Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


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


Message 1277 of 3207 (858103)
07-16-2019 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1276 by ringo
07-16-2019 1:51 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:
When we're looking for a really big unevidenced concept, it takes a lot more looking than a McDonalds menu.
I agree.
Which is why "thousands of years" is a lot more than "5 minutes."
You're moving the goalposts. I can ignore God quite nicely without pretending to "know" that He doesn't exist.
I'm remaining consistent.
I ignore all irrational concepts for the same reason - there is no evidence to accept them in the first place.
This leads me to know that all irrational concepts do not exist. Like banana keys and crab chairs.
If you cannot know that God exists - then to remain consistent - you cannot know that your keys are not bananas, and your chair is not a crab.
You cannot use the word "know" for anything at all as there is always an irrational (non-evidenced) concept that could add doubt to the conclusion of the knowledge.
I simply do not allow any irrational concepts to add doubt to the conclusion.
I know my keys do not exist as bananas and I only think they're keys as per the currently available information.
or
"I know my keys are not bananas."
I know my chair does not exist as a crab and I only think it's a chair as per the currently available information.
or
"I know my chair is not a crab."
For the same reasoning:
I know God does not exist in some equally-non-evidenced form and I only think God doesn't exist as per the currently available information.
or
"I know that God does not exist."
If you claim that such a phrasing is not adequate for God... can you identify why it is actually adequate for banana-keys or crab-chairs?
Or do you also refuse to claim that you know your keys are not bananas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1276 by ringo, posted 07-16-2019 1:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1289 by ringo, posted 07-17-2019 5:05 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1279 of 3207 (858107)
07-16-2019 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1278 by Phat
07-16-2019 3:45 PM


Re: You can't know God through any physical methods
Thugpreacha writes:
Belief will ultimately be embraced by less than 50%.
All humans embrace belief.
It's only "belief in God" that's on the decline.
It used to be much higher.
Now it's much lower.
It may rise again, even.
This has nothing to do with knowledge.
And there are several arguments in support of Gods existence.
Sounds great.
If there's evidence along with them - they will force a change in my conclusion.
If not - they won't change anything, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1278 by Phat, posted 07-16-2019 3:45 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1280 by PaulK, posted 07-16-2019 4:10 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1282 of 3207 (858112)
07-16-2019 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1281 by GDR
07-16-2019 4:19 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
Just how did you look there?
By observing the evidence.
We all see the effects of our ideas all the time. I see God as being that still small voice in us that causes to have hearts that respond to the call to perform acts of self-giving love.
We can't know whether or not that call on our hearts is from a deity or not. We can see the effects of it though.
That's the thing, though - isn't it?
Everything has specific effects that only it can give - that's how we know things exist.
You need electrical components to form a CPU and software to gain access to the internet.
We see the effects of the electrical components and the CPU and the software as we access the internet.
Therefore, we know the electrical components and the CPU and the software exist.
What are the effects of God that exist that are not otherwise already explained?
You may very well see God as being the still small voice.
I just see people being people doing people things as people always have.
And if we look at the evidence - there's none for God, and lots for people.
So what?
So - you offered "The Golden Rule" as an effect of God.
I showed that "The Golden Rule" is simply an effect of people being socially inclined - even rats have "The Golden Rule."
I showed you that there is no evidence for God in "The Golden Rule."
Speaking more as a Christian than as simply a theist; it is the Christian view that we are to spread the gene of self-giving love so what you describe is what I would expect.
Speaking is nice.
But evidence is what leads to knowledge.
Show some evidence.
Without that - I know that God does not exist.
I would add though that self-giving love as described by the Golden Rule goes well beyond just caring about those in our social grouping, or even our gene pool for that matter.
I agree that people are very capable of extremely high (un-countable) levels of self-giving Love that go beyond any and all "rules."
I think this is people being people doing people things.
You think this is from God.
There is evidence for people being people doing people things.
There is no evidence for God.
I know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1281 by GDR, posted 07-16-2019 4:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1283 by GDR, posted 07-16-2019 5:23 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1284 by Phat, posted 07-16-2019 10:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1286 of 3207 (858129)
07-17-2019 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1283 by GDR
07-16-2019 5:23 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
I can just as easily look at the results involving thoughts of self giving love and claim that it proves there is a god.
