Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 439 of 3207 (829484)
03-08-2018 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Tangle
03-04-2018 2:27 AM


Tangle avoids the question:
quote:
quote:
Is there a reason why you deny that which you were able to do?
I refer you to message 430. You wish to confuse beliefs about god with the existence of god. But you know this.
Since I didn't respond to this post of yours which was not directed at me int eh first place, why do you say this? At any rate, your rebuttal is founded on a fallacy.
You write:
It think that's proof that those holding particular beliefs about a young earth etc are wrong about them, not that their god doesn't exist. They're just not reading his runes properly.
You mean believers don't know what they believe in? Who are you to tell someone else that they don't know the object of their own worship? Their definition of god includes this god acting a specific amount of time ago to create the entire universe. If it turns out that the age of the universe disagrees with that claim, then that necessarily means their god does not exist, in direct contradiction to your claim.
It would appear that you are engaging in the ad hoc fallacy, redefining what you mean by "god" in the face of disproof. So I guess you're going with the second disproof I provided: There is no definition of "god" and since things without definition necessarily don't exist, then god does not exist.
So you have your choice of how your claim fails: You can continue to engage in an ad hoc fallacy, redefining what is meant by "god" every time evidence is brought forward to disprove the necessary requirements that follow from said definition of "god," or you can simply abandon all definitions of "god" and thus resign yourself to "god" not existing at all since the term "god" would not mean anything.
Make your choice.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 3:26 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 443 of 3207 (829529)
03-08-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Tangle
03-08-2018 3:26 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
quote:
Make your choice.
I have made my choice, it was and is to hold you to your claim that you can prove the non-existence of god using science.
Which I did.
In two different ways.
And posted multiple times.
And yet here you are still complaining, even though you posted a disproof of god yourself.
I have no idea if anybody here is surprised at this, but it is very telling.
So it would seem you have chosen a third method of failure: Stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "LALALALALALA!"

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 3:26 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 444 of 3207 (829531)
03-08-2018 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Phat
03-08-2018 10:38 AM


Phat responds to Tangle:
quote:
It seems to me that all that rrhain can do is disprove the validity of one's definitions.
Logical error: Equivocation. Everything we do is a "belief" in that context. To a believer, the object of their belief is a real object no different from any other object in that sense of being real. How do you recognize an object? By comparing its traits to the definition of said object: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck....
We don't complain about this in any other situation. If we were to come across a crime scene, we would be able to engage in forensics to determine certain things about how the crime was carried out and traits about the perpetrator. If we come across a contradiction between the suspect and the forensic investigation, we rule the suspect out.
But somehow when it comes to god, the contradiction between god and the investigation of the universe around us means that we somehow don't understand the universe around us rather than ruling god out.
That's known as the logical error of "special pleading." The same process that allows us to disprove a suspect in a crime is somehow completely invalid when it comes to disproving god. You don't get to have it both ways.
quote:
Since he believes that something undefined cannot exist, he claims victory.
That isn't a belief. That is merely a truism: If something cannot be defined (and once again, that does not mean there is a definition but we simply don't know it...it means that no definition is possible), then it necessarily cannot exist. How does one discuss something for which there is nothing to describe? If something has no traits of any kind, how can it possibly interact with anything, thus displaying its existence? Again...not that we don't know what the traits are but that there are no traits to know.
I realize that this is problematic for some. It's the difference between saying that "atheists believe there is no god" and "atheists don't believe there is a god."
quote:
God, however, does not need any of our individual proofs nor definitions in order to exist.
Never said it did. People deny reality all the time. People who are emotionally invested in their beliefs will not give them up easily. We've been through this before, Phat.
But here's the thing, all you've done just now is say that your mind is closed and no evidence will convince you otherwise. God may not "need" our proofs in order to exist, but if the traits ascribed to god contradict reality, then that necessarily means that god doesn't exist.
You then have your choice of either engaging in ad hoc redefinitions of "god" so that you can continue to believe or you can abandon all definition of "god" and completely erase it from existence...while insisting that something that has no substance of any kind still has substance.
quote:
jars construct explains it well:
quote:
If GOD exists, She exists regardless of any evidence She does not exist.
