Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,108 Year: 3,365/9,624 Month: 236/974 Week: 125/130 Day: 0/73 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
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

  
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

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


Message 137 of 3207 (675918)
10-17-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
Things can be absurd, irrational, and incredible and still exist.
I agree with your idea here, but not your use of the word "irrational."
If something exists it is "rational" (by the way I am using the term in this thread... that our data set rationally stems from our observations of reality).
1.61803 writes:
Does Quantum mechanics seem rational to you?
Yes, it does. Everything I ever learnt from Quantum mechanics came from a logical analysis of real observations (data). That's basically my definition of the term "rational." Or, at least, it's how I've been trying to use the term here, anyway.
I would say that Quantum mechanics doesn't seem "normal" to me... but my sense of "what is normal" changes, and I do think that Quantum mechanics seems normal to those who spend more time with it than I do.
I think that our knowledge is about getting as close to "absolute truth" as possible. It doesn't really matter how close we are to absolute truth... what matters is being able to tell if we could be closer or not. I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 1:29 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 140 of 3207 (675924)
10-17-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
Stile writes:
I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.
Yes this is a great statement. But that is not what you are doing.
Are you sure? I think it is exactly what I am doing.
Let's take the way I see things.
1. Assume God does not exist.
-My statement that God does not exist is absolute truth.
2. Assume God exists.
-If God exists, and if there is some indication of His existance, then we will eventually find it and get closer to absolute truth. It is possible that God exists yet providing an indication of His existance is not possible (or preventable for all time?). In such a case, we will not get closer to absolute truth.
Now, let's take the way you're seeing things:
1. Assume God does not exist.
-Since we can never prove so indefinitely, we can never say so. We will never get as close to absolute truth as my method above. Perhaps we will form some sort of strong opinions... but we could never say "I know that God does not exist."
2. Assume God does exist.
-If God exists, and if there is some indication of His existance, then we will eventually find it and get closer to absolute truth. It is possible that God exists yet providing an indication of His existance is not possible (or preventable for all time?). In such a case, we will not get closer to absolute truth. (same as my method above).
So, we are equal in getting closer to absolute truth if God does exist, but my method is better at getting closer to absolute truth if God does not exist. Which method is better at getting us closer to absolute truth?
1.61803 writes:
You are saying: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It is to incredible to exist. It is absurd to think it could exist. It is irrational to think it would exist.
Is it what I'm saying? I don't think it is.
I am saying this: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It may still be possible for it to exist, but until we discover something that indicates such a possibility should be taken seriously, then such a possibility should not be considered as a rational idea. Therefore it is rational to say "I know that XYZ does not exist."
IF we were to discover a cosmic ray of *something* that is mandatory for the beginning of life on Earth, and that ray is coming from *somewhere* in space... I would take this as in indication that maybe God does exist in outerspace, and we should investigate before coming to the conclusion that He does not exist.
But we haven't found such a thing (or any other indication) yet.
How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist? And if we did not find it, would we conclude it does not exist? Turn the lights off in the LHC and go home?
What about the Higgs?
I don't know too much about it.
But, I do believe there was something rational indicating to us that it did exist, wasn't there? Wasn't the existance of the Higgs Boson the result of some theory about the universe/quantum mechanics? Did that theory have some indication that it was valid? Why did they build the LHC in the first place if there wasn't some sort of rational indication that the Higgs could be found?
Sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would be on board with.
We would, however, conclude that the Higgs does not exist if we had searched every rational indication for it's existance and we did not find it. I think there was a certain range they were expecting to find it in (because of the theory)? If it wasn't in that range... don't you think it would have been rational to conclude that it didn't exist?
Doesn't this happen in science all the time? An hypothesis is proposed, predicting certain conclusions. If the conclusions are not found after looking... isn't the hypothesis considered "falsified?" ...Which is the same as saying that the hypothesis does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 147 of 3207 (675931)
10-17-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:03 PM