Really?
I can prove that people exist, and that people have feelings, and that people are capable of extraordinary things that some people would call miracles.
And you can "just as easily" prove there is a god?
Feel free.
I'm waiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by GDR, posted 07-16-2019 5:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1288 by GDR, posted 07-17-2019 10:48 AM Stile has replied
 Message 1292 by Phat, posted 07-17-2019 5:33 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1287 of 3207 (858133)
07-17-2019 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1284 by Phat
07-16-2019 10:14 PM


Re: chances
Thugpreacha writes:
I would thus argue that you have a built-in bias towards finding God.
I would agree with this.
But I think it's because of our human-social-intelligent nature. We tend to make up answers if none exist.
This doesn't add any evidence for God existing.
You claim that its a straight forward matter of evidence, but popular apologetic teaching suggests that No One seeks God and that collectively the people turn away from Him.
If you can define/explain/show another valid/practical/useful/reliable way to "know things" that doesn't include 'a straightforward matter of evidence' - I'm all ears.
If you can't... then yeah, "knowing" things is a straightforward matter of evidence.
Regardless of what popular apologetic teachings suggest.
Even though the Bible tells us that we were made in the image of God, humans by nature have historically and persistently acted always in ultimate defiance of such an authority...behaving the way that you suggest you would prefer to do...make your own maze, cheese, and even mouse. The whole idea of proving God is itself a way to thumb your nose at the seeming inability of god to defend himself and thus allowing human wisdom its nefarious place upon the throne.
I do want to make my own maze, cheese and even mouse.
But you don't get to assign a reasoning on me for doing so.
The fact that you attempt such an absurd notion implies that your interest in "finding the truth" is low and your interest in "protecting your own feelings" is high.
I, actually, am the only one capable of assigning a reason for me doing what I do.
It's up to you to believe me or not. I can't force you to think I'm being honest.
My reason for behaving as I do is not to thumb my nose at god and invest in human wisdom.
In fact, I wish that there was more than human wisdom available to us - think of what we could learn!!
But - we've tried that, and it's led to something called "The Dark Ages" - filled with stagnation, corruption, abuse and no progress whatsoever.
Then, after we try focusing more on what we can "know" (rationally - by way of evidence)... we progress onto things like the industrial revolution and the electronic age and all the prosperity we now enjoy.
My reason for doing as I do is not rooted in some desire to defy authority.
I have no issues with authority figures. I think for the most part they deserve respect and admiration.
My reason for doing as I do is simply because it seems to be what works.
Show something that works better, and I'll happily join in. Why wouldn't I?
Of course - if all you have is unreliable, non-evidenced, known-to-lead-to-stagnation,-corruption,-abuse-and-no-progress-whatsoever, easily-shown-to-be-wrong victim-blaming-attempts-at-shaming-me-into-agreeing-with-you... well, it's easy to spot the red flags and problems with your position. Why would I ever move in that direction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by Phat, posted 07-16-2019 10:14 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1300 of 3207 (858177)
07-18-2019 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1288 by GDR
07-17-2019 10:48 AM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
I know that is isn't proof to the point that I can say that I know there is a god, but I'm using the same logic that you are using to come to your conclusion.
You think people doing people things - things we've seen people do for tens of thousands of years - is the same thing as God doing people things - something we've never seen happen in thousands of years?
This may be where our difference lies.
I don't understand how you can say that's the same logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1288 by GDR, posted 07-17-2019 10:48 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by Phat, posted 07-18-2019 8:40 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 1302 of 3207 (858180)
07-18-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1289 by ringo
07-17-2019 5:05 PM


No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
But sharkfin soup at McDonalds is not an irrational concept.
True.
There's evidence for sharks.
Similarly, God is not an inherently irrational concept.
Untrue.
God is an inherently irrational concept.
Unless you can provide any amount of evidence that suggests God actually exists?
So they don't belong in the same discussion with banana keys or crab chairs. You definitely have two sets of goalposts there.
Sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu is meant to show how we identify something that doesn't exist - look for where it's supposed to be and see that it's not there.
If you want an example closer to "God" you should pick the one I've repeatedly said is closer to God - Santa Claus.