Incorrect. This is a reversal of how proof works. This is like the claim that "Scientists say bumblebees can't fly." It isn't what scientists said. It is trivial to show that bumblebees can fly. What was said was that given what we knew about aerodynamics, we cannot account for how bumblebees fly. Note, we did not say that "god did it."
If god exists, then contradictions between the definition of god and reality need to be accounted for. Otherwise, said god necessarily cannot exist. Mere assertion is insufficient.
quote:
If GOD doesn't exist, It doesn't exist regardless of evidence It does exist.
Incorrect. Once again, this is a reversal of how proof works. If god doesn't exist, then contradictions between the disproof of god and reality need to be accounted for. Otherwise, said god necessarily does exist. Mere assertion is insufficient. We can trivially show that bumblebees can fly no matter how much rigid-wing aerodynamics on a macro scale say there isn't enough energy to allow them to do so (notice the festive clues in there which is why scientists never said bumblebees cannot fly).
quote:
In other words, the argument is not framed by human definition...apart from the logic of this construct.
Incorrect. The argument is precisely framed by the definition. Again, the problem seems to be a confusion between the idea that there is a definition, we just don't know it and the idea that there is no definition to be had no matter what.
If you can't define what it is you believe in, how can you say you believe in it? That's the essence of those who say, "Just look around!" They're not being very specific or detailed in their definition, but it's there: "The universe is too complicated to have happened on its own, therefore something must have done it."
And yet, when we do the work of looking around at the universe, we see that no, it isn't "too complicated." It is self-organizing and we can see it self-organizing right before our very eyes. The fact that the "look around"-ist is not clever enough to understand the physics, chemistry, and biology of the world around us doesn't mean nobody else is.
Since the default state is that there is no god (null hypothesis), it is up to the one who believes to define what is meant by the term "god" and to provide evidence showing its existence. That's the burden of proof. Tangle (and you and seemingly jar) seek to reverse that for the case of god.
That's not how this works.
That's not how any of this works.
I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they do not equal 5. If your god requires that 2 + 2 = 5, then any disproof of that also disproves god. But, it isn't up to me to say that your god requires that 2 + 2 = 5. After all, it isn't my god. It's yours. I'm not trying to convince me. I'm trying to convince you. And thus, you're the one who has to define what you mean by "god" or you'll simply accuse me of "straw godding" (and would be correct).
If you cannot define what you mean by "god," how do you know what you believe in?
And if you refuse to define what you mean by "god," how can it possibly be said to exist?
So we're back to the question Tangle keeps running away from: What is the definition of "god"? You put forward one and I rebutted it. You haven't responded to it, I notice.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Phat, posted 03-08-2018 10:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 445 of 3207 (829532)
03-08-2018 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Tangle
03-08-2018 5:10 PM


Tangle waves his hands:
quote:
Not quite, what he wants to do is argue definitional semantics instead of what he claims he can do which is disprove the existence of god.
Incorrect. What I want are physical traits that can be compared against reality to determine if there are contradictions for if there are, then that means god does not exist.
quote:
He knows he's wrong, hence the disingenuous diversion.
Strange...that's what I was going to say about you: You know you're wrong, hence the protracted stu---er---"disingenuous diversion."
It's why you disproved god yourself (using a very similar argument to the one I used) and yet are still here complaining.
quote:
Which of course is pure crap. Atoms, giraffes and rocks existed before they were defined.
And you will note I never said otherwise.
Once again, you confuse not knowing the definition with no definition to be known.
But you know this is the source of your failure which leads one to speculate as to why you continue to evince it.
Burden of proof is on you. You're the one saying that god cannot be disproven. Therefore, you're the one who needs to define what you mean by "god" so that we can examine your claim for accuracy.
By refusing to provide a definition of "god," you necessarily cede your argument as false. Things without definition do not exist.
But spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. Pretend the problem is merely that the definition of god isn't known as opposed to there not being a definition of god to be known. I'm sure you'll get something new this time.
C'mon...you know you want to.
SPIN IT!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 5:10 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 2:50 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 448 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 453 of 3207 (829573)
03-09-2018 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Tangle
03-09-2018 2:50 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
quote:
Incorrect. What I want are physical traits that can be compared against reality to determine if there are contradictions for if there are, then that means god does not exist.
