Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1951 of 3207 (860400)
08-07-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1947 by Sarah Bellum
08-07-2019 11:37 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Your "participation" has mostly been to claim that answers you've been provided haven't been provided.
Anybody who reads the thread can see that that isn't true. You're the one who refuses to answer questions.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1947 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-07-2019 11:37 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2436 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-08-2020 9:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1952 of 3207 (860401)
08-07-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1948 by Sarah Bellum
08-07-2019 11:38 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Yes, people do read these threads. You should try it some time.
You're a fine one to talk. You thought I was a Christian.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1948 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-07-2019 11:38 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2435 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-08-2020 9:31 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1953 of 3207 (860402)
08-07-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1949 by Sarah Bellum
08-07-2019 11:40 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Why do you expect an answer different from the ones you've already been provided?
I'm underlining the fact that you refuse to answer my question. That question is: What are the LOGICAL errors in the idea of God?
It took you a very long time to repeat the question to me and you still seem reluctant to discuss it.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1949 by Sarah Bellum, posted 08-07-2019 11:40 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2334 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 2:04 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1954 of 3207 (860403)
08-07-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1945 by AZPaul3
08-07-2019 11:33 AM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
AZP writes:
Their logic not withstanding since none of them can show any viable evidence of "god" they all are indeed irrational.
That's a novel definition of irrational. Only scientific methodology is rational? You are saying that philosophical arguments are irrational. Now *that's* irrational.
Also, you are claiming that tentative scientific conclusions are absolute. *That's* not rational.
And you're making the error that something that has not been found can never be found. *That's* not rational.
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 1945 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 11:33 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1955 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 1:10 PM Tangle has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1955 of 3207 (860404)
08-07-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1954 by Tangle
08-07-2019 12:09 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
Only scientific methodology is rational?
When it comes to physical phenomena, yep? That includes gods.
You are saying that philosophical arguments are irrational.
In most cases, yep.
Put three philosophers in a room with a question and you will end up with 7 different answers.
When the philosopher uses an irrational premise in their product their product rots regardless of the beauty of their logic.
Also, you are claiming that tentative scientific conclusions are absolute.
And you're making the error that something that has not been found can never be found.
Where did that come from? Science is alway tentative. If I did not couch that constantly in my verbiage then forgive me. I thought ...
"Without some evidence of viability there are no reasons to suppose that such gods do or can exist."
"Further, without some evidence of viability then whether yesterday, today or tomorrow, appeals to gods as explanations for our ignorance are irrational."
... might cover my butt in this regard.
A change in evidence may necessitate a change in value. But at this point there has not been any.
I will stand by my analysis ... right now anyway.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1954 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2019 12:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1966 by Tangle, posted 08-07-2019 3:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AlexCaledin
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 64
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 1956 of 3207 (860406)
08-07-2019 1:32 PM


Alas, the "scientific methodology" got plagued with "rational" paradigms designed to serve the futile ambitions of mediocre degree-hunters.

