Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 8:17 PM
379 online now:
14174dm, Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, jar, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux, Porosity (7 members, 372 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,377 Year: 16,983/21,208 Month: 2,872/3,593 Week: 339/646 Day: 102/115 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1635
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 331 of 377 (721665)
03-11-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 12:57 AM


Re: Borel
Really? You do know that Dr Adequate has a PhD in mathematics, don't you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:57 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 2:52 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 252 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 332 of 377 (721666)
03-11-2014 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Pressie
03-05-2014 1:08 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

Nope. That is an argument for a deist God existing more than 14 billion years ago. That's it.

Bs'd

It's more than an argument, it is strong proof. Order just doesn't come out of nowhere, on the contrary, it disappears into nowhere, see the law of the entropy.

It's defiitely not an argument for a personal God existing today.

If such a personal God existed then, it seems as if it has disappeared somewhere between 14.5 billion years ago and today.

It might seem so to you, but for the vast majority of the world population who are religious, it doesn't seem like that.

So your seeming doesn't prove anything. And since there is no other evidence of God expiring in the last 14 billion years, the reasonable approach is to assume He is still around.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Pressie, posted 03-05-2014 1:08 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 252 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 333 of 377 (721669)
03-11-2014 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Pressie
03-11-2014 1:15 AM


Re: Borel
Really? You do know that Dr Adequate has a PhD in mathematics, don't you?

Bs'd

I checked it out, the math is correct, but the second assumption, that something happened with a chance of 1 in 8 x 10^67 is simply wrong.

When you shuffle a deck of cards, and every one of the 1 in 8 x 10^67 possible combinations you can get is acceptable, like in the example given by Adequate, then your chances are 1 in 1, or 100%.

The only time when you get a chance of 1 in 8 x 10^67, is when you in advance state what combination you want to get, and then start shuffling, and then you get the forementioned order, then a miracle happened.

But of course, that will never happen. Just try it.

And the other option, that when you shuffle you'll get some kind of order, will always happen, just try it. Your chances are 1 in 1, a hundred procent.

This is so basic, so elementary, that it looks much more like Adequate is a primary school drop-out than a mathematician.


"According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over."
Harold Gans, mathematician and professional code breaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Pressie, posted 03-11-2014 1:15 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2014 11:59 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1635
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 334 of 377 (721670)
03-11-2014 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 1:14 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist doesn't exist
Again, you forgot to mention that

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

Pressie writes:

"God is no longer necessary."

Why did you not mention this about Hawking? Why do you try to mislead people about Hawking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:14 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 335 of 377 (721692)
03-11-2014 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 12:54 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
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?

No. Don't understand at all.

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.

Of course it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How do you ever know when you need to go to the store to buy more milk, or whatever?

How do you know that you just don't have the necessary instruments to perceive the milk?

I mean, I look in the fridge and I see the empty milk jug. So, to me that means that there is no milk in my fridge and I need to go buy more. But jeez, maybe I'm just lacking the necessary instrument to perceive the milk. How will I ever know that I need to buy more!?

Please help I don't know what to do!


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

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 336 of 377 (721693)
03-11-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 2:52 AM


Re: Borel
When you shuffle a deck of cards, and every one of the 1 in 8 x 10^67 possible combinations you can get is acceptable, like in the example given by Adequate, then your chances are 1 in 1, or 100%.

The only time when you get a chance of 1 in 8 x 10^67, is when you in advance state what combination you want to get, and then start shuffling, and then you get the forementioned order, then a miracle happened.

Oh wow. You really don't know how wrong that is?

Really? Please tell me you are not this dumb.

You have got to be joking.

I mean, you're here on the internet, you can learn how statistics work if you really want to. And that, is completely and horribly wrong about how stats works.

This is so basic, so elementary, that it looks much more like Adequate is a primary school drop-out than a mathematician.

Oh. My. God.

Please tell me that was a joke. You simply cannot be this retarded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 2:52 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 337 of 377 (721696)
03-11-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Stile
10-15-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Do you know
Somehow I missed responding to this.

Stile writes:

What rationally makes you think God could exist somewhere else in the universe?


Possibility is always the default position. If there are no elephants in my back yard, is it possible that there are elephants somewhere else in the universe? Yes.