Then I suggest you get on with it. Do what you claimed to be able to do, else stfu. I'm not going to do your work for you.
Already done.
In three different ways (Message 400, Message 405, Message 422).
And posted here multiple times (Message 407, Message 414, Message 434).
You even repeated one of them (Message 430).
So it appears you did do my work for me after I showed you how to do it.
If you disagree with the disproofs, it would behoove you to be specific as to why. Is the definition of "god" incorrect? If so, how? What is the correct definition of "god"? You're the one saying that god cannot be disproven, therefore it is your burden to define what is meant by "god."
Spin the merry-go-round, Tangle. I'm sure you'll get something new.
C'mon...you know you want to.
SPIN IT!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 2:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 3:23 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 454 of 3207 (829574)
03-09-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Phat
03-09-2018 10:06 AM


Re: The Irony
Phat writes:
quote:
Which I think speaks volumes.
Indeed...the silence coming from you regarding my response to your "god" does speak volumes.
By the way: I have never said I was an atheist. It's very telling of you to presume that.
And I'll leave your self-indulgence regarding "humility" at that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 455 of 3207 (829577)
03-09-2018 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Phat
03-09-2018 10:10 AM


Re: Believe It Or Not
Phat responds to me:
quote:
But that's the essence of belief. The definition is not based on logic or fact.It is based on belief.
Irrelevant. I never said the definition was based on logic or fact. I merely said it existed. Are you honestly saying that believers in god don't have any conceptualization of what it is they believe in? No concept at all? That "god" is a meaningless term that they spend their time and energy in devotion to? It doesn't matter where it comes from or how it is constructed. The vending machine doesn't care if the quarter you stick into it came from the Denver or the Philadelphia mint. So long as it is the right shape, weight, etc. it is considered a "quarter."
It doesn't matter where your definition of "god" comes from so long as there is a definition.
quote:
To actually make up one's own story in order to define the God in whom they believe seems a bit far-fetched.
And yet that's what lots of people are doing. They aren't happy with the definitions of "god" that they are getting from organized religion and yet they can't shake the idea that "something" is out there ("Look-around-you"-ism), so they define "god" on their own terms. For crying out loud, even members of a particular sect have this. You don't honestly think that all the Catholics in the world, all 1.2 billion of them, have the same understanding of what "god" is, do you? Protestants and Catholics certainly don't agree on everything ascribed to "god" despite both claiming to be "Christian"...to the point that certain Protestants claim that Catholics aren't Christian and the official position of the Catholic church is that the Protestants are misguided. And that ignores how the Orthodox fit into it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:10 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 457 of 3207 (829781)
03-13-2018 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Tangle
03-10-2018 3:23 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
quote:
Is the definition of "god" incorrect? If so, how?
If you need to get into a Monty Python definitional debate about what words mean, you've failed before you've begun.
You're the one saying that "god" cannot be disproven. Therefore, you're the one with the burden of proof on defining "god." Otherwise, you will claim "straw godding" (and rightfully so).
The fact that you refuse to define what you mean indicates that your claim is false since things without definition do not exist.
quote:
If your entire point is that people have many different ideas of what god is
Nope. That isn't it at all. Try again. If you had been paying attention to the posts to which you are responding, you would know this.
Hint: Does the phrase "ad hoc" mean anything to you? What about "null hypothesis"?
Let me give you a more nuanced response: Believers are already certain that other people's "gods" don't exist (exercise for the reader: How? What arguments are used by believers?) Thus, we're only looking at one definition. That's why we need the person who is claiming that god cannot be disproven to define what it is they mean by "god."
quote:
But you claimed you could disprove god using science. Let's see you disprove them all one by one followed by the general concept of God itself.
What do you mean by a "general concept of god itself"? Such a definition would necessarily be acceptable to all who believe in god, wouldn't it? Therefore, you're the one with the burden of proof on defining "god." Otherwise, you will claim "straw godding" (and rightfully so).
The fact that you refuse to define what you mean indicates that your claim is false since things without definition do not exist.
Off you go. Get back to me when you have decided to justify your own argument.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Tangle, posted 03-10-2018 3:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:42 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 466 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 12:15 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 470 of 3207 (829931)
03-18-2018 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:42 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
My argument is that no-one has yet proven the non-existence of god, scientifically or otherwise.
