Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 3:28 PM
34 online now:
Faith, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (8 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,617 Year: 9,653/19,786 Month: 2,075/2,119 Week: 111/724 Day: 43/68 Hour: 4/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
52NextFF
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 481 of 774 (830652)
04-04-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Thugpreacha
03-26-2018 10:27 AM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Phat responds to me:

quote:
The whole problem with your line of reasoning is that it is Rrhain-centric.

No, the contrapositive is true despite who is involved.

If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.

quote:
You may well be able to poof God out of existence in your own mind, and your logic may be impeccable, but if God exists, he needs no acknowledgment from an actor named Rrhain.

So god exists by not existing?

Or are you engaging in ad hoc? Consider the possibility that the thing you mean when you say "god" isn't what is actually there. "Oh, but then *that's* what I mean!" That's the ad hoc fallacy.

I don't deny that there is the possibility of some amazing being out there. After all, compare the abilities that we as humans have compared to other living things we've noticed on this planet. But just as we are not "god" compared to viruses (even though we are able to create viruses de novo), that other being would not be "god" but just another being, part and parcel of existence.

But you might disagree with that concept of "god." This is why it isn't up to me to provide that definition. It isn't my burden of proof.

You're the one saying that god exists. You're the one who needs to define what it is you mean by that word.

If your definition is such that it results in a logical contradiction and you're happy with that, then there is nothing more that could be gained by continuing.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-26-2018 10:27 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-04-2018 4:31 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6913
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 482 of 774 (830657)
04-04-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 3:39 PM


Rrhain writes:

And even more inexplicably, YOU disproved god, too. You, who claims it cannot be done, did the very thing you're certain is impossible.

Must everything be repeated to you every single time?

What both you and I have done is demonstrate that a particular belief about a particular god is wrong. I suggest you get on with the rest.

But maybe a short cut would be to attempt - using science - to demonstratie that a non-theistic god doesn't exist? I don't hold out much hope, I expect you'll continue to play word games, but you never know, you might be the one person in the world able to disprove god. Go for it big boy, your ego is certainly up to it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 3:39 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:50 PM Tangle has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12439
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 483 of 774 (830662)
04-04-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 4:04 PM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Rrhain writes:

I don't deny that there is the possibility of some amazing being out there. After all, compare the abilities that we as humans have compared to other living things we've noticed on this planet. But just as we are not "god" compared to viruses (even though we are able to create viruses de novo), that other being would not be "god" but just another being, part and parcel of existence.

But you might disagree with that concept of "god." This is why it isn't up to me to provide that definition. It isn't my burden of proof.

You're the one saying that god exists. You're the one who needs to define what it is you mean by that word.

So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong...) all that you are doing is disproving each God that we create/define/describe. In order to do this, you start with the default conclusion that no God exists. Which may or may not be true.

Technically you win this argument by shifting the burden of proof onto the positive truth claims as they are slow-pitched to you one at a time...which shows that you are great at verbal softball, but have done nothing to disprove the God who may exist...regardless of and despite our feeble attempts at definition.

In other words, I am challenging your initial ground rule of no God as a default position. May or may not is the standard...not does not.


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 481 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:04 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 8:20 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 484 of 774 (830667)
04-04-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Tangle
04-04-2018 4:10 PM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
What both you and I have done is demonstrate that a particular belief about a particular god is wrong. I suggest you get on with the rest.

What "rest" is there?

What do you mean by "god"? You're the one saying that it can't be disproven. Well, you disproved it. Are you saying that wasn't what you meant by "god"? Then what did you mean? We'll overlook your straw godding and wait patiently for you to provide the definition of "god" that you're referring to. Remember, I'm not looking to convince anybody else but you. Thus, we need your definition, not someone else's.

Go for it, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat. Your ego is...well, we won't get into speculation about it lest that lead down an inappropriate road. Instead, we'll just remind you that you seem to be capable of defining what you mean by "harm" over in the Religious Special Pleading thread (Message 206):

Harm is a well defined legal concept, moreover everyone knows exactly what it means; particularly when they're harmed.

Did you think I wouldn't notice?

Or perhaps your ego is getting in your way of doing the same thing here.

Spin the merry-go-round, Tangle. You know you want to.

SPIN IT!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:10 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:52 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6913
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 485 of 774 (830668)
04-04-2018 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 4:50 PM


Now you're just being boring.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 4:50 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 7:29 PM Tangle has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 486 of 774 (830674)
04-04-2018 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by Tangle
04-04-2018 4:52 PM


Tangle completely abandons his argument.

Well, whenever you wish to actually try, we'll be here.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2018 4:52 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 3:42 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 487 of 774 (830675)
04-04-2018 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Thugpreacha
04-04-2018 4:31 PM


Re: Assertions Open To Interpretation
Phat responds to me:

quote:
So basically, (correct me if I'm wrong...) all that you are doing is disproving each God that we create/define/describe.

You're the one claiming god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to define what you mean by "god." We'll then examine it to see if there are any contradictions. If so, you can conceivably change your definition (after all, that's how science tends to work: You hypothesize and test and then adapt your hypothesis to the data) or, if the contradictions are bad enough, you abandon it completely.

quote:
In order to do this, you start with the default conclusion that no God exists. Which may or may not be true.

The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is brought forward to contradict it.

Note, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. But note, you have to be careful not to ascribe causes to effects without evidence. We know that there is a world around us (ignoring any solipsistic arguments). We know that we exist. How did we get here? "I don't know" is perfectly fine. To then insist that one of the possible causes for the effect of the world and life is "god did it" is to assume that which you are trying to prove. We don't know what you mean by "god" and you haven't provided any justification for why such a thing would even exist let alone be responsible for the effect you are claiming this "god" object caused.

quote:
Technically you win this argument by shifting the burden of proof onto the positive truth claims as they are slow-pitched to you one at a time

Incorrect. You have that backwards.

