Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 99 (8820 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2018 2:38 PM
320 online now:
Coyote, dwise1, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 314 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 827,220 Year: 2,043/29,783 Month: 709/1,334 Week: 34/318 Day: 10/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223242526
27
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Taq
Member
Posts: 7364
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 391 of 394 (827863)
02-02-2018 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by mike the wiz
02-02-2018 5:06 PM


mike the wiz writes:

According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.

Defining God into existence is little more than begging the question. I could define Thor as the creator of lightning, and then use lightning as evidence for Thor, but I doubt you would find it that compelling.

Why? Invisibility is not only shared with false things but also with true things. A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time. In the same way we see the effects of a creation but not the required creator.

The Higgs Boson was not defined as being invisible as God is. That's the difference. Once again, you beg the question when you claim that a creation requires a supernatural deity.

The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.

Imagination is the most parsimonious answer. When there is no distinguishable observable difference between a claimed entity existing and not existing, then parsimony points to not existing as the best answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2018 5:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3125
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 392 of 394 (827915)
02-05-2018 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by mike the wiz
02-02-2018 5:06 PM


Claim vs. Knowledge
mike the wiz writes:

If you personally "know God doesn't exist", you can only go from your lack of knowledge as a personal matter, which is different from empirically proving knowledge or logically arriving at a sound conclusion. So then, yes, in a way you "know God doesn't exist" in the sense that God isn't part of your own reality, but only your own experience, since you argue based on that, largely.

But me knowing God doesn't exist isn't based on my personal experience.
It's based on the entire experience of all of humanity.

You're included.
If you know of any place where God exists, all you have to do is show it. If you do, I will be wrong.
If you don't, then I'll still be right... that I know God does not exist because everywhere we look He cannot be found.

...if others have experienced God and God's effects (which we have) based on God's agenda and will.

Except I'm not talking about claiming things.
I'm talking about knowing things.

From my first post in this thread:

quote:
How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

Notice that I don't say I look at the menu.
Nor do I say that you look at the menu.

I say that we look at the menu.
That is, I can do it, you can do it, we all can do it.
Clearly, if we look at the menu and I don't see Sharkfin soup, but you do... then something is going on.
Perhaps my eyes are bad (I can have them tested).
Perhaps I can't find it and missed it (you can point out to me exactly where I should look).
Perhaps it's actually not there... and you claiming it is there is exactly that... just a claim that is indistinguishable from imagination.

That's how I know things.

And that's how I know God does not exist.

Because you can't show that He does in a way that we can all review.
You can only do it in a way that only you claim is "real" except that it is indistinguishable from imagination.
And if that's all you have, then that doesn't count for knowing.

mike the wiz writes:

According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.

What you have done is listed many things where we have researched and looked for God... and never found Him. We've looked, He's not there.
Some people still claim He's there (like you just did). But those claims are always indistinguishable from imagination. Go figure.

Therefore, all these things are simply building the case that I know God doesn't exist.

But you can change it all. Just show us one place, your best place, where God is. We will all look. If you're right.. then I am wrong.
But if God isn't there, or if you are the only one that can find Him... then your best place for God remains indistinguishable from imagination. And then I still know that God doesn't exist.

I am attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing.

No.

You are attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with the possibility of God existing.
That is not the same as attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing.

One idea actually has data showing God exists.
The other idea is indistinguishable from God being only in your imagination, and remains nothing more than a baseless claim.

The other key point you seem to miss from my first post in this thread:

quote:
But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

I'm not claiming to know that the possibility of God doesn't exist.
I'm claiming to know that God does not exist.

The possibility is still there. Just as the possibility of Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is still there.
But... none of these sorts of possibilities are distinguishable from imagination.
None of them have any data to analyze concerning the actual existence of the idea. Just like God.

Therefore, I know that Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist.
Just as I know that God does not exist.

But you can still change that.
Just show some actual data, any data, that we can all review, that is distinguishable from imagination... and I'll be wrong.

Without that, I still know that God does not exist.

A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time.

And then what?
Then we found actual evidence for the higgs boson that is distinguishable from imagination that we can all review.