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


Message 1957 of 3207 (860409)
08-07-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1941 by AZPaul3
08-07-2019 11:26 AM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
AZPaul3 writes:
Given the irrational postulate god there can be no logical conclusion.
This is the part I'm having contention with.
What does "given the irrational postulate 'god'" mean?
Isn't the postulate 'god' only irrational because we know that in order for it to be rational - the postulate that god exists requires a link to reality?
"Rational" just means "logical."
If the logic of the time was otherwise - why can't it be rational?
That is, consider this logic:
I ask tribe B for help - they help us.
I ask tribe B to explain rivers - they explain them to us in a way that provides more fish
I ask tribe B to explain weather - they explain weather to us in a way that keeps our people safer
I ask tribe B to explain hunting - they explain hunting to us in a way that feeds our people more efficiently
...
...
This creates a logical pattern of "whatever tribe B says is the right way to do things - it works better for us in reality"
Therefore, wouldn't be logical to trust/accept tribe B if tribe B says "god exists?"
What would be the rational reason to not accept it?
I know, in modern times, we have epistemology that tells us nothing is real without a link to reality.
But... if this epistemology didn't exist, and tribe B provided the previously-described logical pattern of "whatever tribe B says is right/better for reality..."
Wouldn't it be logical to trust tribe B in the claim that god exists?
As long as it's logical - isn't it rational?
I don't think "what's rational" needs to follow what's correct about reality.
I think we've discovered a way to use rationality to help us discover what's correct about reality (by linking imagination to reality).
I'm just saying - I can think of a scenario where one could 'logically' (rationally) connect the dots into accepting a "god exists" claim.
Even based upon the results they receive from reality.
Of course, once they learn that 'existence' requires a link from imagination/claim to reality... then it's irrational to accept the claim no matter what other logic may lead to it.
But... without that understanding... to the "information available to them" I don't see how such a logical flow can be called "irrational."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1941 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 11:26 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1962 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 2:47 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1958 of 3207 (860410)
08-07-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1942 by ringo
08-07-2019 11:30 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
There was no link until there was. The idea was never irrational.
Please explain how the search for the North West Passage was rational if there was no link from imagination to reality.
Did they not know "an unknown amount of ice/islands exists up north?"
Did they not know that "previous amount of ice/islands have generally had a path through them, eventually?"
This is a link to reality.
This does not exist for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1942 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 11:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1960 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 2:16 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1959 of 3207 (860411)
08-07-2019 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1944 by ringo
08-07-2019 11:32 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Nobody on this forum is more vehemently opposed to absolutes than I am.
Then stop implying that knowledge is invalid if it's not based on absolutes.
You are judged by your actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1944 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 11:32 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1961 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 2:18 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1960 of 3207 (860412)
08-07-2019 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1958 by Stile
08-07-2019 2:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
Please explain how the search for the North West Passage was rational if there was no link from imagination to reality.
As you said yourself in another post, rational just means logical. What does the logic have to do with a link to reality?
Stile writes:
Did they not know "an unknown amount of ice/islands exists up north?"
Not until they found it. Remember that they searched around the Mississippi River before they moved farther north.
Stile writes:
Did they not know that "previous amount of ice/islands have generally had a path through them, eventually?"
But that isn't true.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1958 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 2:09 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1964 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 2:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1961 of 3207 (860413)
08-07-2019 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1959 by Stile
08-07-2019 2:10 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
Then stop implying that knowledge is invalid if it's not based on absolutes.
I haven't done any such thing.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1959 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 2:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1965 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 2:59 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1962 of 3207 (860414)
08-07-2019 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1957 by Stile
08-07-2019 2:07 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
"Rational" just means "logical."
If the logic of the time was otherwise - why can't it be rational?
Just like the flat earth/no curvature thing, they can believe it to be true all they want. It made logical sense to them even though we now know it to be false. When they put what they thought was true into their syllogism they concluded the earth was flat. All very logical and all very wrong.
In the same way they could consider the "god" premise to be logical, rational and true even though today (some of us) know it is irrational. Neither true nor false but (in deference to Tangle) *presently* lacking adequate efficacy to even be considered.
My contention is that when they put that one into their syllogism, even though they saw the result as "god did it" and believed it true, in actuality their syllogism was poisoned by irrationality and could not, in fact, draw any such conclusion. Not even wrong. Irrational.
They just did not know that at the time. Which is ok. Progress marches on.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1957 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 2:07 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1963 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 2:56 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1967 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 3:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1968 by Stile, posted 08-07-2019 3:11 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1963 of 3207 (860416)
08-07-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1962 by AZPaul3
08-07-2019 2:47 PM


Flat Earth is an unjustified comparison
Comparison between belief in God or gods and belief in a flat earth isn't exactly defensible. Most cultures believed in the flat earth and when a few philosophers started to propose the spherical idea it took a while for it to take hold. It was defended by scientific observations. so, depending on how "irrational" is defined, we can say belief in the flat earth is irrational after it's been proven to be wrong.
But there's nothing comparable in the history of belief in gods. it was just decided by some that the belief is irrational but there's no way to prove it, no scientific evidence that can be brought to bear on the subject. People still experience the supernatural and know you are wrong. So your argument is pure personal bias, without any sort of proof. Again it depends on how "irrational" is defined but since you can't prove belief in gods to be wrong you can't rightly say that belief is irrational.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1962 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 2:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1971 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2019 3:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1964 of 3207 (860417)
08-07-2019 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1960 by ringo
08-07-2019 2:16 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
As you said yourself in another post, rational just means logical. What does the logic have to do with a link to reality?
I've said this many times - an imaginary idea can be rational (logical) on it's own.
Of course - this is irrelevant when attempting to make a claim about something actually existing.
Who cares if an imaginary idea itself is rational when you're actually wondering if something exists in reality or not?
We know that for things to exist, there is a logical link between the imagination and reality.
Therefore - to be rational in the context of something existing - there has to be a link between the imagination and reality.
To answer your question: "logic doesn't have anything to do with a link to reality."
However, to be in context of this thread: "to be rationally considered as a possibility in reality - a link from the imagination to reality is required."
Not until they found it. Remember that they searched around the Mississippi River before they moved farther north.
Fair enough.
So... from previous experience they knew "as long as we sail around long enough - we've always found a way through before."
From this - you think it's irrational for them to try and sail around long enough on a newly discovered land mass?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1960 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 2:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1969 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 3:11 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1972 by 1.61803, posted 08-07-2019 3:28 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 1965 of 3207 (860418)
08-07-2019 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1961 by ringo
08-07-2019 2:18 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
I haven't done any such thing.
Then I'm glad you agree with me completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1961 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 2:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1970 by ringo, posted 08-07-2019 3:12 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