Sharkfin soup is not irrational - there is evidence it exists.
God is irrational - there is no evidence He exists.
Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs are irrational - there is no evidence they exist.
God belongs in the same discussion as Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs as they all have no evidence to suggest they exist.
This isn't moving goal posts.
This is being consistent.
You're just taking aspects of my discussion out of context and applying it incorrectly and then accusing me of moving goal posts.
Try this:
If someone had no knowledge of McDonald's menu - it would be rational for them to posit "Hey - I wonder if Sharkfin soup exists on McDonald's menu?"
Then they could look.
And it's not there.
After looking, and seeing it's not there - it's now irrational for them to continue to posit "Hey - I wonder if Sharkfin soup exists on McDonald's menu?"
Because they now have more information than before.
Do you agree?
If, for some reason, McDonald's menu didn't exist (the chain was never created, say) - I am also claiming that it's irrational to posit "Hey - I wonder if Sharkfin soup exists on McDonald's menu?"... as the question no longer make sense. In this scenario, we have no evidence that McDonald's menu exists - therefore it is irrational to posit if anything exists on it.
Same thing with God.
Thousands of years ago, if someone had no knowledge of God - it would be rational for them to posit "Hey - that sun is powerful, I wonder if a being exists in the sun that generates such power?"
Then we looked.
And over the millennia God has been claimed to be in all sorts of rational places.
And we looked.
And over the last few hundred years God has been claimed to be in all sorts of irrational places - but still causing rational effects.
And we looked.
After looking, we see that God isn't there. Not in any of the rational places. Not a cause for any of the rational effects.
After looking, for thousands of years, we have no evidence that God exists.
I am saying that it is now irrational to continue to posit:
"Hey - I wonder if God exists in the sun?"
"Hey - I wonder if God exists in the weather?"
"Hey - I wonder if God exists in heaven?"
"Hey - I wonder if God exists in our hearts?"
I am also saying that if one takes the next step and posits: "Hey - I wonder if God exists in someplace we cannot detect, doing things we also cannot detect?"
-this is equivalent to asking if God exists in an irrational place, doing irrational things - there's no evidence to suggest that the question is rational in any way. Just like banana keys and crab chairs. If one goes in this direction, because there's no evidence for any of it, the entire question is again irrational.
It's all consistent.
It all uses the same goalposts.
Please don't take a small piece from one context and attempt to apply it to another - such things never work in any consistent framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by ringo, posted 07-17-2019 5:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by Phat, posted 07-18-2019 8:36 AM Stile has replied
 Message 1310 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:03 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1379 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2019 7:25 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1305 of 3207 (858184)
07-18-2019 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Phat
07-17-2019 5:33 PM


Re: Historical Philosophical Proofs Of God Revisited
quote:
Prima Via: The Argument of the Unmoved Mover:
Summary
In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.[7][13]
Explanation
Aquinas uses the term "motion" in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of "change", more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality.[14] (For example, a puddle growing to be larger would be counted inside the boundaries of Aquinas' usage.) Since a potential does not yet exist, it cannot cause itself to exist and can therefore only be brought into existence by something already existing.[1]
But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing.
This may or may not be true.
I don't know enough about physics to say either way.
But I will assume it is true, for the sake of the argument.
This everyone understands to be God.
This is definitely not true.
The words "everyone" and "understands" do not apply.
It would be more accurate to say "Some people claim this to be because of God."
But still - there's no evidence of God - so why introduce the concept of God which comes along with a whole lot of additional baggage other than "moves that which has no cause."
If we want to posit something that "moves that which has no cause" and does absolutely nothing else:
-isn't omnipotent
-is not necessarily even alive (may be a physical aspect of the universe we don't yet understand)
-doesn't care about people in any way, possible doesn't (or can't) even know people exist
...that could be considered rational.
To call this "God" is itself irrational because "God" has a lot of other baggage in it's meaning.
quote:
Secunda Via: The Argument of the First Cause
Summary
In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.[13]
Explanation
As in the First Way, the causes Aquinas has in mind are not sequential events, but rather simultaneously existing dependency relationships: Aristotle's efficient cause. For example, plant growth depends on sunlight, which depends on gravity, which depends on mass.[8] Aquinas is not arguing for a cause that is first in a sequence, but rather first in a hierarchy: a principal cause, rather than a derivative cause.[15]
Same as above.
