Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:52 AM
280 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 277 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829303132
33
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6308
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 481 of 489 (830652)
04-04-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Phat
03-26-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Phat responds to me:

quote:
The whole problem with your line of reasoning is that it is Rrhain-centric.

No, the contrapositive is true despite who is involved.

If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.

quote:
You may well be able to poof God out of existence in your own mind, and your logic may be impeccable, but if God exists, he needs no acknowledgment from an actor named Rrhain.

So god exists by not existing?

Or are you engaging in ad hoc? Consider the possibility that the thing you mean when you say "god" isn't what is actually there. "Oh, but then *that's* what I mean!" That's the ad hoc fallacy.

I don't deny that there is the possibility of some amazing being out there. After all, compare the abilities that we as humans have compared to other living things we've noticed on this planet. But just as we are not "god" compared to viruses (even though we are able to create viruses de novo), that other being would not be "god" but just another being, part and parcel of existence.

But you might disagree with that concept of "god." This is why it isn't up to me to provide that definition. It isn't my burden of proof.

You're the one saying that god exists. You're the one who needs to define what it is you mean by that word.

If your definition is such that it results in a logical contradiction and you're happy with that, then there is nothing more that could be gained by continuing.


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 479 by Phat, posted 03-26-2018 10:27 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Phat, posted 04-04-2018 4:31 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 482 of 489 (830657)
04-04-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 3:39 PM


Rrhain writes:

And even more inexplicably, YOU disproved god, too. You, who claims it cannot be done, did the very thing you're certain is impossible.

Must everything be repeated to you every single time?

What both you and I have done is demonstrate that a particular belief about a particular god is wrong. I suggest you get on with the rest.

But maybe a short cut would be to attempt - using science - to demonstratie that a non-theistic god doesn't exist? I don't hold out much hope, I expect you'll continue to play word games, but you never know, you might be the one person in the world able to disprove god. Go for it big boy, your ego is certainly up to it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 3:39 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:50 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10663
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 483 of 489 (830662)
04-04-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 4:04 PM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Rrhain writes:

I don't deny that there is the possibility of some amazing being out there. After all, compare the abilities that we as humans have compared to other living things we've noticed on this planet. But just as we are not "god" compared to viruses (even though we are able to create viruses de novo), that other being would not be "god" but just another being, part and parcel of existence.

But you might disagree with that concept of "god." This is why it isn't up to me to provide that definition. It isn't my burden of proof.

You're the one saying that god exists. You're the one who needs to define what it is you mean by that word.

So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong...) all that you are doing is disproving each God that we create/define/describe. In order to do this, you start with the default conclusion that no God exists. Which may or may not be true.

Technically you win this argument by shifting the burden of proof onto the positive truth claims as they are slow-pitched to you one at a time...which shows that you are great at verbal softball, but have done nothing to disprove the God who may exist...regardless of and despite our feeble attempts at definition.

In other words, I am challenging your initial ground rule of no God as a default position. May or may not is the standard...not does not.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:04 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 8:20 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6308
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 484 of 489 (830667)
04-04-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Tangle
04-04-2018 4:10 PM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
What both you and I have done is demonstrate that a particular belief about a particular god is wrong. I suggest you get on with the rest.

What "rest" is there?

What do you mean by "god"? You're the one saying that it can't be disproven. Well, you disproved it. Are you saying that wasn't what you meant by "god"? Then what did you mean? We'll overlook your straw godding and wait patiently for you to provide the definition of "god" that you're referring to. Remember, I'm not looking to convince anybody else but you. Thus, we need your definition, not someone else's.

Go for it, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat. Your ego is...well, we won't get into speculation about it lest that lead down an inappropriate road. Instead, we'll just remind you that you seem to be capable of defining what you mean by "harm" over in the Religious Special Pleading thread (Message 206):

Harm is a well defined legal concept, moreover everyone knows exactly what it means; particularly when they're harmed.

Did you think I wouldn't notice?

Or perhaps your ego is getting in your way of doing the same thing here.