And yet I have.
In two different ways.
You even provided one for yourself.
We've been through this before. Why do you keep persisting in something you know to be false?
You claim that it can't be done, so explain what the problem is or shut up. I'm not doing your work for you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 4:35 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 471 of 3207 (829932)
03-18-2018 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Tangle
03-14-2018 3:00 PM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
I agree it’s a fool’s errand, unfortunately Rrhain said he could do it.
And I did.
In two different ways.
You even gave a disproof.
So why do you keep persisting in something you know to be false? If you want a discussion, then you need to defend your argument. If you don't like the definition of god given, if you think it's a "straw god," then your burden is to define what you mean by "god."
Until then, we are left with the null hypothesis and the truism that things without definition do not exist.
Get on with it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2018 3:00 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 472 of 3207 (829933)
03-18-2018 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Phat
03-16-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Gods attitude towards our "attitudes"
Phat writes:
quote:
what effort is wasted in belief?
What do you mean by "belief"? That is, what are the effects of "belief." One can merely have the occasional, momentary thought here and there and that would hardly have any significant effect.
But belief has this amazing habit of turning into action. You engage in certain behaviours because of your beliefs. We went through this regarding your magic "water": It wastes your money. It leaves you gullible to the next scam that comes along...especially from those who conned you the first time. It is not "harmless."
This is leading straight toward Pascal's Wager: Better to believe and be wrong than to no believe and risk hell. We all know it's a crock. Which god are you supposed to believe? The various ones proffered are mutually exclusive. And that assumes we understand the mind of god which might put more value on those who tried to live independently rather than following a sketchy narrative that is clearly inadequate at best...or worse, just went through the motions in order to win a bet.
So we're back to where we started: Waiting on the believer to define what they mean by "god" and putting forward evidence that said god exists.
Burden of proof and all that.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 11:54 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 473 of 3207 (829936)
03-18-2018 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Phat
03-16-2018 12:15 PM


Re: Rrhaining On Definitions
Phat responds to me:
quote:
Not sure I agree with the claim that things without definition cannot exist. Take this response:
Questions | AskPhilosophers.org
Ask Philosophers writes:
(from the internet) I suspect you may be principally concerned with the problem of affirming that something (X) exists, and whether this affirmation is meaningful if we lack a definition of X. On the face of it, there would be a problem with someone claiming: "Call the reporters. There is something I will refer to as 'N,' but I have absolutely no idea or definition of what 'N' might be. It could be an animal or number or time of day, for I know." Such a claim would be as bizarre as what we find in Alice in Wonderland. Even so, I suggest that we should distinguish claims about meaningful speech and claims about what does or does not exist. Even if we cannot make claims about what does or does not exist without (at least vague) definitions, it is another thing to claim that there only exists things we can make meaningful claims about. Sadly, we can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force which we cannot comprehend (and thus we cannot define) That is such a grim thought to end this reply, let me change the example: we can imagine that cancer and depression might be eradicated by a force that we human beings cannot comprehend or define.
To me, this argument makes as much sense as your claim.
The problem is that it changes the subject: We know that there is a thing called "cancer." We have a definition of it. We can see tissue without cancer, cancerous tissue, and watch the former turn into the latter. "Eradicated" means something that we understand. That the "force" is poorly understood, we still have a definition of it: It is the thing that "eradicated" the "cancer."
When people talk about "god," they have an idea of what it is they are talking about. It's why we have the word "god" at all.
It's related to a question I have often posed regarding Adam and Eve somehow knowing that they should have obeyed god and not the serpent, even though they hadn't eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and thus didn't know good from evil yet. It's from an acting exercise I had when I was starting out:
Beetaratagang.
Clerendipity.
In the exercise, you are trying to get your partner to do something. One of these words is a "positive" means of persuasion while the other is "negative." Using only those words (and using them appropriately...you wouldn't scream one and be physically threatening if the word was supposed to be "positive"), get them to do what you want such as sit down or leave the room.
So here's the thing: Which is which? Which word is the positive one and which one is the negative one? You don't know what the definition is, but there is a definition. Would you even deign to say such words without knowing what you meant by them?
It isn't that the intentions behind those words don't exist just because you don't know what those words mean. There is a definition to be had.