It was never my burden of proof. I am not the one making the claim. It is the ones who insist that god exists who must prove the existence of such. If you're going to insist that you be allowed to keep the word "god" as a meaningful term, then you're the one who needs to provide a definition for it. It is you who is attempting to shift the burden of proof so that you can avoid responsibility for your argument.

If you don't have a definition for it, then that word "god" doesn't actually refer to anything. And if it doesn't refer to anything, how can what it refers to exist? That word means something. What is it? You're the one who believes in it, so you're the one who needs to tell us what you mean. That definition might be vague and tenuous (f'rinstance, we have a term, "dark matter," but nobody can tell us what it really is...the only reason we have it is because of an effect we can directly see regarding the rotation of galaxies and our understanding of how gravity works), but it is still there.

At the risk of being glib:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

quote:
In other words, I am challenging your initial ground rule of no God as a default position. May or may not is the standard...not does not.

Then you deny logic. "May or may not" is not the standard. The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence is put forward to reject it. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that god exists. Therefore, it is your burden of proof to show why.

"I don't know" does not indicate "god did it" is a possibility. That assumes that which you are trying to prove:

What do you mean by "god"?
How do you know this "god" object exists?
How do you know this "god" object is capable of whatever effect you are trying to ascribe responsibility to?
How do you know this "god" object actually did the specific effect under examination?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-04-2018 4:31 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6913
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 488 of 774 (830686)
04-05-2018 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
04-04-2018 7:29 PM


Rrhain writes:

Well, whenever you wish to actually try, we'll be here.

The burden is on you; when you are able to demonstrate the non-existence of god using science - your claim of a couple of hundred posts ago - I'll happily read it. 'Til, then we can assume your claim is puff.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2018 7:29 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2018 8:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 489 of 774 (830736)
04-05-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Tangle
04-05-2018 3:42 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
The burden is on you

Incorrect. You're the one making the claim. You are the one claiming that god cannot be disproven.

Therefore, it is your burden of proof to justify that claim. It starts with you defining god. Once that is done, you can the display your evidence that leads to a conclusion that this "god" object cannot be disproven.

I then have the opportunity to pick through your defense of your argument and attempt to disprove it. But you have to go first because (say it with me):

You're the one making the claim.

When you are able to demonstrate what it is you mean by "god" and show how it cannot be disproven, your claim of a couple hundred posts ago, I'll happily read it. Till then, we can assume your claim is puff.

Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.

SPIN IT!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2018 3:42 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-01-2019 3:40 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1172
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 490 of 774 (853645)
05-30-2019 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
10-10-2012 2:27 PM


Stile writes:

I know that God doesn't exist.


In order to claim that you must have died and seen what on the other side, then come back to tell us what you discovered. How did you do that? And how did you do that without some help from God?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 10-10-2012 2:27 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by ringo, posted 05-30-2019 11:46 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 493 by Stile, posted 05-31-2019 11:39 AM Dredge has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16673
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 491 of 774 (853658)
05-30-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dredge
05-30-2019 12:57 AM


Dredge writes:

In order to claim that you must have died and seen what on the other side, then come back to tell us what you discovered. How did you do that? And how did you do that without some help from God?


That's been done with help from medical science. Do you have hard evidence that any of them found "another side"? How, exactly, could somebody bring back verifiable evidence, even if there was "another side"?

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Dredge, posted 05-30-2019 12:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by 1.61803, posted 05-31-2019 10:06 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2841
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 492 of 774 (853726)
05-31-2019 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by ringo
05-30-2019 11:46 AM


Well if someone came back with Einstein, Carl Sagen and Stephen Hawking, that would be a start.

"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 491 by ringo, posted 05-30-2019 11:46 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3523
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 493 of 774 (853740)
05-31-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dredge
05-30-2019 12:57 AM


Dredge writes:

Stile writes:

I know that God doesn't exist.

In order to claim that you must have died and seen what on the other side, then come back to tell us what you discovered.

You are wrong.
I do not need to have died and seen what's on the other side.
Just as those who claim to know that God does exist are not required to have died and seen what's on the other side.

There are other ways.

Like the way I explained:

quote:
  • How do we "know" things?
    We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
    We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

  • 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.

    Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
    This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

  • 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.

  • Therefore, I know that God does not exist.
    I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
    Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.
  • I seem to copy and paste my responses to you every time you post.

    Do you have any questions that aren't already dealt with?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 490 by Dredge, posted 05-30-2019 12:57 AM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 505 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2019 3:14 AM Stile has responded

        
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12439
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 494 of 774 (853818)
    06-01-2019 3:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 489 by Rrhain
    04-05-2018 8:06 PM


    Actually it could be argued that God is the one making the claim. I AM that I Am.

    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

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 489 by Rrhain, posted 04-05-2018 8:06 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 495 by ringo, posted 06-01-2019 12:22 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16673
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.9


    (2)
    Message 495 of 774 (853833)
    06-01-2019 12:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 494 by Thugpreacha
    06-01-2019 3:40 AM


    Phat writes:

    Actually it could be argued that God is the one making the claim. I AM that I Am.


    quote:
    "I'm Batman."
    -- Batman

    Not a very compelling argument.

    Izquierdo.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 494 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-01-2019 3:40 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 496 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2019 12:57 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    3132
    33
    3435
    ...
    52NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019