|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes: ot everything in life, philosophy, or experience can be evidenced. This in and of itself shouldn't limit rationality. Absolutely it should limit rationality. If it didn't, we would all be constantly wondering about banana keys and crab chairs.But we don't - because there's no evidence for them. Just like God - no evidence. I think what you intend is something along the lines of "this shouldn't limit motivation."Which I do agree with. Feel free to search for God, or believe in God, or gain whatever-subjective-benefits you can from God.God is a valid, useful, and powerful tool (for some) for such things. But... if you move into suggesting there's actually a rational reason to consider God's actual existence... you're going to need some evidence.Without that evidence... I know that God does not exist. Given this corollary, every single believer is irrational... Not true. Many believe and do not care if God actually exists or not. They have experiences for themselves and would never offer their subjective feelings as something that should persuade others, or be considered rational or logical.
you are essentially dismissing any consideration of the concept of God based solely on physical evidence. Wrong again.I am very open to non-physical evidence. It just has to evidence - that's all. Which you are allowed to do...yet I can dismiss such a conclusion as irrational to me based on my personal experience. If you want to define "irrational" as something other than "that which is not logical or reasonable" - that's up to you.I'll stick with the normal definition of the word. You of course may be rational to many. My argument appears to be rational/reasonable to all.Or, at least, no one here has yet been able to offer a valid rational/reasonable rebuttal or critic of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Dredge writes: Life arising naturally from inanimate matter defies science. How so?
But what is the point of offering such evidence to someone who is determined to reject any evidence for God’s existence? Probably none.But I'm not that kind of person. Show me evidence, and I'll change my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Stile writes: Please explain. I *have* explained. The idea that the universe has been created by some super-powerful body that we traditionally call a god isn't intrinsically irrational. Just very unlikely.
God is a failed hypothesis and we know He doesn't exist. We do not know that. We may never know that. All we can say is that there is insufficient evidence to support the God hypothesis and that so far the more we learn, the less likely it is to be correct.
But if you think otherwise - please explain how it's actually rational or logical to believe that something actually exists without any evidence whatsoever to support such an idea in the first place. Belief is not rational. Without sufficient evidence I see no reason to accept the god hypothesis so I don't. *That's* rational. Nevertheless, it's still a possibility that I'm wrong. That's also rational.
And the only reasonable conclusion based on what we do know about God is that we know God does not exist. We don't know, we form a provisional conclusion. Anything more becomes a belief. Which is irrational.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I'm going to ignore most of your reply in order to focus on what I think is the basic level of our disagreement.
ringo writes: So explain how the concept of God is not logical or reasonable.
Stile writes:
But that doesn't agree with the definition that you just posted. You can't just arbitrarily dictate that something must exist to be a rational idea. 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. I don't understand your disagreement here.How does it not agree? I'm not saying something has to actually exist.I'm saying there needs to be evidence that something could exist in order to hold a rational/reasonable/logical idea that there's a possibility it might exist. Examples:
#1 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when a noise is heard. A sound is made behind us.Stile: "What was that?" ringo: "I don't know." Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us." ringo: "I agree." #2 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when no noise is heard. No sound is made behind us.Stile: "What was that?" ringo: "What was what?" Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us." ringo: "I don't think so." Conclusions: I am proposing that in #1 I cannot say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is evidence to suggest it might exist, even if we don't know yet (we didn't turn around.) I am proposing that in #2 I can say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is no evidence to suggest it might exist in the first place. The idea that there's something there is irrational. Do you agree with these conclusions and this usage of "irrational?