Stile writes:

ringo writes:

It isn't just mathematics.I also know how to bake a cake. I know how to operate a table saw. I know how an airplane flies - to the extent that I could build one. I know how to get to France.


But... you can't. You're arguing that you cannot know these things.
I'm the one arguing that we can know these things because we do not have to acknowledge irrational possibilities.

I am certainly not arguing that we can not know what we do know.

Stile writes:

What if we discover something in the future that shows you that what you thought was "baking a cake" actually was not?


You have it backwards. There are things we don't know, such as whether a god exists. There are things we do know, such as how to bake a cake. We can undo ignorance by discovering a god but we can't undo knowledge by unknowing something. We can change knowledge, such as the shape of the earth, but we can't unexist the earth.

Stile writes:

ringo writes:

At what point on that continuum do you decide that you "know" something?


As soon as you have the data.

The problem with knowing a negative, such as "there is no God", is that there is never enough data.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 12:02 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Stile, posted 03-11-2014 12:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 338 of 377 (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 yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 339 of 377 (721698)
03-11-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Straggler
10-24-2012 4:43 PM


Re: Knowing
Straggler writes:

Swap "very" for "pretty", add in the evidence strongly favouring gods as made-up rather than real entities and change "sure" for "absolutely certain" and that is exactly what I am saying when I use the term "know".


With all that swapping and changing and word-salad tossing, nobody will "know" what the hell you're talking about. When you're pretty sure of something, why not just admit you're pretty sure?

Straggler writes:

In short - I know God doesn't exist. I know the Sun will rise tomorrow. I know how to bake a cake.


You know positives. You don't know negatives.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 10-24-2012 4:43 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 340 of 377 (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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 341 of 377 (721700)
03-11-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Straggler
10-23-2012 1:37 PM


Re: A good foundation
Straggler writes:

So you can't demonstrate that you know how to bake a cake until after the fact of baking it any more I can demonstrate the rising of the Sun until after it has risen.

So your distinction is, by your own terms, a false one.


No, the distinction is clear. Knowing how to do something is not the same as predicting a future event based on past events. George has never been late for work before so you can predict that George will be on time tomorrow but you don't know he will be on time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 1:37 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 342 of 377 (721702)
03-11-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Stile
03-11-2014 12:35 PM


Re: Not dealing with absolutes
Stile writes:

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.


You're extrapolating incorrectly. You do have (or can get) enough evidence to know that there is no monster under the bed. You do not have anything like that amount of evidence for the non-existence of God.

Stile writes:

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."


Yes, that is a common misuse of the word. I'm arguing against that misuse.

Theists don't know that there is a God, even if they say they do. You don't know that there isn't a God, even if you say you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Stile, posted 03-11-2014 12:35 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 03-12-2014 12:32 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 343 of 377 (721703)
03-11-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
10-23-2012 8:06 AM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Straggler writes:

Humans have a long history of mistakenly concluding that things are supernatural when in fact they aren't.


Sure. What does that have to do with whether or not there is anything supernatural?

Straggler writes:

Then you are talking about non-supernatural gods.


Indeed I am talking about the possibility of something on a continuum between what we know and the "common definition" of gods that you insist on. If you want to "know" that gods don't exist by defining them out of existence, go ahead.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 8:06 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 344 of 377 (721704)
03-11-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Straggler
10-23-2012 8:00 AM


Re: Absence of Certainty - Likelihood Only Option
Straggler writes:

Straggler writes:

ringo writes:


Do you know that the Sun will rise tomorrow?


No.

Then the standard you are applying to the term 'knowledge' is pretty silly.

Swap "rigorous" for "silly".

Straggler writes:

But you can't know with absolute certainty that the laws of chemistry won't suddenly change.


You're confusing laws of nature with events dependent on those laws. The laws of chemistry won't change and the law of gravity won't change but the earth might be struck by an asteroid and change its rate of rotation.

Straggler writes:

It is you who is idiotically equivocating the term "knowledge".


Swap "politely" for "idiotically" and "explaining" for "equivocating".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 8:00 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 345 of 377 (721706)
03-11-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Tangle
10-23-2012 3:27 AM


Re: Absence of Certainty - Likelihood Only Option
Tangle writes:

Will you bet me $1,000 that the sun won't come up tomorrow?


People bet on things every day. Are you saying they "know" which number will come up?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Tangle, posted 10-23-2012 3:27 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017