Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


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 2024 of 3207 (860567)
08-08-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2023 by Phat
08-08-2019 2:45 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Thugpreacha writes:
My point that I am attempting to get Stile to see is that God is not simply like any other thing that one looks for.
I'm not saying that this is impossible.
I'm saying there's no rational reason for us to suggest that such a being actually exists in reality.
Therefore, according to our current information analyzed in a rational manner: I know that God does not exist.
Then, since "according to our current information analyzed in a rational manner" is inherent in our modern process of "knowing things" - this specification becomes redundant and can be removed.
Therefore: I know that God does not exist.
Stile will protest and ask why we should think any differently about God than about anything else we look for.
I have no problems with people "thinking differently" about God all the like.
I simply have a problem with people "thinking differently" and wanting this to apply to "rational knowledge."
Rational knowledge has a framework.
Within that framework: I know that God does not exist.
Outside that framework: I don't care (for this thread, anyway.)
The thing is... people have traditionally thought of God as "outside this framework" for thousands of years.
They don't want to admit the obvious, unavoidable conclusion when God is placed "within" the framework of "how we know things in a modern sense."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2023 by Phat, posted 08-08-2019 2:45 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2026 by Phat, posted 08-08-2019 3:27 PM Stile has replied

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


(2)
Message 2027 of 3207 (860572)
08-08-2019 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2025 by 1.61803
08-08-2019 3:21 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
1.61803 writes:
And what about other universes? Do you know they do not exist?
Well, we do have evidence that at least one universe can exist.
How much evidence do we have that at least one God can exist?
This is the difference.
If I told you there could be such tech, that the Matrix idea could actually be carried out given enough computing power. Could you tell me that is not the case? How would you know?
Well... "telling" me isn't really enough.
But if you could show me.. that would be plenty.
You don't even have to show me that the equipment actually works... just that there's a theory showing that the equipment should work as the theory is based on already-known-to-work things.
Once you do that - I cannot say "I know a Matrix world does not exist."
But, as long as there's no link from the imagination of a Matrix world to the reality of a Matrix world - I can say "I know a Matrix world does not exist."
If I told you that the fundamental forces that manifest this universe are planke's size strings vibrating in 11 dimensions fulminating everything that exist.
"Telling" me things is inadequate.
People tell me things all the time that have no relation to reality.
"Showing" me things actually exist in reality is adequate.
"Showing me that things might actually exist in reality based on a model that accurately-represents-reality-as-best-we-currently-understand" is even adequate.
But mention a God and everybody gets ohhh that is to far fetched. lmao.
I just need a link from imagination to reality.
I need it for the FSM before I'll stop saying "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
I need it for Santa Claus.
I need it for God.
Strange, indeed, that many will agree with me for the FSM and Santa, but not for God when the amount of rational evidence in favor of existence is worse for God than the others. (We've been irrationally searching for God for a lot longer than the others... still with nothing to show for it.)
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2025 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 3:21 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2029 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 4:18 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2028 of 3207 (860573)
08-08-2019 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2026 by Phat
08-08-2019 3:27 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Thugpreacha writes:
I will argue that God by definition simply can't be "placed" anywhere.
Well, this is just wrong.
The idea of God can be placed anywhere.
What you should be arguing is that just "placing God" anywhere - doesn't actually mean it's correct.
That is a good argument.
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know God does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."
This is a valid, unassailable argument.
And it works for everything:
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know Santa Claus does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know people bake cakes - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know the earth is a oblong spheroid - (roundish) - does not mean that this is correct."
Perhaps we should attempt to define God as best as we can. Only if we can define Him can we "place Him" anywhere.
I'd agree with that as well.
Really, I think people should stop worrying so much about what "our current rational understanding" is of God.
Who cares?
If you want to believe - believe.
If you don't want to believe - don't believe.
But to try and argue that 1+1 does not equal 2... or that "our current rational understanding" of God is something other than "we know God does not exist" is absurd.
It only shows how much one doesn't understand math... or how much one doesn't understand what "our current rational understanding" (aka "knowledge") means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2026 by Phat, posted 08-08-2019 3:27 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 2030 of 3207 (860579)
08-08-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2029 by 1.61803
08-08-2019 4:18 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
1.61803 writes:
Of all the things you have said this is the most convincing.
Thank-you.
It's what I've meant when I've been saying things like "there's no rational reason to think God can exist in the first place."
But I've always found comparisons more... engaging. It is difficult to guess which comparison will 'click the best' for which other-person, though.
However scientist do not even know what 95 percent of the universe is.
Think about that.
I think this is an excellent argument for "in considering what we know now - those who come hundreds/thousands/millions of years after us will likely laugh at us for thinking we knew what we knew."
And I entirely agree with that.
For all things. Including "verified" history, current "validated" physics.... ALL our knowledge will likely be seen in a laughably far-from-being-accurate lens to those who will eventually learn much more and have a much-more-accurate view of things in their "available information."
And as vehemently as I'm defending "I know God does not exist." I would equally vehemently fight anyone thinking "our current knowledge will be the same 100/1000/10000xxx years from now!"
It just doesn't change that our knowledge is based on "our" available information.
And whatever conclusions we draw from our woefully limited pool.
Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou.
All the more reason we should have clear definitions in our mind for the following:
-rational (following logic)
-irrational (not following logic)
-correct (according to reality)
-our knowledge (tentative conclusions based on currently available information)
A feeling of "psychology 101" is nice - like seeing a cool magic trick.
But serious study/thought of "what we can know" requires strict definitions and understanding the limitations of such definitions.
And... I really do agree with the Einstein quote you posted... that imagination (and in turn... irrationality) is more important than what we understand (rationality.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2029 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 4:18 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


