Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 121 of 3207 (675843)
10-16-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Stile
10-16-2012 9:23 AM


Re: Equivocation on "knowing things"
Stile writes:
The way I've set things up... it most certainly IS necessary for there to be evidential support for God's existence before you can use the statement of fact that "I know God exists." If we stop equivocating and use a single definition for the word "know," you either have to accept this, or stop using the word "know" for anything else.
Is there a difference between saying "I know that God does not exist" and "we know that God does not exist?"
I would argue that subjective experience allows for some people to honestly know that God does not exist and for other people to honestly doubt or even affirm that God exists.It is always good to continue questioning, however. And as for tangles "garden" not only is the universe a very big garden, but our human mind itself is a rather large garden as well. I don't think that we have explored every nook and cranny in there or out there either. In fact, I wouldnt even assign a probability, as others have done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 9:23 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2012 1:57 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 126 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 2:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 122 of 3207 (675845)
10-16-2012 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
10-16-2012 12:46 PM


What we know today may not be known tomorrow
Ringo writes:
Why can't we limit what is "known" to what actually is known instead of speculating that what is not known yet will never be known?
Straggler writes:
Because it is always philosophically possible that some anomalous result is around the corner waiting to blow away everything we think we know. Beyond accepting that all knowledge is tentative and fallible I see no reason to actually deny that we can know things because of this.
I like this exchange. So for me personally, I can't say...beyond subjective experiences coupled with confirmation bias...that I know God exists, although I do often irrationally talk with Him. I also cannot honestly say that I know that He doesn't exist, though I suppose were I to wish to be in agreement with my neighbor on such a lofty philosophical possibility I may accept further knowledge.
Lots depends on the motive, if we are to approach this from a strictly philosophical standpoint. First of all, if we have a room full of philosophers seeking something to conclude, bias often enters the picture. I may seek to prove X to be true, while you may seek to prove Y true. And further, what do we define as truth?
DEFINITION OF TRUE or TRUTH:
  • That X is unknowable.
  • That X is knowable.
  • That logic is truth.
    etc etc. Do you see my point?
    Does this hypothetical room of philosophers wish to ultimately agree or disagree? Or perhaps the goal is simply to expand knowledge....

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2012 12:46 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 123 of 3207 (675846)
    10-16-2012 1:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 121 by Phat
    10-16-2012 1:36 PM


    Re: Equivocation on "knowing things"
    Phat writes:
    Is there a difference between saying "I know that God does not exist" and "we know that God does not exist?"
    I think you're just getting tangled up in language.
    If you substitute 'believe' and "I have proof" in the statements, you have a better understanding of what people generally mean when they say things like that:
    So,
    "I know that God does not exist"
    becomes
    "I believe that God does not exist" (My knowledge is personal to me)
    or
    "I have proof that God does not exist" (My knowledge can be shared with others and can be tested by them.)
    Both are variants on knowing, but they are very different concepts.

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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 1:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    (1)
    Message 124 of 3207 (675854)
    10-16-2012 2:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
    10-16-2012 12:46 PM


    Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
    Straggler writes:
    But how do you know that some unexpected anomolous result isn't around the corner?
    We don't know absolutely. We have a high level of confidence.
    Straggler writes:
    This is the equivalent response to your examples that the invisible snakes and gods that have yet to reveal themselves are to Stile's and Tangle's examples.
    Nonsense. The snakes could be living in the neighour's yard and naturally retreat there whenever Tangle looks for them. He can not reasonably say, "I know there are no snakes in my garden." He can only have a high degree of confidence that they're not there when he's actually looking.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2012 12:46 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 163 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2012 7:50 AM ringo has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    (1)
    Message 125 of 3207 (675855)
    10-16-2012 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
    10-16-2012 1:26 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Stile writes:
    What is it about planets that we have learned that indicates that God might exist on one?
    A better quetion would be, "What makes it impossible? Or even unlikely?"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 120 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 1:26 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 127 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 3:01 PM ringo has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 126 of 3207 (675856)
    10-16-2012 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 121 by Phat
    10-16-2012 1:36 PM


