|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's what I'm saying; you can't have knowledge (as I define it) before the fact. You can only have knowledge of a fait accompli. How can you demonstrate that your knowledge of how to bake a cake is correct before the fact of baking the cake in question? I can say I believe the sun will come up tomorrow and I believe I can bake a cake. After the sun comes up I can say I know the sun came up. After I have baked a cake I can say I know how to bake a cake. I can say that I know x did not exist in the places I looked at the time I was looking. I can not claim to "know" any more than that about the existence of x.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That's exactly why I prefer a tighter definition. We have a tighter definition than the general population for "theory". Why not for "knowledge" too?
I think that saying such a thing is part of the general use of the idea for "knowing things" in the general population. Stile writes:
I would say, more precisely, that the data suggests that it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have a high level of confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I think that the lack of the sun "not rising" on everyday-we-have-accumulated-data-for-such-a-thing is enough indication from our data set in order for us to conclude that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." Stile writes:
I'd say that I plan to bake a cake tomorrow and I have a fairly high level of confidence in my abilty to do so.
But if we're at your house, and we just came home from the grocery store, and planned to bake tomorrow morning, I would find it very strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow." Stile writes:
So you fnd it confusing to discuss God. If I was interviewing you for the job of God-finder, that wouldn't give me much confidence in your ability to do the job.
I find it confusing to discuss an unidentified idea for which there is no indication it could even possibly be valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
For the same reason that I don't say evolution is "just a theory" like everybody else does - because it's a watered-down version of what the term should mean.
And I would say that I understand you, however I would wonder why you speak so strangely and just don't say that "you know" such things like everybody else does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I do recognize the role of tentativity and fallibilism. Tentativity means that we can give up an idea if it is proven to be wrong. It doesn't mean that we jump to conclusions prematurely. Why should the term "know" be used in the way you suggest? What is wrong with an epistemological stance that recognises the role of tentativity and fallibilism in knowledge and knowledge acquisition? One more time, it has nothing whatsoever to do with absolutism. It has to do with staying tentative until we can make an informed conclusion, not saying we "know" something when we haven't bothered to look at the evidence yet. Precise language should be important to science-minded people. They should be the first ones to say, "I haven't seen any evidence that points to God, so it seems pretty unlikely that He exists - but I don't know for sure."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
It's also the same definition that fundies use when they say they "know" God exists and they "know" what He's thinking. Of course, I'm using the same definition of "knowledge" that Straggler et al are using. I'm suggesting that we should hold our own knowledge to a higher standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow. My knowledge of past events gives me a high degree of confidence in that prediction. The results of an experiment are never "known" until the experiment is done. Beforehand, they can only be predicted.
You don't know the Sun will rise tomorrow and you only know how to bake the cakes created in the past but don't know how to bake a cake in the future. Straggler writes:
On the contrary, it's how scientists communicate. The sloppy terminology that you advocate is a tool of obfuscation, not communication.
It's ridiculous and, in terms of practical communication, unworkable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Loose definitions produce loose "knowledge".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Somehow I missed responding to this.
Stile writes:
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.
What rationally makes you think God could exist somewhere else in the universe? Stile writes:
I am certainly not arguing that we can not know what we do know.
ringo writes:
But... you can't. You're arguing that you cannot know these things. 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.I'm the one arguing that we can know these things because we do not have to acknowledge irrational possibilities. Stile writes:
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.
What if we discover something in the future that shows you that what you thought was "baking a cake" actually was not? Stile writes:
The problem with knowing a negative, such as "there is no God", is that there is never enough data.
ringo writes:
As soon as you have the data. At what point on that continuum do you decide that you "know" something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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?
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". Straggler writes:
You know positives. You don't know negatives.
In short - I know God doesn't exist. I know the Sun will rise tomorrow. I know how to bake a cake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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.
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. Stile writes:
Yes, that is a common misuse of the word. I'm arguing against that misuse. 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." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Sure. What does that have to do with whether or not there is anything supernatural?
Humans have a long history of mistakenly concluding that things are supernatural when in fact they aren't. Straggler writes:
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.
Then you are talking about non-supernatural gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
Swap "rigorous" for "silly".
Straggler writes:
Then the standard you are applying to the term 'knowledge' is pretty silly. ringo writes:
No.
Do you know that the Sun will rise tomorrow? Straggler writes:
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.
But you can't know with absolute certainty that the laws of chemistry won't suddenly change. Straggler writes:
Swap "politely" for "idiotically" and "explaining" for "equivocating".
It is you who is idiotically equivocating the term "knowledge".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
People bet on things every day. Are you saying they "know" which number will come up?
Will you bet me $1,000 that the sun won't come up tomorrow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Panda writes:
On the contrary, you're equivocating "know" with "expect". Unless you await each morning with a sense of trepidation, then you are equivocating with the word 'know' again. I expect the sun to come up tomorrow. I also expect a foolish response to this post but I don't "know" I will get one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024