Message 2036 of 3207 (860632)
08-09-2019 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2033 by ringo
08-08-2019 5:10 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
That's a pretty silly rabbit-hole to be going down. If that was true, we really couldn't know anything.
Exactly.
Why do we not go down that rabbit-hole?
Because it's irrational - there's no link from the imagination to reality that suggests such a thing would actually be viable in the first place.
Just like God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2033 by ringo, posted 08-08-2019 5:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2038 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:41 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2037 of 3207 (860633)
08-09-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2034 by ringo
08-08-2019 5:16 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
I'm saying that you have to look.
We have looked - scoured all of our available information.
You're asking me to look outside of our available information - with no link from imagination to reality that the search even *might* produce a positive result.
That's the silly-rabbit hole we don't go down.
We don't go down it for ringo-baking-cakes.
We don't go down it for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2034 by ringo, posted 08-08-2019 5:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2039 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:43 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2040 of 3207 (860641)
08-09-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2038 by ringo
08-09-2019 11:41 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Nope. We don't go down the rabbit-hole of "you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it" because it's a completely separate issue from what we've been discussing.
That's not the rabbit hole.
Rabbit hole for cakes: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that you actually don't know how to bake cakes?
Rabbit hole for God: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that God actually exists?
Same rabbit hole.
But of course we don't know whether there is a link from imagination to reality until we look for one.
We have looked - scoured all our available information.
Scoured all our rational projections for unavailable information.
Nothing.
Well... nothing but the above irrational rabbit holes, of course.
We can not say the idea is irrational before we look.
Sure we can.
If there's no rational link from imagination to reality that gives us a reason to look - then looking is irrational.
That's exactly how we avoid the cake rabbit hole.
That's exactly how we avoid the God rabbit hole.
Same process.
Same rabbit holes.
Same reasoning to ignore them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2038 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2042 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 12:06 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2041 of 3207 (860642)
08-09-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2039 by ringo
08-09-2019 11:43 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Nope. Dark matter.
What is the reason to think we will find God behind dark matter?
From what you've offered - it is the exact same reason to think we will find "that ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, he only thought he could" behind dark matter.
But - these are irrational rabbit holes.
The kind we ignore.
If you have an actual, rational reason to suggest that we could find God behind dark matter - please supply it.
What is the link between imagination and God existing behind dark matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2039 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2043 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 12:09 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2045 by Phat, posted 08-10-2019 10:34 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2047 of 3207 (860799)
08-12-2019 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2042 by ringo
08-09-2019 12:06 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
We have looked - scoured all our available information.
Until you look behind the dark matter, that statement is false.
Sure it is:
1. "Looking behind dark matter" isn't currently available to us yet.
2. There's no rational reason to suggest that God will be found behind dark matter.
How can you know a priori that there's no reason to look?
When there's no reason.
Please, if you have one - just provide it.
All it has to do is have a rational link from the imagination of God to the possible reality of God.
Without that - all we're left with is irrational imaginary ideas with no connection to reality.
Obviously, it's rational to ignore such things when concerned about what we can rationally know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2042 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2050 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 11:47 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2048 of 3207 (860801)
08-12-2019 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2043 by ringo
08-09-2019 12:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
What is the reason to think we will find God behind dark matter?
You have it backwards. What is the reason to think we won't?
No. You have it backwards.
We're not talking about irrational no-connection-to-reality possibilities.
We're talking about our rational knowledge.
The rational reasons to think we won't find God behind dark matter are:
1. There are only irrational reasons, with no connection to reality, to think that God could exist behind dark matter.
2. Every time in the past - when there have only been irrational reasons to think God could exist somewhere - and we end up being able to check that place - no evidence for God is ever found. For thousands of years.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that God even exists in the first place at all let alone "only behind dark matter."
There was no reason to think we would never find a Northwest Passage until we had explored every possibility. "We never found it in the past," was not an excuse to stop looking.
Of course there was.
The NWP is a water-throughway.
Before we found the NWP - we had found other water-throughways.
We knew that water-throughways exist.
Therefore - it's possible to find another one in a place we haven't searched yet.
There was a link to reality that suggested the NWP could exist (because we knew water-throughways can exist.)
What is the link to reality that suggests that God could exist?
At least one water-throughway exists.
How many Gods do we know of existing?
This, again, is the difference you seem unable to deal with.
It doesn't go away.
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2043 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2051 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 11:50 AM Stile has replied