    Re: Equivocation on "knowing things"
    Phat writes:
    Is there a difference between saying "I know that God does not exist" and "we know that God does not exist?"
    Using my definitions and structure as proposed in this thread? Yes.
    People are different and will have different data sets.
    "I know that God does not exist" includes one person's data set.
    "We know that God does not exist" will force multiple people to pool their data sets and then analyze the resulting larger set to come to a conclusion. If "checked all rational indication that God might exist somewhere and the answer is negative" is not a part of any of those data sets... then there would be no rational reason to say "We know that God does not exist."
    Can they come to a different result after reading this thread? No.
    -I am sharing my data set with this thread. That data set includes looking for God in all the places rationally indicated by anyone throughout history (like sun worshippers telling us to check out the sun). And, no one has yet added to this data set by giving a rational indication that we should be checking somewhere else before we make our conclusion.
    Can they come to a different result, ever? Yes.
    For example, it is possible that some group of people have yet to check out the sun to see if God exists there. For these people, it would not be rational to say "They know God does not exist." They still can't say they know God does exist... because they still haven't checked out the sun to show that He's there yet... But I would consider it rational for such a group of people to hold the question in limbo because they have yet to do some work.
    My statement, similar to the way science works, isn't a way to describe "the absolute truth of things." It's just a way to rationally describe the data set obtained by someone (or a group).
    Think of it this way.
    Would you agree that we can say "I know there are 26 letters in the english alphabet."
    Would you agree that this is similar as saying "I know that the 27th letter in the english alphabet does not exist."
    Would you agree that it is rational to say these things?
    Now... what if 250 years from now human speech patterns have reached a point where a new sound requires delineation and we invent a new, 27th letter for the alphabet and it becomes a part of common english speech.
    I still say that it was rational for us to say "I know that the 27th letter in the english alphabet does not exist" because it is merely a conclusion based on the data set we had available to us. And, at that time, there was no rational indication to us that a 27th letter would ever be required or used.
    However, if we follow the logic of some of those posters that do not agree with my definitions and statements... they cannot say such a thing. They do not "know that there are 26 letters in the english alphabet" because it's possible that at some point in the future there might be 27.
    Does that make sense?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 1:36 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 127 of 3207 (675857)
    10-16-2012 3:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
    10-16-2012 2:44 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    ringo writes:
    A better quetion would be, "What makes it impossible? Or even unlikely?"
    Why is that a better question? Because it seems to indicate that you are correct?
    Let's take a look at the questions and see.
    "What makes God's existance impossible?"
    I would say "nothing."
    However, I would also say that such an idea has never stopped us from knowing things before.
    A - "I know how to bake a cake."
    B - "What makes it impossible for you to attempt baking a cake, but the result is not actually a cake?"
    A - "Well, nothing... so I guess I do not know how to bake a cake."
    B - "Actually, you do know how to bake a cake because irrational propositions such as this should not be taken into account when you are making statements about your knowledge."
    Or, with a similar negative example, if you'd like:
    A - "I know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu."
    B - "What makes it impossible for shark-fin soup to be on McDonald's menu?"
    A - "Well, nothing... so I guess I do not know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu."
    B - "Actually, you do know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu if you go and check McDonald's menu and shark-fin soup is not listed there."
    "What makes God's existance unlikely?"
    The fact that we have checked on every rational indication that's ever been proposed for God's existance (like being in the sun or protecting innocent people...) and they have all come up negative for God's existance. We are now out of rational indications for God's existance. If we cannot even propose that God may exist... then it makes it likely that God does not exist.
    Of course, such philosophical mumbo jumbo doesn't make it absolutely true. But saying "I know that God does not exist" is only a rational description of our data set, it's not a statment about absolute truth, just like every other statement we make about "knowing things."
    After examination, your question does not actually seem "better", and it also doesn't seem to benefit your argument.
    But that was my explanation, so it is likely somewhat biased. Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more?
    Edited by Stile, : Closing quotes. Because open quotes means the quote just goes on forever, into some sort of never-ending quote-abyss. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy... let alone a poor innocent quote. By the way, my worst enemy is the difference between affect and effect... I live a sheltered life...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 125 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 2:44 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 3:19 PM Stile has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 411 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 128 of 3207 (675858)
    10-16-2012 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 127 by Stile
    10-16-2012 3:01 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Stile writes:
    "What makes God's existance unlikely?"
    The fact that we have checked on every rational indication that's ever been proposed for God's existance (like being in the sun or protecting innocent people...) and they have all come up negative for God's existance.
    But that isn't a fact. I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star. You are not capable of testing that proposition any more than your ancestor was capable of testing a certain hypothetical passage through the ice in 1600.
    So again, what makes it unlikely that God is there?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 127 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 3:01 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 129 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 5:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
     Message 130 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 9:21 AM ringo has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 129 of 3207 (675871)
    10-16-2012 5:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
    10-16-2012 3:19 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Ringo writes:
    I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star.
    And I have also proposed that He/She/It may be somewhere in our mind or brain, which, by the way does not mean that we invented Him/Her/It. All that it means is that He can hide quite well.
    Still, Knowledge is not yet complete, and the facts are not all yet in. Stay tuned as we look in all of the gardens on the block...We dug up Tangles whole yard and all we found were earthworms to use as fishing bait!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 3:19 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