Maybe things do require a cause.
There is no evidence that such a "fundamental cause-giver" is God.
There is no evidence that God exists.
Applying the term God is irrational because it comes along with so much other definitional baggage. It would be better to use a new term - like "The Dark Cause." That would be rational.
Perhaps, one day, we will find evidence that shows The Dark Cause is from God - then "God" will be a rational possible explanation. Until then, though - God remains irrational.
quote:
Tertia Via: The Argument from Contingency
Summary
In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.[7][13]
Explanation
The argument begins with the observation that things around us come into and go out of existence: animals die, buildings are destroyed, etc. But if everything were like this, then, at some time nothing would exist. Some interpreters read Aquinas to mean that assuming an infinite past, all possibilities would be realized and everything would go out of existence. Since this is clearly not the case, then there must be at least one thing that does not have the possibility of going out of existence.[13] However, this explanation seems to involve the fallacy of composition (quantifier shift). Moreover, it does not seem to be in keeping with Aquinas' principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another.[16] Alternatively, one could read Aquinas to be arguing as follows: if there is eternal change, so that things are eternally being generated and corrupted, and since an eternal effect requires an eternal cause (just as a necessary conclusion requires necessary premises), then there must exist an eternal agent which can account for the eternity of generation and corruption. To hold the alternative, namely that an infinite series of contingent causes would be able to explain eternal generation and corruption would posit a circular argument: Why is there eternal generation and corruption? Because there is an eternal series of causes which are being generated and corrupted. And why is there an infinite series of causes which are being generated and corrupted? Because there is eternal generation and corruption. Since such an explanation is not acceptable, there must be (at least one) eternal and necessary being.
But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now.
The premise for this one falls apart.
This isn't true at all.
Why can't a continuous chain of contingent-items coming-in and going-out of existence go on forever?
quote:
Quarta Via: The Argument from Degree
Summary
We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals. Moreover, some substances are better than others, since living things are better than non-living things, and animals are better than plants, in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged. For example in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus. From this he deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.[13]
Explanation
The argument is rooted in Aristotle and Plato but its developed form is found in Anselm's Monologion.[17][18] Although the argument has Platonic influences, Aquinas was not a Platonist and did not believe in the Theory of Forms. Rather, he is arguing that things that only have partial or flawed existence indicate that they are not their own sources of existence, and so must rely on something else as the source of their existence.[19] The argument makes use of the theory of transcendentals: properties of existence. For example, "true" presents an aspect of existence, as any existent thing will be "true" insofar as it is true that it exists. Or "one," insofar as any existent thing will be (at least) "one thing."[20] The premise which seems to cause the most difficulty among interpreters of the fourth way is that the greatest in a genus is the cause of all else in the genus. This premise does not seem to be universally true, and indeed, Aquinas himself thinks that this premise is not always true, but only under certain circumstances[21]: namely, when 1) the lesser things in the genus need a cause, and 2) there is nothing outside the genus which can be the cause. When these two conditions are met, the premise that the greatest in the genus is the cause of all else in that genus holds, since nothing gives what it does not have. Since Aquinas is dealing specifically with transcendentals like being and goodness, and since there is nothing outside the transcendentals, it follows that there is nothing outside the genus which could be a cause (condition 2). Moreover, if something has less than the maximum being or goodness or truth, then it must not have being or goodness or truth in itself. For example, how could what has circularity itself be less than fully circular? Therefore, whatever has less than the maximum being or goodness or truth must need a cause of their being and goodness and truth (condition 1).
We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals.
This is subjective.
There are times where a poorly drawn circle is much better than a well-drawn circle - when attempting to be creative or different, say.
in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree.
...this is silly.
I wouldn't choose to lose my senses for the sake of having the longevity of a God either.
Does this mean that people are "better" than Gods?
Of course not.
Equally so - this doesn't mean that people are "better" than trees. Or that animals are "better" than plants.
The concept is juvenile at best.
For example in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true...
I'm tall.
Tall isn't always best.