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


(1)
Message 2049 of 3207 (860803)
08-12-2019 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2045 by Phat
08-10-2019 10:34 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Thugpreacha writes:
Perhaps that God is more likely to exist if you imagine that He will be actually useful and necessary in your life should you find Him.
I do imagine such a thing.
It's very easy to imagine.
Who wouldn't want an all-powerful, all-caring being supporting them throughout their life?
The idea sounds fantastic!
I imagine it all the time.
You have already admitted that you believe He is unnecessary but that you would be "open to evidence."
According to the evidence we have available to us - yes.
According to my imagination - not at all.
I think you have already made your conclusion and use this whole argument as a logical justification for you not needing Him in the first place.
Well - you're wrong.
I think you're desperately looking for "a reason" while Stile-is-wrong about something so you can feel better about believing in God yourself.
Personally - I think that's a terrible reason to require in order to believe in God. It shows how weak your faith is.
But - what you think, or what I think - doesn't really matter, does it?
What matters is what "is."
And I'm the only one who knows my thoughts and my feelings.
And you're the only one who knows your thoughts and your feelings.
I'll allow you to be highest-authority on what Thugpreacha thinks, if you allow me to be the highest-authority on what Stile thinks.
But if you refuse to accept that and make your own uninformed ideas up about what Stile thinks.
Then you can't be surprised when I make up my own uninformed ideas up about what Thugpreacha thinks.
I suppose that this is true for me as well. If jars idea of God was the reality rather than my own idea, I likely would prefer that such a God never be found nor that such a God actually be the real One.
Are you interested in "what makes Thugpreacha feel better?" or "what is true about reality?"
One is not "more important" than the other.
It's also quite possible to be interested in both.
Of course - imagination and subjective ideas are incredibly helpful to one, but not the other.
And objective, rational information is incredibly helpful to one as well, but not a requirement of the other.
I find it's a lot easier to keep their ideas separated - as they are separate ideas.
Confusing the two leads to conflicts with reality - which are hard to overcome when wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2045 by Phat, posted 08-10-2019 10:34 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2052 of 3207 (860825)
08-12-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2050 by ringo
08-12-2019 11:47 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
I have: because you can't find anything if you don't look.
Oh - so you can't bake cakes, either?
Because we can't find out if you're-actually-baking-cakes-or-not if don't look behind dark matter. Maybe behind dark matter we find out that ringo actually can't bake cakes - and only thinks he can right now.
Sorry - this is not a rational reason to consider that God may exist behind dark matter.
Just as it's not a rational reason to consider that ringo can't bake cakes.
Because it excludes the context that our knowledge is tentative and based on our currently available information.
How do you know there is no link unless you look for one?
We have looked everywhere within our currently available information.
If you'd like to suggest a rational reason that God may exist elsewhere - please provide it.
Otherwise, you're being irrational and you can't even know that you can bake a cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2050 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2054 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:09 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2053 of 3207 (860826)
08-12-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2051 by ringo
08-12-2019 11:50 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Northwest Passage.
Exactly.
Water-throughways exist - we knew this before searching for the NWP.
What sort of Gods do we know to exist before searching for God behind dark matter?
There's never any evidence until we look.
Exactly.
And, without a rational suggestion that evidence can be found somewhere... we're left with irrational, imaginary ideas that are not linked to reality.
It's irrational to think that imaginary-ideas-not-linked-to-reality should affect our knowledge of what we know to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2051 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2055 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:10 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2056 of 3207 (860830)
08-12-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2054 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
Don't be silly. We don't need to look behind the dark matter for what we've already found.
I'm not being silly - you are.
You're the one who said "the reason for looking is that we haven't checked yet."
How does this also not apply to knowing we won't find out that ringo actually can't bake cakes when we look behind dark matter?
Can you read the future?
The thing is - they are both irrational concerns.
If you can rationally point to something with the cake-idea that doesn't exist with the God-idea... then you may not be being silly.
Without that - it's you who's being silly.
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
We have looked everywhere within our currently available information.
No, we know that a place exists, behind the dark matter, where we currently have no ability to look.
If we currently have no ability to look - the it isn't within our currently available information, is it?
As long as we know there is a place where we haven't looked, we can not claim to know what we'd find if we could look.
"As long as we know there is a place where we could identify that ringo actually cannot bake cakes, we cannot claim ringo knows how to bake cakes."
It's irrational.
And you know it.
Your faulty reasoning is exposed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2054 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2058 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:21 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2057 of 3207 (860831)
08-12-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2055 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:10 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
We don't have to know that something exists before we look for it.
Of course not.
But we do in order to call it rational.
If it's irrational - why do you think it should have any effect on the rational conclusions about our current state of knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2055 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2059 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:24 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