Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
198 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 194 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,401 Year: 7,149/23,288 Month: 1,055/1,214 Week: 67/303 Day: 28/39 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16185
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 841 of 2483 (856205)
06-28-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by GDR
06-28-2019 11:05 AM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
quote:

I don't agree that it is irrational. We exist. We have consciousness. We have intelligence. We understand morality. Is it any more rational to believe that we are the result of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes or of a conscious intelligent root for the processes involved in the formation of life as we know it.

Yes, it is. We have some pretty good ideas about the origins of morality, some understanding of intelligence and if consciousness is largely mysterious you’d still be getting into an argument from ignorance.

You are producing a “solution” to these issues which doesn’t really solve anything and begs the questions of where morality, intelligence and consciousness come from. Does your presumed creator also require a creator ? If not then how did it get these properties ? And is your answer any more than assumption ?

That seems thoroughly irrational to me, to throw away the progress we are making in understanding these issues in favour of a pile of assumptions. It all looks like a very poor rationalisation to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 11:05 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 4:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 842 of 2483 (856206)
06-28-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by GDR
06-28-2019 12:18 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Wanted to mention something...

GDR writes:

I subjectively believe that my wife loves me and find confirmation of that by how she treats me. I believe that God works through the hearts of humans and I find that confirmed by the actions of people who live out lives of altruistic sacrificial love of others.

I agree with this (the analogy to loving-your-wife.)

I subjectively believe my wife loves me and continually obtain confirmations about that.
But I always subjectively believe that she loves me more than a rational analysis of the confirmation would allow.

I subjectively love my wife.
My love for my wife is irrational.
(Again - same context for irrational - not "silly or stupid" but simply - a concept that is claimed to exist when no evidence-for-the-existence exists itself.)

And I think my irrational love for my wife is stronger and more powerful (to me) than any possible rational analysis could provide.
I think my irrational love for my wife is better than any rational love for anything could ever be.

But... if someone asked me if my wife existed. Like, say... the government looking to identify her for a passport:
-I wouldn't tell them about how much I loved her
-I would send them copies of her birth certificate and current pictures in the format they require
-I would send the rational, objective evidence
-because the irrational idea that I-love-my-wife-more-than-anything means nothing to someone looking to see if she exists or not in a rational, reasonable context

I agree that my view is subjective but I don't see it as poetic.

I see my love for my wife as both subjective and poetic
Also - I'll get a kiss if she happens to see this

I just see it as the still small voice of God in all of us that we can respond to or reject.

I see it as people being people - using subjective feelings as an explanation for something they can't explain.
Of course - this is not rational, and should be ignored in the context of a rational, reasonable analysis of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 12:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 4:32 PM Stile has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 843 of 2483 (856208)
06-28-2019 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Theodoric
06-04-2019 4:55 PM


Probably because any definition of a deity would allow one to check and see if it exists, and . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2019 4:55 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 844 of 2483 (856210)
06-28-2019 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by GDR
06-28-2019 12:18 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
When you write "I believe that God works through the hearts of humans and I find that confirmed by the actions of people who live out lives of altruistic sacrificial love of others" you only demonstrate that you believe there are people who act in altruistic ways. That is not a demonstration of why one out to believe that there is another entity behind such people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 12:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 853 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 4:36 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 845 of 2483 (856211)
06-28-2019 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by Stile
06-10-2019 11:34 AM


But what is the evidence that "a powerful (possibly all-powerful) being that created us, loves us, and is a part of our lives in some fashion" exists in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Stile, posted 06-10-2019 11:34 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Stile, posted 06-28-2019 2:10 PM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 847 by Phat, posted 06-28-2019 2:32 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 846 of 2483 (856212)
06-28-2019 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Sarah Bellum
06-28-2019 2:05 PM


Sarah Bellum writes:

But what is the evidence that "a powerful (possibly all-powerful) being that created us, loves us, and is a part of our lives in some fashion" exists in the first place?

I've never witnessed any, or heard of a claim that held up to rational analysis.
Which makes it an irrational concept - unless someone can provide some evidence.
And, if it's nothing more than an irrational concept - it is rightly ignored in providing doubt to a rational analysis of the information we do have in assessing reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 2:05 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 4:18 PM Stile has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 13920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 847 of 2483 (856214)
06-28-2019 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Sarah Bellum
06-28-2019 2:05 PM


The Evidence Of Rational vs Irrational Behavior
The evidence is the behavior of the believers themselves in harmony (or contrast) to the rest of us. Take spiritual warfare, for example. It sounds totally irrational and illogical...and im not even going to claim that angels and demons are real. But what I will do is share this Pastor with you. Study him carefully to see if he is otherwise rational or irrational.