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


    (3)
    Message 130 of 3207 (675896)
    10-17-2012 9:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
    10-16-2012 3:19 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    ringo writes:
    I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star.
    Yes, you have.
    And I can irrationally propose that shark-fin soup is on a McDonald's menu on some other planet, too.
    But this has no effect on the rational statement "I know that shark-fin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" which is based on a rational analysis of the data we do have.
    Similarly, your irrational proposal that God could be on a certain other planet also has no effect on the rational statement "I know that God does not exist" which is based on a rational analysis of the data we do have.
    Explanation in shark-fin soup terms
    There is no rational indication that a McDonald's menu exists on another planet.
    There are rational indications that McDonald's menus are a human creation and only exist because of humans.
    It is possible that one day we will find some rational indication that McDonalds' menus with strange items exist elsewhere... but only if that data is actually discovered will the idea have any merit for affecting the rational statement "I know that shark-fin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
    Explanation in God terms
    There is no rational indication that God exists on another planet.
    There are rational indications that God is a human creation and only exists because of humans.
    It is possible that one day we will find some rational indication that God may exist elsewhere... but only if that data is actually discovered will the idea have any merit for affecting the rational statement "I know that God does not exist."
    You are not capable of testing that proposition any more than your ancestor was capable of testing a certain hypothetical passage through the ice in 1600.
    Capability of testing is not the only issue. The issue also includes taking an analysis of your data set and seeing if there is any rational indication to consider the possibility in the first place.
    Let's look at people worshipping the Sun as God.
    Just the fact that they were incapable of testing the proposition doesn't mean they can't rationally declare "I know that God doesn't exist". The fact that blocks such a statement is that they had a rational indication that God may very well exist within the Sun.
    Sun brings warmth -> warmth brings Spring -> Spring brings life... therefore, Sun provides life... and God provides life... therefore, the Sun is God.
    If your data set is limited to such a string, then it is a rational indication that God may exist in the Sun (or as the Sun, even).
    The fact that they could not test the proposition only left the question in limbo. But in order for the question to exist in the first place, there had to be a rational indication that God existed in the Sun.
    I have also already explained that it may very well have been rational for the those in the 1600's to state "I know that the NWP does not exist." Again, it depends on the analysis of their data set. If they had tested all rational possibilities, then it would be rational. If not, then it would not be a rational statement to make. I don't see how this is helping you?
    So again, what makes it unlikely that God is there?
    The fact that we have checked for God in many areas before. Some of them had rational indications, so we checked them. Some of them did not have rational indications... but we were able to check them anyway, even though such checking was not required in order to rationally dismiss the ideas. The fact that all these checks have turned up negative provides us with a pattern. Confidence, likelihood, probabilities... they are all based off the data and patterns we already have. Therefore, it is unlikely that God is there. And, since the idea is irrational in the first place... it has no bearing on the rational statement that "I know God does not exist."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 3:19 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 10:13 AM Stile has replied
     Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 11:58 AM Stile has replied
     Message 141 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM Stile has replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 131 of 3207 (675902)
    10-17-2012 10:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Stile
    10-17-2012 9:21 AM