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: The idea that the universe has been created by some super-powerful body that we traditionally call a god isn't intrinsically irrational. Just very unlikely. But how is this rational in any way? I'm saying it's irrational because there's nothing to suggest that it's a possibility.I'm saying it's irrational because we've suggested "God" as an answer for many various "unknowns" in the past over the last few thousand years - and every time we've been able to eventually test it - it turns out God is not the answer. Therefore, there's an in-place pattern of suggesting "God" as an answer and having that answer be wrong. Therefore, if we rationally follow the pattern: God is not the creator of the universe.As well, there is no logical reason to suggest that God is the creator in the first place. How is it rational to suggest that God actually is a possibility?-Because millions of people believe in God? - This is not a rational reason, this is the logical fallacy of popularity -Because we traditionally associated God to things such as this in the past? - This is not a rational reason, as the pattern of associating-God-with-things has been shown to lead to be incorrect. All the time. Tangle writes: Stile writes:
We do not know that. We may never know that. God is a failed hypothesis and we know He doesn't exist. Then suggest the hypothesis that we do not know yet.Remember - a hypothesis is more than an idea, it is based on evidence. An hypothesis must be falsifiable. An hypothesis must have a valid reason to suggest it's possibility in the first place. So far all you've offered is "God might have created the universe." - This is not a valid hypothesis. Although it is (theoretically) falsifiable, it has no evidence to suggest it may be true in the first place. May as well have the "hypothesis" about banana keys and crab chairs - but I do hope you understand why those are not valid hypothesis, yes? Without sufficient evidence I see no reason to accept the god hypothesis so I don't. *That's* rational. Nevertheless, it's still a possibility that I'm wrong. That's also rational. There is no valid "God hypothesis." Therefore there's nothing to even suggest in the first place in order to "have a possibility it could be wrong."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Stile writes: I'm saying it's irrational because there's nothing to suggest that it's a possibility. I know what you're saying, I disagree and I've said why. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed. Maybe as far as you're concerned but there are reasons to suggest 11 dimensions. They are powerful reasons if you know the history of physics. They're enough to create an hypothesis. There are even ongoing experiments to try to test the idea. There is nothing to support the hypothesis yet and it could very well be wrong. However, using Stile's definition of "rational" (which seems to be close to what almost everyone uses in regular day-to-day life) the idea of 11 dimensions is "rational".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The following argument is well presented. You say you are objective and await evidence, but why is the testimony of others who have thought long and hard about such things disallowed as evidence? Consider:
quote: I might point out that you seem not to want God to exist with "all your heart". In fact, you have said more than once that you would be perfectly happy without Him. I believe that in your lifetime that will change, but I have no evidence as to why your attitude will change. And I fully understand why many of you here at EvC are hesitant to even want to find this God ...this Jesus whom we preach. Some of that has to do with losing your free will, and much of it has to do with the loony characters that we are. Who would want to gleefully become irrational and insane?? But let us continue...
quote:Hawking claims the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. John Lennox disagrees. The jury is indeed out. quote:Comments? quote:Overall a well presented reasoning from a former atheist. The difference being that most of the atheists here at EvC have no compelling reason to even seek knowledge apart from cold statistical evidence. I believe that this will change. The concept of Jesus Christ will either become loved or hated with a passion. There will one day be no indifference. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed. You're example is wrong. There is math that explains our current understanding.If this math is rationally and reasonably extended beyond our current understanding - it suggests 11 dimensions. This is evidence. There is no evidence for God. Show me the math that can be rationally or reasonably extended to suggest that God could exist.
I know what you're saying, I disagree and I've said why. I understand you disagree.What you haven't done is describe a valid, rational, reasonable explanation as to "why" you disagree. Every attempt you've made to describe 'why' you disagree can be shown to either not apply (the reason is applicable to your example, but not to God - like this 11 dimensions idea) or it's simply wrong and shown to be wrong. That's why I don't agree with your dissent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes: You say you are objective and await evidence, but why is the testimony of others who have thought long and hard about such things disallowed as evidence? Because 'testimony' is not evidence.Popularity is not evidence. Tradition is not evidence. All of these things are known to be terrible reasons to try and "know" things. Because they are highly likely to be incorrect.