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 845 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 2:05 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 4:16 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7617
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 848 of 2483 (856218)
06-28-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by Stile
06-28-2019 11:56 AM


Re: Keys and Bananas
Stile writes:

If something cannot be observed - it is an irrational concept.

I really think you need to re-think that. Firstly, we have only very recently been able to observe anything small or far away on our own planet. Is a microbe or a black hole an irrational concept? We can't observe quantum mechanics but see its effect - like the invisible Santa - and only mathematical models hypothesise about many aspects of our universe.

Is it irrational to build mathematical models?

If you really think non interventionist gods should be treated differently than banana keys - make your case.

I've made it twice now - you just don't like it. That's fine, I don't like yours :-)

You do understand that we don't *really* know anything at all - right? That *everything* is only based upon the information available to us?

Er no, I don't understand that. I've heard that said and argued many times and think it philosophical bollox. I'm a pragmatist we know things based on our own definitions and our own abilities. That's good enough for me.

Such doubt is included in all knowledge.

Again, there's a category difference between knowing whether there's a chair in the room or whether there's something happening far beyond or current abilities to understand. Thinking you can apply your current reasoning to everything is a kind of belief.

Understanding the deist position is irrelevant to my argument that I Know God Does Not Exist.
Unless deists use their own dictionary with different meanings for words?

Well being a deist suggests that Percy has a different view to yours. One of you is wrong - how does that get resolved?


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 837 by Stile, posted 06-28-2019 11:56 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Stile, posted 07-02-2019 9:27 AM Tangle has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 849 of 2483 (856223)
06-28-2019 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by Phat
06-28-2019 2:32 PM


Re: The Evidence Of Rational vs Irrational Behavior
Blaming demons or angels or gods or whatever for the actions of persons is not the least evidence that those demons, angels or gods exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Phat, posted 06-28-2019 2:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 850 of 2483 (856224)
06-28-2019 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by PaulK
06-28-2019 12:38 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
PaulK writes:

Yes, it is. We have some pretty good ideas about the origins of morality, some understanding of intelligence and if consciousness is largely mysterious you’d still be getting into an argument from ignorance.

..but you are doing the same thing. You point to "ideas" about how morality evolved and you can talk about processes all the way back to the BB if you like. But, ultimately those processes had either an intelligent basis for their existence or a non-intelligent basis.

Just take evolutionary theory. It is an incredible process. Being incredible means it lacks credibility, but still, there it is. It is well evidenced. Then the question is, it more credible to believe that something that appears incredible is the result of intelligence or the result of virtually infinite series of incredible processes?

If my view is irrational then so is yours.

PaulK writes:

That seems thoroughly irrational to me, to throw away the progress we are making in understanding these issues in favour of a pile of assumptions.


I certainly don't advocate throwing it away. It answers an entirely different question than what I am talking about. That progress in knowledge is simply finding about how life as we know it happened, not why those happenings exist at all.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 12:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 4:56 PM GDR has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 851 of 2483 (856225)
06-28-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 846 by Stile
06-28-2019 2:10 PM


On the other hand, people are not wholly rational beings, so this is all no real surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Stile, posted 06-28-2019 2:10 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by Stile, posted 07-02-2019 9:30 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 852 of 2483 (856227)
06-28-2019 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 842 by Stile
06-28-2019 12:40 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Stile writes:

I agree with this (the analogy to loving-your-wife.)

I subjectively believe my wife loves me and continually obtain confirmations about that.
But I always subjectively believe that she loves me more than a rational analysis of the confirmation would allow.

I subjectively love my wife.
My love for my wife is irrational.
(Again - same context for irrational - not "silly or stupid" but simply - a concept that is claimed to exist when no evidence-for-the-existence exists itself.)

And I think my irrational love for my wife is stronger and more powerful (to me) than any possible rational analysis could provide.
I think my irrational love for my wife is better than any rational love for anything could ever be.

But... if someone asked me if my wife existed. Like, say... the government looking to identify her for a passport:
-I wouldn't tell them about how much I loved her
-I would send them copies of her birth certificate and current pictures in the format they require
-I would send the rational, objective evidence
-because the irrational idea that I-love-my-wife-more-than-anything means nothing to someone looking to see if she exists or not in a rational, reasonable context


But I'm not arguing about objective evidence. You subjectively love your wife and she loves you. That love produces what Dawkins' likes to call memes. Those memes as subjective or poetic if you like actually have had a physical effect on your life. I'm suggesting that we have a God meme that effects our life in a similar way that loving and being loved has on us. That love meme that you share with your wife is evidence that your wife actually exists and I would make the same argument for a God meme.