Now I would be wrong if I said I knew that the higgs boson didn't exist.

But I'm still right about knowing that God does not exist unless you (or anyone else) can provide the same kind of data to the contrary.

I cannot presently see oxygen? So then for a long time oxygen couldn't be detected, or germs, does that mean we would compare them with santa? So then why do atheists choose to compare God to santa but never to things which would be invisible, but are possible existent?

Invisibility is irrelevant.
There are other methods to use where we can detect oxygen and germs.

So then, "santa" and, "multi-universes" or "bosons", all share SOME elements with God. The question is, do we, "know" all of the elements?

The question is, actually, do we "know" any of the elements?

We know some of the elements for the higgs boson exist... therefore, we know that the higgs boson exists.
We do not know any of the elements for Santa exist... therefore, we know that Santa does not exist.
We do not know any of the elements for God exist... therefore, we know that God does not exist.

The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.

I don't believe you have thought such things through.

The path to showing me wrong is still open to you.
It just takes more than your say-so.

Just find any element of God that is distinguishable from imagination that we can review.
We can do it one at a time.
Pick your best one, and we can go over it in fine detail for as long as you think it has merit.
If you want to discard it and move onto a different element you've learned might be better to distinguish from imagination, then feel free.
Please don't throw multiple baseless claims at the wall hoping one will stick, that only goes to show that you have no confidence in any of them.
Just pick one, your best one, until we go through the details on it.

Do that, and I'm wrong.
Don't do that... and I'll continue to know that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2018 5:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10502
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 393 of 394 (827927)
02-05-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Stile
02-05-2018 11:22 AM


Re: Claim vs. Knowledge
stile writes:

And that's how I know God does not exist.

Because you can't show that He does in a way that we can all review.
You can only do it in a way that only you claim is "real" except that it is indistinguishable from imagination.
And if that's all you have, then that doesn't count for knowing.

Though you must admit that while you can declare that you know that God does not exist and that some of us also know, you can not conclude that *we* know that God does not exist.

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 392 by Stile, posted 02-05-2018 11:22 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Stile, posted 02-05-2018 1:29 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3125
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 394 of 394 (827928)
02-05-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Phat
02-05-2018 12:40 PM


Re: Claim vs. Knowledge
Phat writes:

Though you must admit that while you can declare that you know that God does not exist and that some of us also know, you can not conclude that *we* know that God does not exist.

Absolutely.

1 - It's quite possible that someone knows God exists and can show it to others for review.
Perhaps they just haven't told anyone else yet. Or, at a minimum, perhaps they just don't know about this forum and this thread.
I will quite happily change my position upon gaining such new information.

2 - My talk of we is not about whether or not we all follow the evidence where it leads. That's another discussion entirely.
My talk of we is only important towards the aspect of evidence existing in the first place. (If it's impossible for us to review it... then it's not actually evidence in the first place... it's just a claim).

For example:

-I know the earth is not flat
-I know that God does not exist

I admit that many people adamantly claim to know that the world is flat.
I admit that many people adamantly claim to know that God exists.

Therefore, I can't say that *we* know the world is not flat.
Therefore, I can't say that *we* know that God does not exist.

And yet, all these people have one thing in common with their claims of knowledge:

None of them can present any data that is distinguishable from imagination for us all to review about their adamant claims.

Can I be wrong?
Of course.

The minute I review data showing the world is, actually, flat... and I just thought it wasn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that the world is flat.
But without that, I'll continue to know that the world is not flat.

The minute I review data showing that God, actually, exists... and I just thought He didn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that God exists.
But without that, I'll continue to know that God does not exist.

There's no logical twist or linguistic persuasion to get around this detail.

quote:
I know that God does not exist.

There's only 1 way to show that I'm wrong:

Present some data that we can all review that can be distinguished from imagination showing that God exists.


It's not really a difficult request.

I can do it for trees, rocks, cardboard, computers, screwdrivers, pizza, the colour red... I can do it for anything and everything that actually exists.
We all do it millions of times a day for all the things surrounding our environment in our day-to-day lives.

Strange no one can do such a thing for God, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:40 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
2223242526
27
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018