I hate flying because I'm tall. Short people are comfortable on planes - I don't fit.
The premise for this falls apart. Therefore the argument is bogus.
Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus.
This is easily shown to be false.
The tallest person in a room is not the cause of all the other heights of all the rest of the people in the room.
You do understand this - yes?
With issues in all the premises for this argument, there's no reason to entertain the conclusion.
quote:
Quinta Via: Argument from Final Cause or Ends
Summary
We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.[13]
Explanation
This is also known as the Teleological Argument. However, it is not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument from design (see below). Instead, as the 1920 Dominican translation puts it, The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world[2].
The Fifth Way uses Aristotle's final cause. Aristotle argued that a complete explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the specific behaviors associated with the type of thing it is (final cause).[22] The concept of final causes involves the concept of dispositions or "ends": a specific goal or aim towards which something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions. The oak tree is the "end" towards which the acorn "points," its disposition, even if it fails to achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something intelligent is guiding it.[23]
It must be emphasized that this argument is distinct from the design argument associated with William Paley and the Intelligent Design movement. The latter implicitly argue that objects in the world do not have inherent dispositions or ends, but, like Paley's watch, will not naturally have a purpose unless forced to do some outside agency.[23] The latter also focus on complexity and interworking parts as the effect needing explanation, whereas the Fifth Way takes as its starting point any regularity.[23] (E.g., that an eye has a complicated function therefore a design therefore a designer) but an argument from final cause (e.g., that the pattern that things exist with a purpose itself allows us to recursively arrive at God as the ultimate source of purpose without being constrained by any external purpose).
We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results.
Accepted.
However... we also see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in irregular ways. Ways which are due to chance. What about them?
So their behavior must be set.
Accepted.
But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior.
Although I agree it cannot be set by themselves.
It is not because they are non-intelligent.
Non-intelligent things set behaviour all the time. Have you never seen a pool table before?
The bumpers around the pool table set the behaviour of the pool balls.
As the pool balls move in the bumpers, the bumpers set their direction in a predictable fashion.
The bumpers are not intelligent.
Therefore - non-intelligence is certainly capable of setting predictable behaviour.
Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else...
Accepted.
...and by implication something that must be intelligent.
False, as shown by pool table bumpers setting the predictable behaviour of pool balls.
This everyone understands to be God.
This conclusion is unacceptable because the premise falls apart.
And, again, only "some" claim it to be God anyway.
The dishonesty and stretching of credibility within these "pretty good" historical arguments are telling.
Whoever wrote them already had their conclusion in mind.
There is still no evidence here for God.
Therefore - I still know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Phat, posted 07-17-2019 5:33 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 1306 of 3207 (858192)
07-18-2019 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1303 by Phat
07-18-2019 8:36 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Thugpreacha writes:
I maintain that you don't find Him because you don't want Him.
When you go against the evidence, it's easy to "maintain" anything you want that's incorrect.
I've told you many, many times - if God does exist - I certainly do want Him in my heart helping me - why wouldn't I?
This doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that God exists in my heart - or yours.
This doesn't change the fact that things with no evidence are irrational to posit.
This doesn't change the fact that in a rational, reasonable sense - I know that God does not exist.
You simply made an argument absolving you of any emotional responsibility.
I accept any and all emotional responsibility.
Now what happens to your argument?
Do you alter it to adjust to the new infomation?
Or do you dig in your heels - insist I must be lying, and continue to pout?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by Phat, posted 07-18-2019 8:36 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1308 of 3207 (858203)
07-18-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1304 by Phat
07-18-2019 8:40 AM


Re: chances
Thugpreacha writes:
Jesus was God incarnate. Jesus did people things. Though many arguments have attempted to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence, the argument is far from conclusive.
What I see here is an attempt to pull things along by mis-placed context.
Let's parse it a bit:
Jesus was God incarnate.
There is no evidence of this.
Jesus did people things.
There is evidence of a man named Jesus doing people things during the time that the Bible is describing, yes - but you are correct, it is far from conclusive.
many arguments have attempted to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence
There is no evidence of God's existence.
It is therefore rational and reasonable to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence.
Just as we do with Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs.
If a claim is made without evidence - it is irrational.
