|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AZP writes: When it comes to physical phenomena, yep? That includes gods. Ok, that's your view
In most cases, yep. Let me guess, you will decide which?
Put three philosophers in a room with a question and you will end up with 7 different answers. And science has no disputes? Ha!But, in general, science provides real answers while philosophy provides good arguments. So I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that there are rational arguments that are not scientific. When the philosopher uses an irrational premise in their product their product rots regardless of the beauty of their logic. Sure. But are you going to tell the best philosophical minds in history that they are irrational? You might say, like several have, that they're wrong because of this and that, but being wrong is not the same as being 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: |
AZPaul3 writes: 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. Yes, I completely agree.Logical/rational does not imply "correct about reality." 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. Ah - I see. You're saying "it was irrational - but they just didn't know it at the time."I can kind of agree with that... But I would be more inclined to say "it was incorrect - but they just didn't know it at the time." I see correct/incorrect with reality to be something that carries over time. (Cannonballs sail through the air in parabolic arcs... whether we understand it or not... in the 1400's or today.)I see rational/irrational to be very situationally dependent. (Something could be irrational to you, based on the information available to you... but rational to me, based on the information available to me... and rational/irrational does not imply correct/incorrect with reality...) I think anyone can have a rational idea that is incorrect.I also think anyone can have irrational ideas that happen to be correct. There is an argument, however, that none of our ideas are ever "correct" even - they are just "closer and closer to being correct" - even our current understanding of the curvature of the earth.But ideas certainly can be 'rational according to this information' or 'irrational according to that information.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Oh... and by the way:
quote: Ahahahahhaha!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Tell it to Sarah.
I've said this many times - an imaginary idea can be rational (logical) on it's own. Stile writes:
Do we?
We know that for things to exist, there is a logical link between the imagination and reality. Stile writes:
No. They didn't know that. They sailed all around central North America and found nothing but more central North America. It would have been quite valid to conclude that "probably" (most likely) there was no passage. But they didn't "know" there was no passage. So... from previous experience they knew "as long as we sail around long enough - we've always found a way through before.""Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I haven't done any such thing. Then I'm glad you agree with me completely."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Comparison between belief in God or gods and belief in a flat earth isn't exactly defensible. Wow. You missed the whole boat, didn't you. We are not comparing belief in god with belief in flat earth. We are comparing the efficacy of evidence and the logical analysis of that evidence (or lack thereof). The contention here, Faith, is that by today's standards the flat earth conclusion was scientifically defensible, logical and wrong while the "god done it" conclusion wasn't even wrong but irrational because the god premise was and is irrational. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Stile writes: What???
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.
So is there anything that we know to exist that is not rational?Or are you saying by virtue of existing it is rational. Because a platypus is one of the most irrational creatures I have ever seen. And when first described was met with disbelief and mockery.But they do 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Let me guess, you will decide which? I'll let the science decide.
But, in general, science provides real answers while philosophy provides boatloads of competing and contradictory good arguments. There. Fixed it for you.
But are you going to tell the best philosophical minds in history that they are irrational? Oh, Tangle, my man, I've been telling philosophs that since before the internet was nothing but dial up bulletin boards.
being wrong is not the same as being irrational. So true. But when it is I'm here to let 'em know that too. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Stile writes: We know that for things to exist, there is a logical link between the imagination and reality. Do we? Yes, we do.If you don't think so - just name one we know to exist that does not have a link from imagination to reality. No. They didn't know that. They sailed all around central North America and found nothing but more central North America. It would have been quite valid to conclude that "probably" (most likely) there was no passage. But they didn't "know" there was no passage. Okay - I'll take your word for it. Then it was irrational.If there is no link to reality that a NWP might exist - and they searched for it anyway, then the search was irrational. How is it logical to search for something that has no indication it might exist in the first place?Where would you rationally even begin to search? I have no problems with irrational ideas leading to discoveries...In fact, I support irrational searches, I've already said this many times. I don't support calling something that's irrational "rational."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: I haven't done any such thing. Yes, I know. You're very confused. You say you don't speak of absolutes... but then you speak of how we haven't searched absolutely everywhere... therefore we cannot say "I know God doesn't exist based on searching the information available to us."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You have already agreed that rational means logical. So why don't you understand that the logic does not depend on the inputs?
If you don't think so - just name one we know to exist that does not have a link from imagination to reality. Stile writes:
Because the logic has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. There can't be any "indication" that it exists unless you look. How is it logical to search for something that has no indication it might exist in the first place?"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
1.61803 writes: Stile writes:
What??? We know that for things to exist, there is a logical link between the imagination and reality. I'll say the exact same thing another way: Just because you can imagine something does not lend any credence to that same thing actually existing.
So is there anything that we know to exist that is not rational? This question is too open-ended to make sense.Rational means "logical." Therefore - to be rational, something has to be rational based on something (the logic.) If we use my context for rational (when speaking of things existing) - I'm thinking of rational testing. Measurements that can be made, inferences based off working mathematical models... anything that works off what we understand about reality.
Or are you saying by virtue of existing it is rational. I'm saying the two are different and unique. Correct/Incorect with reality simply is.If it exists - it exists. If it doesn't exist - it doesn't exist. Rational/irrational has no bearing on whether or not something actually exists.We can have a rational idea of something that doesn't actually exist. We can have an irrational idea of something that actually does exist. Our knowledge, however, of what does exist - is based on what we've rationally tested in reality.
Because a platypus is one of the most irrational creatures I have ever seen. And a platypus can also be very rational to someone-who's-studied-them for many, many years. To such a person - a platypus may seem extremely logical.
And when first described was met with disbelief and mockery. But they do exist. I don't have a problem with this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I said no such thing. I mentioned the dark matter, for example. We have not searched the dark matter, which constitutes most of the universe. That's a very, very, very long way from "absolutely everywhere". You say you don't speak of absolutes... but then you speak of how we haven't searched absolutely everywhere..."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: You have already agreed that rational means logical. So why don't you understand that the logic does not depend on the inputs? You're taking the general and attempting to apply it to the specific again. Just because "an idea" can be rational against a certain set of general logic has no bearing on "the same idea" being rational against the set of logic we currently use to best identify existence of things (rational testing - links between imagination and reality... measurements or observations or inferences from existing/working models...)
Because the logic has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. There can't be any "indication" that it exists unless you look. Right.And if we look for God within all the information available to us and don't find God... then we can say "according to the information available to us, we know that God doesn't exist." And, since all knowledge is 'based on the information available to us' - we don't have to say that because it's redundant: We know that God doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: I mentioned the dark matter, for example. Yes, dark matter is a rational aspect of our universe that may exist. What is the rational reason to suggest that God may exist behind dark matter? Have we found Gods behind other previously-unknown areas of our universe?Or, as we've expanded our 'information available to us' is the pattern that God isn't found behind any of the new things we've searched? It seems that the rational/logical/pattern-following conclusion is that God will not exist behind the dark matter, either. Therefore - according to the information we have available to us - we know that God does not exist.Since all knowledge is "according to the information available to us" we can drop that part: We know that God does not exist. Why would you think an irrational search should affect a rational conclusion before the results are in?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024