God and Soup
It is rational to suggest that life evolving on another planet might have some similarities to earthly life forms - e.g. warm-bloodedness, large brains, opposable thumbs, etc. Thus, it is also rational to suggest that a McDonald's menu might evolve on another planet.
Okay. I accept this as being a rational indication that a McDonald's menu may be on another planet, I will now add "on Earth" to the end of my sharkfin soup example.
We know that McDonald's does exist here on Earth.
It is rational that other planets may be similar to Earth.
It is rational that a similar planet may evolve similar things in a similar manner therefore maybe they have a McDonald's too.
It's not really likely or anything... but at least it's a rational indication that the possibility might exist.
Therefore, I find it to be a valid rational idea to strike down the statement "I know that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
Glad to hear you find my reasoning to be a valid method.
So, in the same vein... what is the rational indication that God exists on another planet?
Of course, if you do not have one, then I assume you accept the rest of my method as well and the rational conclusion that "I know God does not exist."
"I know that God does not exist."
"I know that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu on Earth."
I really do not see a difference in the statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:40 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 148 of 3207 (675932)
10-17-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is.
Isn't this what everyone does? Is there another way to claim knowledge other than by defining the term of what knowledge is?
My only point was that if it were that simple to claim victory everyone would agree his argument is sound.
I think the argument is sound. I think that it is difficult for everyone to agree because of the social and historical popularity of believing in God.
...maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 4:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 171 of 3207 (676089)
10-19-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
10-17-2012 3:35 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
But what I'm saying it that when you claim to have looked into all the gods and found them to be wrong, that you haven't actually covered that with your statement because the word "God" doesn't really tell us much about what the person who's using it actually means by it.
When I say "looked into all God's"... I'm not talking about "all" in the sense of any God anyone can imagine (that would included irrational concepts, and I'm trying to stay on the rational side of knowledge). I'm more talking about "all" in the sense of all those that have been rationally proposed throughout history...
And I did define what I mean by God in Message 63.
I think this is the general definition used by most people (or, at least, that's what I was aiming for). Again, any differences or changes are welcome. But they do have to be specified. Just saying "that doesn't count" doesn't really help move things forward or backward.
Its not that I'm doubting your usage of "know", its that "God" isn't defined well enough to make such a blanket statement about.
This is a fair point. It was not my intention to imply that "God" was supposed to cover some sort of as-yet-undefined concept. Such a thing doesn't even seem rational to me. But, again, I'm trying to make a statement that rationally conveys an analysis of the data we do actually have.
I do have a bit of a problem with saying that people know things that aren't true. I wouldn't say that people knew the Earth was flat. They were 'convinced', or 'believed it'. That's what I was saying earlier about it not being "established".
You see... I would say that at least some people did "know" that the Earth was flat. If you just take a quick overview and don't spend too much time investigating and thinking about it (many people then didn't have the time for such things...), I can understand an honest viewpoint that rationally thinks the Earth is flat. Therefore, I would not honestly fault them for claiming "I know that the Earth is flat." I would educate them... and then see if their ideas change, but I don't see a way to fault such an individual for thinking the Earth is flat.
Things that are established are known and there's still the possiblity that it'll be proven wrong in the future, but that's different from coming to a conclusion based on incomplete evidence - which is what you're doing with God.
But, isn't everything based on "incomplete evidence?" Can you name one thing where it is strictly impossible for us to learn more about it? It's even possible for us to learn more about math... and we defined the basic axioms for it! Therefore... we make statements of "knowing things" based on incomplete evidence all the time. We just make those statements based on the evidence that we do have. And, really, what else could we ever be expected to do?
God is not a specific and discrete thing like sharkfin soup is.
Maybe He is. Maybe He isn't. Maybe He doesn't exist. Maybe He does.
My point is that we have no rational indication to think so.
And we do have rational indication to think otherwise:
We have reached a point where we have analyzed all the rational indications of God's existance (as defined as broadly as rationally possible in Message 63):
-existing somewhere in natural phenomenon (the sun, the trees, various weather aspects...)
-existing "anywhere" but causing effects on us (influence of prayer, influence of being good or bad...)
We have analyzed these possibilities and the results are negative.
This leaves us with no rational indications of God's existance.
God may exist in a way we don't yet understand.
...but such a possibility doesn't effect the rational analysis we have done on the data that we do have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 10:22 AM Stile has replied

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


(2)
Message 172 of 3207 (676092)
10-19-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:40 PM