If a claim is made with evidence - it is rational.
There are no claims of God's existence that come with any evidence for God's existence.
They are all irrational.
Therefore - from what we do have rational evidence for or "from what we know" - I know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by Phat, posted 07-18-2019 8:40 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 1311 of 3207 (858219)
07-18-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by ringo
07-18-2019 12:03 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
not existing doesn't make it an irrational concept.
That's true.
What makes it an irrational concept is the "no evidence" for it part.
God is an inherently irrational concept.
Because there is no evidence for the concept.
The word "exist" doesn't have to be in there at all - it is irrelevant to the idea being irrational or not.
Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God.
You're moving goalposts here.
Sharkfin soup has evidence that it exists.
God does not.
What applies rationally to Sharkfin soup - because there's evidence for Sharkfin soup - does not apply rationally to God - because there's no evidence for God.
You're trying to say they are analogous in this context - but they're not.
One has evidence, the other does not.
I only tried to say they are analogous in the way we identify if things exist or not:
1. Is the concept rational?
2. If rational - where is it?
3. Look there to see if it's there.
With Sharkfin soup:
1. Is the concept rational? - Yes.
2. If rational - where is it? - It is on McDonald's menu.
3. Look there to see if it's there - It is not.
Therefore I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
With God:
1. Is the concept rational? - No.
2. N/A
3. N/A
I know that God does not exist.
I am not shifting goalposts - it is the same process flow for both.
You are the one attempting to say that point #1 for Sharkfin soup should say that point #2 or #3 for God is rational. It doesn't work that way. God doesn't make it to #2 or #3... just like Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs.
The sharkfin soup is what defeats your whole argument. There is no place where it is "supposed to be". Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God.
I never claimed that Sharkfin soup does not exist - do you think I did? Perhaps that is your error.
I only claimed that "Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" to show an easy example of how we identify things not existing: looking where they are supposed to be.
Sharkfin soup not being on McDonald's menu only allows me to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
I have never claimed to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist."
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
God is irrational - there is no evidence He exists.
Still wrong.
Still correct - actually.
Your critic is mis-applied, as I've described to you many times now.
You seem to make the same error again and again - taking context from one aspect and attempting to use it on another aspect to imply that it's incorrect. This mis-application of ideas is why your identification of an error is incorect in itself.
If you really think you have something here... then walk through the easy steps I've provided.
How is Sharkfin soup's #1, #2, and #3 the same as God's #1, #2 and #3?
They appear completely different to me - although they do both us the same process and goal posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:32 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1313 of 3207 (858223)
07-18-2019 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1312 by ringo
07-18-2019 12:32 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
A concept doesn't need evidence. There is no evidence for unicorns but it is not an irrational concept. There's a whole realm of literature - science fiction, fantasy - built on concepts that are not evidenced but not irrational.
Remember our overall context - we're talking about things existing.
I agree with you that "God exists" is a concept.
I will not try to claim: I know that God does not exist as a concept.
I am only claiming: I know that God does not exist.
In this context:
Sharkfin soup existing on McDonald's menu is a rational concept - Sharkfin soup and McDonald's menu both have evidence supporting their existence.
Unicorns and God are are not rational concepts - Unicorns have no evidence for their existence. God has no evidence for His existence.
I agree that I cannot rationally claim:
I know that unicorns do not exist as a concept.
I know that God does not exist as a concept.
However, this has no impact on my being able to claim:
I know that unicorns do not exist.
I know that God does not exist.
But you were looking in the wrong place for evidence of sharkfin soup. You can't claim there is "no evidence" if you're looking in the wrong place.
Again - I didn't claim that sharkfin soup did not exist.
I claimed that sharkfin soup did not exist on McDonald's menu.
Where else should I look for such a claim other than McDonald's menu?
As long as you make the mistake of calling God an irrational concept, you will come up with the same wrong conclusion.
You are, again, confusing contexts in an attempt to make a point that actually doesn't exist.
To be clear:
I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.
I am claiming that God does not exist.
To claim that God exists is an irrational concept - until there is evidence that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1312 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1314 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:52 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1315 of 3207 (858225)
07-18-2019 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1314 by ringo
07-18-2019 12:52 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Again, rationality has nothing to do with evidence.