Spin the merry-go-round, Tangle. 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 482 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:10 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:52 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 485 of 489 (830668)
04-04-2018 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 4:50 PM


Now you're just being boring.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:50 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 7:29 PM Tangle has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6308
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 486 of 489 (830674)
04-04-2018 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by Tangle
04-04-2018 4:52 PM


Tangle completely abandons his argument.

Well, whenever you wish to actually try, we'll be here.


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 485 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:52 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 3:42 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6308
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 487 of 489 (830675)
04-04-2018 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Phat
04-04-2018 4:31 PM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Phat responds to me:

quote:
So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong...) all that you are doing is disproving each God that we create/define/describe.

You're the one claiming god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to define what you mean by "god." We'll then examine it to see if there are any contradictions. If so, you can conceivably change your definition (after all, that's how science tends to work: You hypothesize and test and then adapt your hypothesis to the data) or, if the contradictions are bad enough, you abandon it completely.

quote:
In order to do this, you start with the default conclusion that no God exists. Which may or may not be true.

The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is brought forward to contradict it.

Note, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. But note, you have to be careful not to ascribe causes to effects without evidence. We know that there is a world around us (ignoring any solipsistic arguments). We know that we exist. How did we get here? "I don't know" is perfectly fine. To then insist that one of the possible causes for the effect of the world and life is "god did it" is to assume that which you are trying to prove. We don't know what you mean by "god" and you haven't provided any justification for why such a thing would even exist let alone be responsible for the effect you are claiming this "god" object caused.

quote:
Technically you win this argument by shifting the burden of proof onto the positive truth claims as they are slow-pitched to you one at a time

Incorrect. You have that backwards.

It was never my burden of proof. I am not the one making the claim. It is the ones who insist that god exists who must prove the existence of such. If you're going to insist that you be allowed to keep the word "god" as a meaningful term, then you're the one who needs to provide a definition for it. It is you who is attempting to shift the burden of proof so that you can avoid responsibility for your argument.

If you don't have a definition for it, then that word "god" doesn't actually refer to anything. And if it doesn't refer to anything, how can what it refers to exist? That word means something. What is it? You're the one who believes in it, so you're the one who needs to tell us what you mean. That definition might be vague and tenuous (f'rinstance, we have a term, "dark matter," but nobody can tell us what it really is...the only reason we have it is because of an effect we can directly see regarding the rotation of galaxies and our understanding of how gravity works), but it is still there.

At the risk of being glib:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

quote:
In other words, I am challenging your initial ground rule of no God as a default position. May or may not is the standard...not does not.

Then you deny logic. "May or may not" is not the standard. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is put forward to reject it. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to show why.

"I don't know" does not indicate "god did it" is a possibility. That assumes that which you are trying to prove:

What do you mean by "god"?
How do you know this "god" object exists?
How do you know this "god" object is capable of whatever effect you are trying to ascribe responsibility to?
How do you know this "god" object actually did the specific effect under examination?


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 483 by Phat, posted 04-04-2018 4:31 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 488 of 489 (830686)
04-05-2018 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 7:29 PM


Rrhain writes:

Well, whenever you wish to actually try, we'll be here.

The burden is on you; when you are able to demonstrate the non-existence of god using science - your claim of a couple of hundred posts ago - I'll happily read it. 'Til, then we can assume your claim is puff.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 7:29 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2018 8:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6308
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 489 of 489 (830736)
04-05-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Tangle
04-05-2018 3:42 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
The burden is on you

Incorrect. You're the one making the claim. You are the one claiming that god cannot be disproven.

Therefore, it is your burden of proof to justify that claim. It starts with you defining god. Once that is done, you can the display your evidence that leads to a conclusion that this "god" object cannot be disproven.

I then have the opportunity to pick through your defense of your argument and attempt to disprove it. But you have to go first because (say it with me):

You're the one making the claim.

When you are able to demonstrate what it is you mean by "god" and show how it cannot be disproven, your claim of a couple hundred posts ago, I'll happily read it. Till then, we can assume your claim is puff.

Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. 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 488 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 3:42 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2829303132
33
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018