Re: God and Soup
ringo writes:
The difference is that you moved the goalpost in the second statement but not in the first. It shoud read, "I know that God does not exist on earth."
I have moved the goalpost? Are you sure? Let's take a look at what happened.
I claim that "knowing things" is based on a rational analysis of our data.
I claim that "knowing things don't exist" is rational as long as we have searched out the rational indications that such things might exist and find the results to be negative.
I claim that I know "sharkfin soup is not on McDonald's menu."
You suggest a rational indication that it's possible for a planet to exist that evolves life in a similar manner as to what our data here on Earth suggests and therefore it is possible for another McDonald's to exist on another planet (that hopefully treat sharks better than we do in obtaining fins). And that McDonald's may have sharkfin soup on it's menu.
I say "gee, that's interesting, I never thought of that" and I agree with you that it's a rational indication.
I then take this new information to form a new claim that I know "sharkfin soup is not on McDonald's menu on Earth."
That is not moving the goalposts. That is accepting that you made a good point, and then updating my position to account for the new information. Such a thing isn't a fallacy, it's an expected practice for honest people when they are presented with new information that contradicts their original position.
Now, let's look at what you have done:
I claimed that I know "sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
You proposed a rational indication that sharkfin soup my actually exist on McDonald's menu on another planet.
I then updated my claim about sharkfin soup.
I also claimed that I know "God does not exist."
You have not proposed any rational indication that God may exist on another planet.
Yet, you now claim that because the sharkfin soup claim was updated, that the God statement should be updated as well? Why? Are you claiming that God is sharkfin soup? A rational indication that sharkfin soup might exist on another planet has nothing to do with any rational indication that God might exist on another planet. Unless you are trying to make a claim that God evolved as a natural being on Earth? Again, you will need some rational indication to suggest such a thing.
I suggest you take a good rational look at what has happened in our exchange. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who moved any goalposts.
You only "know" about the places where you have actually looked. Your surmises about the places where you haven't looked are not very valuable.
This is true.
But it remains true that we have looked for a rational God (as defined in Message 63) in all proposed rational areas. This includes allowing God to exist "anywhere" and simply looking for the rational indications of His existance. All the searches have given the same result... that God does not exist. The next step is to propose another rational definition for God, or another rational indication for His existance.
An as-yet-undefined concept of God seems irrational to me, but you're free to try and show otherwise.
A "God" that has nothing to do with humans, or the creation of life, or morality seems irrational to me. It is mangling the word "God" in such a way that the being shoud just be called an "alien" instead. Isn't that what an alien is? A being that's not-from-Earth that has nothing to do with humans or the creation of life or morality? I do not claim to know that aliens do not exist. But, again, you're free to try and show otherwise.
If "being rational" isn't a priority for you, I certainly accept that my rational statement that "I know God does not exist" does not apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:31 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 173 of 3207 (676098)
10-19-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by TrueCreation
10-18-2012 12:29 AM


Remaining Rational
TrueCreation writes:
Inferring evidence for the non-existence of things is already difficult, and becomes nigh irrational when talking about something as difficult to reify as god.
It only becomes difficult and irrational if the definition for God is irrational, or the proposed indication for His existance is irrational.
However, if we remain rational, then it isn't difficult, it has been done, and there are no longer any rational propositions left (that I am aware of).
This is a significant point in the rational search for God.
This means that it is rational to say "I know that God does not exist."
To overturn the statement, you need to do one or more of the following:
Discover (or invent) a new, rational definition for "God."
Discover (or invent) a new, rational indication of God's existance.
Maybe you should expound on what you imply by "I know" and "god".
A very good point. Already brought up by Catholic Scientist.
I expounded on what I mean by "knowing things" right in the beginning of Message 1.
I eventually expounded on what what I mean by "God" in Message 63.
Please feel free to inform me of anything you don't find rational.
Kind of like dismissing Wagener's continental drift because the geophysics of the day said it was impossible, or the inference of design because we cannot explain abiogenesis.
I don't really understand continental drift... so I'm afraid I cannot comment on that example. But as for the inference of design because we cannot explain abiogenesis... that is definitly not what I'm doing.
There are plenty of rational indications that abiogenesis is valid. The fact that there was no life on Earth at one point and then there was life on Earth at another point. The fact that RNA seems like a precursor to DNA. The fact that investigation into chemical experiments concerning abiogenesis are making progress. The point is that there are rational indications that abiogenesis is possible.
Which is exactly what I'm asking for about God's existance. What are the rational indications that God exists?
I have thought of:
-God existing in the sun, the trees or a variety of natural weather conditions
-God existing "anywhere" and having an affect on humans such as prayer healing or helping good people or punishing bad people
We have investigated these rational indications and the results are that God does not exist.
Again, do you have another rational definition for "God?"
Or, do you have another rational indication for God that we should investigate?
All I'm saying is that after the rational investigating we have done, and pending no further rational avenues... the only rational conclusion is to say "I know that God does not exist."
If you do not find "being rational" to be a priority, however... I fully understand that such a statement would not apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by TrueCreation, posted 10-18-2012 12:29 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 10-19-2012 10:34 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 179 of 3207 (676118)
10-19-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
10-19-2012 10:22 AM