Sure it does: believing that something exists without evidence that it exists is irrational - no?
Believing that banana keys exist without evidence of banana keys is irrational - no?
This is how "rationality" has something to do with "evidence."
I agree that rationality isn't completely or only concerned with evidence. The word is rather versatile.
However - to say it has "nothing to do with evidence" is clearly incorrect.
And, the context of this argument keeps the word 'irrational' closely linked to 'evidence.'
You are claiming (Message 1302) that, "God is an inherently irrational concept." It is not.
In the context where the concept is concerning God's existence - yes, it is.
As is the context of Message 1302.
My very next line was "Unless you can provide any amount of evidence that suggests God actually exists?"
Clearly the context I was thinking of revolved around God's actual existence.
Again, to be clear again:
I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.
I am claiming that God does not exist.
Perhaps my older context wasn't clear. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, maybe you missed it - it doesn't matter.
There's nothing wrong with clarifying when confusion occurs.
You can accept this clarification - upon which the argument still stands.
Or you can cling to the incorrect interpretation - which has nothing to do with the argument, although the more you chase an obvious strawman, the weaker your credibility becomes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1314 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 12:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1316 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 1:17 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1317 of 3207 (858228)
07-18-2019 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1316 by ringo
07-18-2019 1:17 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Believing that the concept is real may be irrational. The concept itself is not. You're moving the goalposts again.
I've explained how this is not applicable and how I'm not moving goalposts.
Again, see my #1, #2, and #3 items for sharkfin soup and God and how they apply:
quote:
1. Is the concept rational?
2. If rational - where is it?
3. Look there to see if it's there.
With Sharkfin soup:
1. Is the concept rational? - Yes.
2. If rational - where is it? - It is on McDonald's menu.
3. Look there to see if it's there - It is not.
Therefore I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
With God:
1. Is the concept rational? - No.
2. N/A
3. N/A
These are my goalposts.
They haven't moved from the first post in this thread.
If you think they've moved, feel free to show how.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1316 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 1:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 5:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1323 of 3207 (858286)
07-19-2019 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1318 by ringo
07-18-2019 5:14 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
You have not explained in any way how the concept of God is inherently irrational. You just keep asserting it. If you want to redefine irrational" along with "know", etc., it's going to be difficult to figure out what your "context" is.
Are you serious?
Have you not read any of the over 1300 posts in this thread?
Here we go again:
Irrational (from the dictionary): not logical or reasonable
Irrational (in the specific context of this discussion): thinking/proposing/claiming that an idea exists in reality when there is no evidence to support that the idea actually exists in reality in the first place.
Sounds very "not logical or reasonable" to me - do you have any disagreement?
Now... onto God.
Do you agree that the idea that God exists in reality has no evidence to support it?
If you do not agree - please provide the evidence.
If you do agree - then the idea that God exists in reality is irrational.
It's not an overly complicated explanation and I must have provided it to you 4 or 5 times now.
As long as the logic is internally consistent, the concept of God is not irrational.
But the logic isn't internally consistent... unless you'd like to explain how believing something actually exists without any evidence to suggest that it exists in the first place is actually "rational?"
You will have to explain how banana keys are rational.
You will have to explain how crab chairs are rational.
If you do that - then I will fully accept that the idea of God existing without any evidence that God exists in the first place is also rational.
Without doing that... it is not logically internally consistent.
Thus, it is not different from the concept of sharkfin soup.
Sharkfin soup has evidence of it's existence.
God does not.
You seem to be avoiding this massive, massive difference between the two items.
If you contrive to search only in places where you don't expect to find them, you can claim non-existence of either, but your claim will not be very convincing.
#1. Is the idea rational?
#2. Where is the idea to be found?
#3. Look for the idea.
Sharfin soup gets past #1.
Banana keys, crab chairs and God do not.
This is your error.
Without being able to describe how you're dealing with this error of yours - your critic is nullified.
And I still know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by ringo, posted 07-18-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1325 by Tangle, posted 07-19-2019 11:40 AM Stile has replied
 Message 1327 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 11:51 AM Stile has replied
 Message 1329 by 1.61803, posted 07-19-2019 12:12 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1333 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 1:04 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1340 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 1:32 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