So now remove even that. Those words don't mean anything. Not merely that you don't know what those words mean but that there isn't any meaning to be had (after all, perhaps I am an unreliable narrator...can you be certain that those words really do relate to what I claim they do? Perhaps they are just nonsense and don't mean anything.)
The point is, again, that people understand what they mean when they use words. When people talk about "god," they have an idea of what it is they mean.
Otherwise, it's merely a nonsense syllable.
Look at the example given: "We can imagine the whole human species perishing from some force." Um..."force"? That has a meaning. It can be nebulous and vague, but we have a concept. For example, it's a reference to an externality. The response is insisting that the definition must be crystal clear in order to exist and that simply isn't true.
We already do this with regard to science: "Dark matter" and "dark energy." We don't really have any idea what these things are, but we have a very diaphanous definition for them based upon real effects that we see: Something is causing the galaxies to rotate as if there were more gravity than can be accounted for by their visible mass. Something is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion. We don't know what's doing it, but we do know that something's going on and in order to have a way to communicate what we're talking about, we invented phrases that we can use to refer to those things.
Newton didn't know what caused objects to fall to earth, but he knew that something did and that it was called "gravity." He could describe how it happened, but he didn't know what it was (and even now we still have some questions about it.)
But back to what I have said repeatedly: There is a difference between not knowing the definition and there not being any definition to be had. To take the example given of the person reporting something, we can ask questions: Was it something that was seen? Heard? Smelled? Felt? Where? When? If thorough questioning indicates that there is no actual phenomenon of any kind, then we conclude that there was nothing there.
After all, how can something be declared to exist if it has absolutely no interaction of any kind with anything? The reporter is the one making the claim and thus carries the burden of defining just what it is that is being claimed. If the claim can't be described, then how can it exist?
And thus, we have the three positions I made before:
1) A definition exists which can be examined, possibly to conclude that it doesn't exist (as proving negatives is something that happens all the time.)
2) The definition is meaningless (such as being so vague as to describe an entity that has no effect of any kind) which indicates it doesn't exist.
3) The definition does not exist which necessarily means it doesn't exist.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Phat, posted 03-16-2018 12:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 475 of 3207 (830252)
03-25-2018 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Tangle
03-18-2018 4:35 AM


Tangle channels his inner kindergartener:
quote:
quote:
And yet I have.....You even provided one for yourself.
Nope
Yep.
quote:
what we both did was point out that an individual's beliefs about their god were wrong; not that their god does not exist. If I incorrectly claim that my sister is older than me, my sister doesn't vanish in a puff of pseudo-logic.
Do you truly not see the problem? It's been explained to you many times. Let's go back to the very first post I made to you about this (Message 400):
When your definition of god includes the claim that god created the universe about 6000 years ago with a worldwide flood killing all of humanity but 8 about 2250 BCE, then the fact that we can show the universe to be billions of years old and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago and that humanity didn't collapse to 8 individuals at that time does, indeed, disprove god.
If theists wish to change their definition, then they can do so. Of course, they run the risk of going afoul of the ad hoc fallacy, but the definition of god is their responsibility, not the atheists'. Burden of proof, and all that.
Note the point: The definition of god "includes the claim." That is, the trait being proffered is part of the definition.
In your example, you're assuming the existence of your sister. The definition of "sister" does not include an age in relation to you, only a familial one.
If you were to say that your definition of "sister" were to include "a being who is two years older than me and was the child of my parents," then if we were to find that there is no such person, then we would rightly say that your "sister" does not exist. For you to bring forth someone who is younger does not mean you have a "sister" unless you then redefine what it is you mean by "sister" to correct that age discrepancy...such as by dropping any comment to age.
This is why it is important for you to define what you mean. You run the risk of changing the goalposts.
And, of course, you still haven't defined what you mean by "god." If you're going to complain about this, I suggest you get started with providing your definition. I don't need to eradicate someone else's definition of god. That would be "straw godding." I'm not looking to convince anybody else.
I'm looking to convince you.
And since you refuse to define what it is you mean by "god," we are left with the null hypothesis: There is no god by default. Things without definition do not exist.