Underlying Assumptions
Catholic Scientist writes:
And part of the data we have is that some of the Gods that people worshipped actually existed as real things.
And, for any of those Gods, I'm fine with stopping the discussion and accepting that the statement does not apply.
For anyone claiming that God is an inanimate object that we have discovered... I'm good. No more discussion required. The statement does not apply.
Really!? Did it get towed (or whatever)?
But if somebody told you that your car wasn't out there when you were looking at it out the window, you'd be all:
pfft, its right there *points*
In both cases we can use the word "know", but the second one is stronger.
I agree.
Why is the second one stronger? Because we have increased our data set by checking on the car again. If the car actually wasn't there, it would have "been stronger" to say "I know that my car does not exist in the parking lot" because we have checked and increased our data set again.
This method is based on analyzing rational indications (the guy coming in and informing us that the car isn't there), and then increasing our data set (doing the check ourselves). The car's presense or not is strong indication either way for the car existing (in the parking lot) or not.
Now, if we check in the parking lot... (and it isn't there)
Then we check in our garage... (and it isn't there)
Then we check government documentation for original registration... (and it isn't there)
Then we check the vendor to see if they even make the car we claim to have... (and they do not)
...Then it is rational to claim "I know that my car does not exist."
I'm just doing the same thing with a rational defintion of God (as you quoted above, which is pretty much the general definition of our times)
I agree that if we change the definition of God, then the statement may or may not apply but someone has to provide another rational defintion in order for it to apply to the rational conclusion.
I agree that if we change our method for "knowing things" then the statement may or may not apply but that method needs to be a better fit for how we "know things" everyday and generally use the term.
But you seem to want to expand that to the general statement: "I know God doesn't exist". And you seem to want to use it as if you've established it. I don't think either of those hold true.
I do not want to expand the statement to include inanimate objects proposed to be God (such as the sun). If such is done, I agree that God would "be found" and the discussion will come to an abrubt end and the statement no longer applies.
I do not want to expand the statement beyond rational definitions of "God." Of course, I will continue to point out that irrational definitions will have no effect on the rational conclusion. I fully admit that if "remaing rational" is not a priority, than the statement does not apply.
I do think that "remaining rational" and "not including inanimate objects as the definition for God" are assumptions that are generally taken for granted by the bulk of the social population we all deal with on a daily basis. In that vein, I do not see a reason to specify them all the time unless we're pressing for specifics. So in that way... I am expanding "I rationally know that God as defined in Message 63 does not exist" to be "I know that God does not exist."
...but I do not intend to remove those assumptions. I am just assuming we all know they are included because I have been talking about things in that way this whole time, as well as the fact that those are assumption we all make about "knowing things" and "God" when dealing with the general public on a daily basis anyway.
That is, I do not see the need to state "I rationally know that God as defined in Message 63 does not exist" in the same way as I do not see the need to state "I rationally know my car as defined by my governmental registration exists in the parking lot" whenever I say "I know my car is in the parking lot."
I will clarify those assumptions upon specific questions... but I see no reason to constantly include them (before or after clarification) as they are not constantly included when anyone talks about these sorts of things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 11:19 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 181 of 3207 (676124)
10-19-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by TrueCreation
10-19-2012 10:34 AM