    Let's look at people worshipping the Sun as God.
    But the Sun does exist. So when we check'd that one it didn't fail. The problem is that the Sun doesn't fit within the set of things that are included by the word "God" in your statement.
    So are the people that worshiped the Sun wrong, or are you wrong? That isn't something that we've tested.
    The fact that all these checks have turned up negative provides us with a pattern.
    Except for the sun...
    Without a solid definition of "God", you're statement remains vacuous.
    The people who worship the sun would laugh you of as a buffoon if you told them that you know god doesn't exist. To them its literally blindingly obvious that you're wrong.
    But you think they're wrong. And we haven't really tested it either way.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 9:21 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 132 by Phat, posted 10-17-2012 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
     Message 134 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 12:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 132 of 3207 (675906)
    10-17-2012 11:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
    10-17-2012 10:13 AM


    Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
    We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria.
    This topic is in the Science Forums.
    Thus I can summarize that I have no evidence apart from my subjective beliefs and feelings on the matter.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

      
    1.61803
    Member (Idle past 1503 days)
    Posts: 2928
    From: Lone Star State USA
    Joined: 02-19-2004


    (1)
    Message 133 of 3207 (675909)
    10-17-2012 11:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Stile
    10-17-2012 9:21 AM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Similarly, your irrational proposal that God could be on a certain other planet also has no effect on the rational statement "I know that God does not exist" which is based on a rational analysis of the data we do have.
    Hello Stile,
    Your statement "I know that God does not exist." being based on the premise that you find it absurd is also a fallacious argument.
    Reductio ad absurdum.
    So we now have argument from ignorance
    argument from incredulity
    argument from absurdity
    Atheist by definition do not believe gods/God exist.
    So stating you know God does not exist because you looked everywhere conceivable and found the evidence lacking is good enough for you. This is tautology concerning atheist.
    Given a atheist audience I can see where this could be considered a statement of fact. God does not exist.
    Except everyone does not hold this view. Which you then label as irrational, absurd and incredible.

    "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 9:21 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 135 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 1:04 PM 1.61803 has replied

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


    Message 134 of 3207 (675914)
    10-17-2012 12:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
    10-17-2012 10:13 AM