Comments? Stop spamming me and attempting to overwhelm me with garbage.I already took the time to get into and explain why one of your other spamming requests was invalid. You didn't stick with any of those arguments - why would this package of spam be any better? If you think something is very convincing - pick it.Let's discuss it. One at a time. If you think something better - lay aside your initial topic and shift to another. But do it one at a time. Your previous spam message shows that your "spam" is nothing more than subjective desires.If you think you have more, or that subjective desires should be taken to imply truth about reality - please attempt such avenues. Just do it one at a time, like a reasonable person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes: The concept of Jesus Christ will either become loved or hated with a passion. There will one day be no indifference. I thought this deserved it's own reply. Thor, Ra and Zeus are not either "loved or hated with a passion."They are simply given a generic "meh" of traditional beliefs that are now known to be incorrect. I think that Jesus Christ will one day join them.Not as someone who will either be "loved or hated with a passion." Just as another traditional belief that is now known to be incorrect. Deserving of the same feeling of "meh" we all give to Thor, Ra and Zeus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
NosyNed writes: Maybe as far as you're concerned but there are reasons to suggest 11 dimensions. They are powerful reasons if you know the history of physics. They're enough to create an hypothesis. There are even ongoing experiments to try to test the idea. There is nothing to support the hypothesis yet and it could very well be wrong. However, using Stile's definition of "rational" (which seems to be close to what almost everyone uses in regular day-to-day life) the idea of 11 dimensions is "rational". I didn't say it was an irrational hypothesis - it's certainly rational. Whether it can every be tested is another matter - it seems doubtful, but it's all beyond my pay grade. But it seems equally reasonable to me to say that the god hypothesis is rational in that it's a belief shared by billions who claim personal experience of it and there's a host of philosophical argument that can be used to support it. (None of which impresses me at all but that's my belief at work.) All Stile is doing is attempting to rule out a possibility of a god by fiddling around with words. That impresses me even less. A the moment we don't possess the data to rule a non-interventionist god thing out entirely, it must remain a a possibility regardless of how slight. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1531 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Stile writes: There is evidence that multiverses may exist. Stile writes: There is no evidence that banana keys or crab chairs exist. If you accept the premise that trillions of other universesmay exist then how do you know in some other universe crabchairs and banana keys do not exist? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
But it seems equally reasonable to me to say that the god hypothesis is rational in that it's a belief shared by billions who claim personal experience of it and there's a host of philosophical argument that can be used to support it. (None of which impresses me at all but that's my belief at work.) "Possibly correct because of popularity" is a logical fallacy.Logical fallacies are not rational. There is also no philosophical argument that can be used to support God in a rational sense.That is - you cannot use any philosophical argument to support "God" and also not use the exact same philosophical argument to support "Zeus" or "Thor" or "Ra" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or banana keys or crab chairs or any other everyone-understands-it-is-not-real non-evidenced entity. In this sense - it's either irrational to suggest "God" as a likely conclusion but not allow the FSM or banana keys or crab chairs to have the same status.OR It becomes an argument of popularity again - which is a logical fallacy. All Stile is doing is attempting to rule out a possibility of a god by fiddling around with words. That impresses me even less. I'm just using the definition we use all the time and applying it to God.It is, actually, you who are "fiddling with words" in order to apply something to God but not apply it to banana keys or crab chairs. Hypocrisy also does not sway me into acknowledging your disagreement as valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
If you accept the premise that trillions of other universes may exist then how do you know in some other universe crabchairs and banana keys do not exist? There are mathematical understanding of our current universe. These valid mathematical understandings can be extended (by the rules of mathematics) to suggest that other universes may exist.This is evidence that other universes may exist. Therefore - I cannot say "I know that other universes do not exist." There is no evidence that banana keys and crab chairs exist.Unless you know of some? Do you know of any valid mathematical understandings of our current universe that can be extended (by the rules of mathematics) to suggest that banana keys or crab chairs might exist? Do you know of any other avenue of valid evidence that may suggest that banana keys or crab chairs might exist? The current answer is "no." There is evidence for the possibility of other universes.There is no evidence for the possibility of banana keys or crab chairs. That's the difference.If you are unable to understand this difference, please attempt to describe why. I have another post to ringo in Message 1399 describing this same difference: quote: If you do not think this difference is worthy of differentiation - please explain why.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024