Edited by Rrhain, : Typo

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2018 4:35 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 3:18 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 477 of 3207 (830261)
03-26-2018 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Tangle
03-26-2018 3:18 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
quote:
If you were to say that your definition of "sister" were to include "a being who is two years older than me and was the child of my parents,"
Obviously wrong.
Why? Did you provide a definition of what you meant by "sister"?
See, most people don't have a definition of "sister" that includes an age. You can have older sisters and younger sisters (and it is conceivable that two children could be delivered via C-section at the same time, though that would be highly unusual, and thus be the same age). Thus, your statement about your sister being older than you isn't really a definition of "sister" but rather a way to describe the specific person who happens to be your sister.
And here's the thing, if you insisted that "*my* sister is two years older than me" and we were to bring forward someone who is two years younger, there are a couple possible responses: One is that the person is not your sister. The other is that your definition of your sister is incorrect.
But let's suppose that your definition of "sister" is correct and that if you had one, she would be two years older than you. If we were to examine things and find that there is no person who is two years older than you, indeed that there never was any person two years older than you, then if we are going to insist upon your definition of "sister" as such, then we necessarily conclude that there is no "sister." For in order for there to be a sister, she must be two years older than you and since there is nobody who is two years older than you and never was, then there cannot be a "sister."
Unless, of course, you change the definition of "sister."
And thus, we're back to the crucial point you keep running away from:
How do you define "god"?
quote:
The human belief that God created species as we see them today does not make that god disapear when it is proven that species evolve.
It does if that's part of the definition of "god." It sounds like you have a definition of god that doesn't include it having anything to do with the diversity of life on this planet.
Are you truly having that much trouble with the contrapositive?
If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.
If there is a god, then it purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created the diverse species on the planet.
The species on the planet were not purposefully, consciously, and deliberately created.
Therefore, there is no god.
Notice the dependency: Y is dependent on X. You may not think that the diversity of life on this planet is dependent upon god, but other people do and that is part of their definition of "god."
This is why you need to provide the definition of "god." Anything else would be "straw godding." We need to know what the dependencies are and you're unwilling to give them. One almost gets the impression that you have no idea what the word "god" means.
Since a thing without definition doesn't exist, we are left with the null hypothesis: There is no god.
This is why it is important for you to accept that you screwed up, that I did do precisely what you claim couldn't be done, and that this is all just you spinning the merry-go-round.
So spin it again, Tangle.
C'mon...you know you want to.
SPIN IT!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 3:18 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 5:45 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 479 by Phat, posted 03-26-2018 10:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 480 of 3207 (830647)
04-04-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Tangle
03-26-2018 5:45 AM


Tangle runs away:
quote:
If you want to discuss the infinite number of definitions of god I suggest you open a new thread which I won't be joining.
Nope.
I just need to know the one *you* mean. I'm not out to convince anybody else except you. You've been running away from this the entire time. You're so certain that "god" cannot be disproven, but you refuse to define what it is you mean by "god."
One is left wondering if you even know what you mean when you use that word.
And if you don't, how can you possibly justify your claim? After all, you're the one making the claim. Therefore, it is your burden of proof. This entire ridiculousness has been your feeble attempts to shift the burden of proof.
quote:
Meanwhile my sister exists and can be proven to exist whether or not I'm incorrect about her age, her hair colour, her height her educational background, her husbands second name, her preference for ketchup over brown sauce or any other artifact you care to mention.
That's because the definition of "sister" doesn't include any of those things. We've been through this, Tangle. Do you really need to have it repeated to you every single time?
quote:
Similarly god may or may not exist regardless of what you believe about him/her/it.
Logical errors: Argument from ignorance. Red herring.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean anything is possible. Null hypothesis still applies. It is up to the one claiming the existence of god to prove that it exists, not the other way around. I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show they don't equal 5.
And as has been stated repeatedly, this isn't about merely not knowing about the definition but rather whether a definition is even possible. Must everything be repeated to you every single time?
quote:
And you, like everyone else there's ever been and ever will be are unable to disprove him/her/it.
Except I have. In two different ways.
And even more inexplicably, YOU disproved god, too. You, who claims it cannot be done, did the very thing you're certain is impossible.
I can only suggest that you get on with writing up your definition of "god" so that we can get started.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2018 5:45 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:10 PM Rrhain 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