Stile writes:

I see my love for my wife as both subjective and poetic
Also - I'll get a kiss if she happens to see this

Hope that works out for you.
Stile writes:

I see it as people being people - using subjective feelings as an explanation for something they can't explain.
Of course - this is not rational, and should be ignored in the context of a rational, reasonable analysis of reality.


But I don't agree that it can be ignored as I pointed out above. You are claiming knowledge based on incomplete evidence.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by Stile, posted 06-28-2019 12:40 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 947 by Stile, posted 07-02-2019 9:41 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 853 of 2483 (856228)
06-28-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Sarah Bellum
06-28-2019 2:03 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
Sarah Bellum writes:

When you write "I believe that God works through the hearts of humans and I find that confirmed by the actions of people who live out lives of altruistic sacrificial love of others" you only demonstrate that you believe there are people who act in altruistic ways. That is not a demonstration of why one out to believe that there is another entity behind such people.


That isn't my claim. I am only saying that it exists and that it either has an intelligent root cause or a completely non-intelligent root. Either view is subjective and can't be objectively proven.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-28-2019 2:03 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-29-2019 8:43 AM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16185
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 854 of 2483 (856232)
06-28-2019 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by GDR
06-28-2019 4:17 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
quote:

.....but you are doing the same thing. You point to "ideas" about how morality evolved and you can talk about processes all the way back to the BB if you like. But, ultimately those processes had either an intelligent basis for their existence or a non-intelligent basis.

Before we get anywhere near the BB we have already left the area where we would find the origins of human morality, intelligence and consciousness.

But I am not arguing from ignorance - I am arguing from what we do know. We do have good ideas on the origin of human morality which do not require an intelligent cause. We don’t see any need for an intelligent cause for human intelligence or consciousness- or any way that assuming such a cause would help us understand either.

Parsimony is not an argument from ignorance either. And assuming an intelligent cause when one is not needed - even if we needed no further assumptions would go against parsimony. But we would need further and even more questionable assumptions.

quote:

Just take evolutionary theory. It is an incredible process. Being incredible means it lacks credibility, but still, there it is. It is well evidenced. Then the question is, it more credible to believe that something that appears incredible is the result of intelligence or the result of virtually infinite series of incredible processes?

Who says anything about “a virtually infinite series of incredible processes” ? Evolution is well-evidenced. It shows no sign of needing intelligent guidance. Assuming intelligent involvement - based on an argument from personal incredulity - is clearly irrational.

quote:

If my view is irrational then so is yours.

You are talking about gross violations of parsimony based on a purely subjective feeling. That is irrational. There is nothing irrational about declining to join you in your irrationality.

quote:

I certainly don't advocate throwing it away. It answers an entirely different question than what I am talking about. That progress in knowledge is simply finding about how life as we know it happened, not why those happenings exist at all.

The question of intelligent involvement is about how it happened. The “why’ questions you now prefer seem to me to beg the question by assuming intelligent involvement somewhere along the line. They aren’t arguments for an intelligent cause at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 4:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by GDR, posted 06-28-2019 10:39 PM PaulK has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5372
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 855 of 2483 (856249)
06-28-2019 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 854 by PaulK
06-28-2019 4:56 PM


Re: You're not looking hard enough
PaulK writes:

But I am not arguing from ignorance - I am arguing from what we do know. We do have good ideas on the origin of human morality which do not require an intelligent cause.

Good ideas do not equate with "knowing".

PaulK writes:

We don’t see any need for an intelligent cause for human intelligence or consciousness- or any way that assuming such a cause would help us understand either.

I'm not suggesting that it would help in understanding how consciousness evolved. It is about why consciousness evolved.

PaulK writes:

Who says anything about “a virtually infinite series of incredible processes” ? Evolution is well-evidenced. It shows no sign of needing intelligent guidance. Assuming intelligent involvement - based on an argument from personal incredulity - is clearly irrational.

Well firstly we cannot tell whether there was guidance or not, but I'm personally ok with no intervention. The question is why evolution at all. If it didn't have an intelligent root cause what is the process that allowed the evolutionary process to begin - and what was the process that kicked that process off and on and on and on.

PaulK writes:

The question of intelligent involvement is about how it happened. The “why’ questions you now prefer seem to me to beg the question by assuming intelligent involvement somewhere along the line. They aren’t arguments for an intelligent cause at all.

It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2019 4:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 856 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2019 2:21 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020