    Catholic Scientist writes:
    The people who worship the sun would laugh you of as a buffoon if you told them that you know god doesn't exist. To them its literally blindingly obvious that you're wrong.
    But you think they're wrong. And we haven't really tested it either way.
    This is exactly what I'm saying.
    The reason they would laugh me off as a buffoon is because their data set indicates that God is that actual sun.
    Granted, they have the luxury of not knowing about things like confirmation bias, and the difference between live and inanimate objects, and that the sun is actually an inanimate object.
    But, that's not the point. The point is that from their data set it is rational to conclude that God exists in/as the sun (given "their" definition of God).
    But we don't have their data set, do we?
    We have ours.
    We do know about confirmation bias. We do know about inanimate objects. We do know that God has been proposed, searched for, and not found many, many, many times.
    ...this forces us to rationally conclude "we know that God does not exist."
    Maybe there's something like confirmation bias about our data set that completely undermines it in such a way that pretty much everything we "know" isn't really something that is true.
    But the mere possibility of this does not stop anyone from saying that they "know things" now.
    Maybe there's something we'll learn in the future that will completely undermine the rational analysis of what we do have that concludes "we know that God does not exist."
    But the mere possibility of this does not stop us from saying such things now.
    My point is that being "right" or "wrong" doesn't really matter... that has to do with absolute truth, which we're unable to ever really determine anyway. My point is that knowledge should be a rational endeavor. Therefore, statements of that knowledge should be held to that same rational standard. Knowledge is about getting as close as we can to absolutely true. In laymens terms... you can only "know" that which you've been exposed to. How could it really be any other way?
    It doesn't matter how far we actually are from "absolute truth." It matters if we can tell if we could be closer or not. And that sort of indication takes rational analysis.
    With sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu:
    I have not been exposed to sharkfin soup. Therefore, I do not know sharkfin soup.
    I have been exposed to a search for sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu. I have searched every McDonald's menu that sharkfin soup has ever been rationally claimed or proposed to be (local stores and the internet menus). I have searched even for the effects of sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu everywhere they have been rationally claimed to be (news articles on the internet). Therefore, I know sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
    With God:
    I have not been exposed to God. Therefore, I do not know God.
    I have been exposed to a search for God. I have searched everywhere God has ever been rationally claimed or proposed to be. I have searched even for the effects of God everywhere they have been rationally claimed to be. Therefore, I know God does not exist.
    Nobody has an issue with my statement of sharkfin soup.
    It is important... IF McDonald's put sharkfin soup on their menu, I'm sure there would be quite a clamour from a significant portion of the population. However, no one seems to be worried about it. It seems acceptable to say "I know that shark-fin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" even though McDonald's could decide to add it to the menu tomorrow.
    I really don't see the difference between the two examples in coming to the concluding statements.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 3:35 PM Stile has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 135 of 3207 (675915)
    10-17-2012 1:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 133 by 1.61803
    10-17-2012 11:58 AM


    Absurd fallacies
    1.61803 writes:
    Your statement "I know that God does not exist." being based on the premise that you find it absurd is also a fallacious argument.
    I agree that would be fallacious. What makes you think that this is what I'm doing, though?
    I've specifically said that "I know that God does not exist" is based on a rational analysis of searching for God and His effects on our lives as proposed by those that suggest He exists... and finding nothing.
    I don't think that's the same as simply finding it absurd.
    So we now have argument from ignorance
    argument from incredulity
    argument from absurdity
    I'm sure you can create ideas for these things being attached to my arguments. But unless you can actually use my arguments to show that these things are included... just listing them doesn't really do very much.
    So stating you know God does not exist because you looked everywhere conceivable and found the evidence lacking is good enough for you. This is tautology concerning atheist.
    No. This is tautology concerning anyone who finds evidence (rationality) to be a priority in determining what we know and what we do not know.
    If you have another method for determining knowledge.. then I agree that this statement may or may not apply.
    However, I might point out that a system for obtaining knowledge that is not rational... is not really what people seem to mean when they say they "know things."
    Given a atheist audience I can see where this could be considered a statement of fact. God does not exist.
    Except everyone does not hold this view. Which you then label as irrational, absurd and incredible.
    I don't think "atheist" is the determining factor. I think "rationality" is. In using a rational analysis of our data set, I do find it irrational to state "God may exist." That's what makes me an atheist, I don't know of any rational indication that God might exist. If you do know of such an indication for God's existance, you can let me know and then I will no longer be an atheist.
    I agree that atheists may agree with this conclusion without even looking at the reasoning. I even agree that such a thing would be fallacious.
    But do you find anything fallcious about the actual reasoning, the stuff that doesn't include atheism and is just a rational analysis of the data?
    Maybe we can start with some if/then statements?
    So stating you know God does not exist because you looked everywhere conceivable and found the evidence lacking is good enough for you.
    If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for God... do you think it is rational to conclude that God does not exist?
    If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for sharkfin soup being on McDonald's menu... do you think it is rational to conclude that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu?
    I simply answer "yes" to both those questions. I really don't see a difference between them. Can you explain one to me?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 11:58 AM 1.61803 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 1:29 PM Stile has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024