Re: Remaining Rational
TrueCreation writes:
Stile writes:
It only becomes difficult and irrational if the definition for God is irrational, or the proposed indication for His existance is irrational.
I don't think that's correct. Reification of god is difficult because it is unconstrained by nature or observation.
I think this is the crux of our difference.
If I agree with your statement... that God is unconstrained by nature or observation... then I actually agree with the rest of your entire post to me and with the rest of your points. And I would also then agree that the statement "I know that God does not exist" is false.
It's just that something (anything... regardless of it being God or not) being "unconstrained by nature or observation" seems irrational to me. Which is why I then dismiss the rest of your entire argument... because if your defintion of God is irrational, then it doesn't have an effect on my rational conclusion. (Do you agree with that? ... "if" such a definition was irrational?)
So... lets focus our discussion on whether or not such a thing is rational. Do you agree that this is the correct course for our discussion?
Unconstrained by nature or observation.
Do we know of anything that is unconconstrained by nature or observation? (Other than ideas of God... He's what we're trying to figure out..).
Is there any rational indication to consider that anything could exist that is unconstrained by nature or observation?
I am currently under the impression that all things we have ever learned about and added to our factual data set are all "constrained by nature or observation".
Even strange things such as Quantum Mechanics still have probability rules that they follow and allow for us to understand them, predict them and use them for our benefit.
If it is true that all things we have ever known "to exist" are all constrained by nature or observation, then wouldn't it be irrational to suggest that anything (regardless of it being God or not) exists that is not contrained by nature or observation?
I answer "yes" to that question, and that is my flow of reasoning to claim that such a defintion of God is irrational.
But I am open to suggestion if you have another idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 10-19-2012 10:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 12:00 PM Stile has replied
 Message 184 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2012 1:28 PM Stile has replied
 Message 196 by TrueCreation, posted 10-22-2012 8:31 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 183 of 3207 (676127)
10-19-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
10-19-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Remaining Rational
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think that the fact that the counter-claim is irrational necessitates that your claim is rational. They could still both be irrational.
I agree.
And I welcome arguments that want to discuss whether or not my argument in the way I choose to present it is rational or not. Such a discussion would either end up with enlightening me (I am wrong), or showing that they are arguing a strawman and not my actual argument, or that they are wrong.
But in reading TrueCreation's posts... he doesn't seem to form any specific details about why my argument is wrong other than that I'm not searching for God correctly... and that "correct" search seems to hinge on his definition of "God."
(But, again, I could be wrong... TrueCreation could simply tell me that's not his issue).
So that's where I attempted to lead our conversation... to his definition of God.
I certainly do agree, however, that my argument needs to stand on it's own merits. It would be a fallacy to think my argument is rationally justified just because a certain definition of God is irrational.
Even if TrueCreation does agree that this definition of God is irrational... such an idea makes no judgement on the rationality of the rest of my argument. ...but it would give us something to forward the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 185 of 3207 (676136)
10-19-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by 1.61803
10-19-2012 1:28 PM


Re: Remaining Rational
1.61803 writes:
Does the propostion that reality may consist of being a 2D hologram manifesting the universe seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea of nature existing in a flux of probabilities waves rather than actual physical objects seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea that there may be a God existing unconstrained by nature seem irrational? oh you said yes to that one.
All these things are under investigation.
You should be able to answer those questions for me.
I have defined what I mean for something to "seem rational or irrational" to me.
I have defined that it depends on whether or not there is any rational indication from the data (facts/observations) we do have leading us in that direction or not.
You seem to be equivocating on the phrase "seems irrational" as if I meant something like "feels irrational". If that were the case, then I would admit that you have a point. However, this is not the case, I have provided an objective definition for when something "seems irrational" or not to me. The difference depends on whether or not there is any rational indication leading us in the direction of that investigation. God being unconstrained by nature does not pass this test.
I think this is a difference worth noting.
I think it is a difference worth noting in the same way we note other ideas that do not pass this test. By saying that we know they do not exist.
To comment on them specifically, there are observations of nature that certainly lead us to believe that nature may exist as a bunch of probability waves and not anything actually physical itself. I agree that such a thing sounds weird as we are not used to it.
However, weirdness has nothing to do with whether or not there are facts or observations that point us in the direction of investigation for this matter.
As for the 2-D hologram idea... I do not know much about it, so I can't really comment. But if it's anything like your probability wave example (and I'm willing to bet that it is)... then science is already investigating it. And science always has a rational indication leading to their investigations. That's why it's called "science" and not "stuff I'm making up."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2012 1:28 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 238 of 3207 (676491)
10-23-2012 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by ringo
10-20-2012 2:31 PM


A good foundation
All your replies seem to indicate different definitions for "knowing things" or for "God," without specifying what those definitions are or why you think it's a good idea to use them.
I have defined my terms and defended them, and restricted myself to using those terms as best I know how. I understand that if you disagree with such things than this argument doesn't make much sense. Such is the way of *any and all* arguments.
If you want to use other definitions, that's fine. But if you don't define them so that others can understand what you mean, and you don't defend them so that others can judge if they are acceptable or not, and you don't restrict yourself to the usage you've set up... then I can understand the confusion everyone has in trying to communicate with you on this topic.
I would suggest that in order to move past the confusion... and since you do not agree with the definitions that I have provided... then you can provide new definitions for "knowing things" and "God" in order to discuss the ideas in the way you think is best.
If you simply continue to disagree with my defintions as too restrictive without providing specific alternatives and showing how they are a better fit for everyday life as well as this particular idea, then there is no way to move the discussion forward, and there is no sense in continuing on this philosophical teeter-totter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 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