think we should start with the basics:
    Eliyahu writes:
    You really think that if you cannot see it, then it doesn't exist??
    I don't think you understand.
    I totally agree that just because we cannot see something then this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    However... if we look for something where it is supposed to be and cannot find it... ever... then this is evidence that it doesn't exist.
    Do you understand this concept?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 328 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:54 AM Stile has replied

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


    Message 325 of 3207 (721290)
    03-06-2014 10:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 324 by Phat
    03-05-2014 11:55 AM


    Re: Do you know
    Phat writes:
    Which brings up the question of whether or not we can test other peoples subjective experiences.
    Not really.
    I think the question is whether or not you think "people's subjective experiences" are worth testing.
    ...when we're not even sure if we can test them.
    ...and we know that they are generally unreliable.
    ...and there is lots of actual, normal evidence.
    Say we were wondering if anything else existed. What would you look for?
    People's subjective experiences would be great for getting you started. Then you'd look into their stories and see what you find.
    What if you never found anything substantive?
    What if most of humanity searched for thousands of years and still never found anything substantive?
    Isn't this the situation we have for God?
    It doesn't mean God absolutely does not exist. Such a thing may not be possible to show.
    It does, however, mean that "all the available evidence" is pointing towards God not existing.
    Then it's up to you to decide if this is the sort of thing you want to "follow the evidence" for... or go your own personal route on.
    There's nothing "wrong" with either answer.
    But it's only honest to acknowledge what's going on and what we're doing.
    The data is inconclusive regarding individual reports. Occasionally, some will report seeing or hearing something, but not everyone sees nor hears it. Occasionally, some may report feeling something...(inconclusive as to which sense was used...unless we allow for a sixth sense.) One fact remains. There are times when not every member of the team agrees on data.
    Sounds quite similar to all the original (and ongoing) stories about God.
    But it's not like we just heard these things and that's all we have.
    We've double-checked, triple-checked... and millionth-checked. Always... nothing substantive.
    We've searched for thousands of years... still nothing substantive.
    The evidence exists, and there's LOTS of it. The only question is whether or not you want to follow it.
    In a sense, our discussions add slowly to the data. We are the members of that search team.
    I agree.
    And, after all our discussion (for thousands of years, even) we still have... nothing substantive for God existing.
    The data for this conclusion is overwhelming. The question isn't whether or not the data is reliable or exists... the question is only whether or not you want to accept the conclusion that the evidence is pointing towards.
    As long as you base your "knowledge" on evidence... then you can say "I know that God does not exist" as much as you can say that you know anything else based on evidence.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 324 by Phat, posted 03-05-2014 11:55 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 326 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:05 AM Stile has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 327 of 3207 (721460)
    03-07-2014 12:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 326 by Phat
    03-07-2014 10:05 AM


    Re: Do humans even want God by nature?
    Phat writes:
    How do you test for the supernatural? Some claim to have found God.
    Who cares?
    Lots of people claim to have all sorts of things. Some actually have it, some don't.
    How do you tell?
    You see if there's an actual difference.
    Some people claim to be great downhill skiers. Some are, some aren't. How do you tell?
    Watch them ski.
    Some people claim to have found God. How do you tell?
    Well... that depends on what you think "God" is for.
    Does "finding God" make you a more loving person?
    Then watch what kind of person they are.
    Does "finding God" give you everlasting life?
    We'll only find this out when we die. Not even the person claiming it knows...
    Does "finding God" mean everything in your life is going to be easy now?
    Then watch how easy their life is.
    "Finding God" can mean so many different things (or combinations of things) that it's basically an irrelevant phrase.
    If you think being a loving person is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, watch what kind of person other people are and find those who are loving.
    If you think having everlasting life is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, you'll find out what happens when you die.
    If you think that having an easy life is important... then it doesn't matter if someone's "found God" or not, watch the life that is led to see if it's easy or not.
    What's the important part about "finding God"? No one has answered that question with anything that cannot be obtained without God anyway... So, if all the factors about "finding God" are available without God... what does the phrase actually mean?
    If it doesn't do anything... then who cares?
    My question: Evidence of what? God? If I use you and your mind as part of my data I would conclude...upon examining you, that you honestly have no conviction, conceptualization, or belief concerning any God as defined by human literature being objectively real. If, however, I examine my Pastor, I see that he has a conviction,conceptualization, and belief...as well as anecdotal experience concerning at least the Christian concept of God. His behavior reflects it.
    I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.
    You've only provided the conclusion of your findings.. and asked me to comment on the evidence.
    If you want me to comment on the evidence... you'll have to provide me a difference in the evidence for me to comment on.
    What sort of behavior does your Pastor have that someone should aspire to have in the first place?
    If your Pastor has a behaviour you think is important, and you also think it's only available because he "has a conviction, conceptualization, and belief"... then what is it?
    I cannot say which is actually better unless you describe what we're actually talking about.
    From what you provided, all I can say is "Phat likes it better when his Pastor agrees with him about believing God exists then when Stile disagrees with him." Which, is... well... kind of obvious.
    If you want to imply that your Pastor is somehow better because of his belief... you'll have to provide what you think actually is better.
    Now...you may well argue that due to the fact that you could produce a given atheist who behaves similar to my Pastor---in that he cheerfully feeds the poor, comforts the sick, encourages the young and old alike...without conceptualizing God in any way(bypassing the Jesus thing...remember? Phat--->Jesus----good works vs Stile---->good works) the data thus suggests Jesus and/or God as unneeded and thus not a required conceptualization/belief.
    Yes, I could very easily argue that because you have yet to provide a reason why such an idea is undesirable.
    I can argue why it is desirable: It's more direct. Therefore, there's a deeper understanding/connection to the end goal (good works... love, life, happiness, fun...).
    Perhaps you believe that God/Jesus would be welcomed by you should evidence/data become available.
    I don't have to believe that I would welcome God/Jesus if evidence/data became available.
    I have a track record of accepting when I'm wrong and following the path shown to be correct.
    Me continuing in that fashion is more of an expectation then it is a belief.
    The dogma suggests, however, that humans by nature do not want God/Jesus.
    I doubt this is true.
    But even if it is, I don't see how it matters.
    Aren't you asking me these questions? If so... what does it matter what anyone else thinks?
    I've told you many times that I would really be happy if God/Jesus actually existed and did some wonderful things. It's just that there's no evidence of such... and lots of evidence saying that they don't exist.
    So I deal with what I can and move forward.
    So far, moving forward in this direction has only been confirmed by additional evidence. None yet to indicate that it may be the wrong path. This doesn't mean it's right... but it does mean I'm doing what I can with what I have. Does your God ask for more? (That's a rhetorical question... If your God actually did ask for more it would mean your God is evil).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 326 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:05 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2352 by Phat, posted 12-31-2019 3:00 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 338 of 3207 (721697)
    03-11-2014 12:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 328 by Eliyahu
    03-11-2014 12:54 AM


    Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
    Eliyahu writes:
    No. Don't understand at all.
    Fair enough. I'll show you how you use it every time you post here. (Or do anything, really...)
    If we don't find what we're looking for, it might just mean that we don't have the necessary instruments to perceive what we are looking for.
    Or it might mean it doesn't exist. How do we tell? To honestly answer a question about the state of reality, we follow the best method we've ever devised for understanding reality... we follow the evidence.
    You do know that your computer runs on electricity, right?
    And that an electrical shock can have dire consequences to your heart-beat, right?
    Is it possible that the next time you post here at EvC... you'll get an electrical shock from your computer that stops your heart and you'll die?
    Or... maybe such a lethal electrical shock from your computer does not exist. How can we know? Well, we follow the evidence, of course:
    The evidence (people using electronic devices all over the planet everyday) shows us that people do not die due to electrical shocks from their normal PC when using the internet.
    Therefore, if you follow the evidence, you can say "I know that the next time I post at EvC I will not get an electrical shock that will kill me."
    Or... we can follow your idea that "maybe we just don't have the instruments to perceive that Eliyahu will get an electrical shock that will kill him the next time he posts at EvC."
    So... what will it be?
    Will you follow your idea and never post here again?
    Or do you understand how to follow the evidence and you'll reply?
    I think you do know how to follow the evidence.
    Of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    It means we know it doesn't exist.
    It is our best possible means of ever determining that anything doesn't exist.
    So... when we have lots of evidence, and all of it tells us that God doesn't exist... then it means that God doesn't exist.
    Compare it with my electrical shock example above:
    We have lots and lots of evidence that a lethal electrical shock from using your computer does not exist.
    We have lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist.
    We have evidence that electrical shocks exist and can kill you.
    We do not have any evidence that God exists.
    We have evidence that computers can cause electrical shocks.
    We do not have any evidence that God can cause anything.
    Even though we have some evidence of computers and electrical shocks and damage... you still post at EvC. This means that regardless of what you say... you do accept that you know you're not going to die the next time you post at EvC. You do accept that "you know a lethal electrical shock coming from your computer does not exist."
    However... we don't even have some evidence that God exists in any way shape or form. We don't even have any evidence from results that God could produce if He existed.
    Therefore, on the same grounds you should also accept that "you know that God does not exist" even more than you accept you won't die the next time you post.
    Of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    The state of reality is the state of reality.
    In order to understand the state of reality, we use our best method for understanding reality.
    Whether or not God exists is a matter of reality.
    Following the evidence is our best known method for determining the state of reality.
    Your choice if you want to follow the evidence or not.
    By following the evidence... I know that God does not exist.
    By following the evidence... I know that God does not exist even more than I know you won't die the next time you post here at EvC.
    Your actions of continuing to post at EvC show that you understand how to follow the evidence for the non-existence of a lethal electrical shock coming from your computer.
    Your choice to remain consistent and apply the same reasoning to God.
    Or not. I don't really care if you follow the evidence or not. But I will point it out if you're being dishonest about it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 328 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:54 AM Eliyahu has not replied

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


    Message 340 of 3207 (721699)
    03-11-2014 12:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 337 by ringo
    03-11-2014 12:20 PM


    Not dealing with absolutes
    ringo writes:
    The problem with knowing a negative, such as "there is no God", is that there is never enough data.
    The problem with never knowing a negative, such as "there is no monster under my bed" is that you can't get out of bed.
    Evidence: other people get out of beds and do not die from monsters.
    Evidence: every time you look there is no monster under your bed.
    You get out of bed because you have evidence that there is no monster under your bed.
    You get out of bed because you know there is no monster under your bed based on following the evidence.
    I know that God does not exist based on following the evidence.
    I've just dropped the "based on following the evidence" part... because in everyday life, this is generally assumed in the way everyone uses the word "know."
    Like I said in the first message... no one's talking about "100% reality for sure-sure's." Because such a condition is a currently unattainable measure that no one uses for anything else in life.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 337 by ringo, posted 03-11-2014 12:20 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 342 by ringo, posted 03-11-2014 12:41 PM Stile 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