|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The thing is... people have traditionally thought of God as "outside this framework" for thousands of years. I see your point. I will argue that God by definition simply can't be "placed" anywhere. Not sure how to argue this...I simply feel it to be true. Perhaps we should attempt to define God as best as we can. Only if we can define Him can we "place Him" anywhere.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." 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:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Well, we do have evidence that at least one universe can exist.
Of all the things you have said this is the most convincing. Touche'How much evidence do we have that at least one God can exist? This is the difference. However scientist do not even know what 95 percent of the universe is.Think about that. All that you think you know that there is evidence for and only 5 percent of what comprises our universe is known. That is a pretty big question mark Stile. I get what you are saying though, it does come down to whether or not belief is rational or not. And as long as there are scientist and philosophers that are on both sides there will be debate. You can say you know that God does not exist. I will go along with Pascal. I found this story to be interesting.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. BBC Earth | Home Scientists Have Created The Largest Ever Virtual Universe Inside a Supercomputer : ScienceAlert Edited by 1.61803, : few links"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:
|
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat 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. You can't do that with waffly preachy words
Stile will protest and ask why we should think any differently about God than about anything else we look for. You have a bad habit of knowing the other side of the argument but not being able to answer it. Juries don't stay out for long, life goes on.
Note that he believes that he can find anything I can find without needing God to do so and that his mind can be as content as my mind except that his mind does not incorporate God while I believe that mine does. I think that too. With the exception that I don't believe that your mind is in anyway content.
But how would we ever measure the difference? Why would anyone even try? It's a bullshit idea. Forgive me Phat but you do not seem to be a content individual. It seems to me that religion is your consolation for poor health and a low paid job.
Getting back to victims of tragedies who seek God out of desperation and find an inner comfort: Or just people with ordinary lives - with all that entails.
We cannot prove that they actually find God. We can show that they do receive comfort. If there really was the loving god that you think there is, why do people need comfort? God as opium? That's the best you can do?
We don't often hear of people who seek God "with all their heart" and end up empty. Neither you nor I know whether that's true or not. But I suspect that desperate people find their consolation in god quite easily. Faith found what she needed to find, was she right?
You could claim that you found solace elsewhere...through a secular support group perhaps...but again, how could we measure what precisely it was that the group gave you? How do we know that "God" was not part of it? I don't need to find solace anywhere. That's the mistake you keep making time after time. Needing solace is not normal, it should be an exceptional thing, necessary in rare situations.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 1526 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I don't need to find solace anywhere.
Not even from your new PM and Brexit?? Not even a nice cuppa can provide solice for that i bet. Edited by 1.61803, : proved to provide"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That's a pretty silly rabbit-hole to be going down. If that was true, we really couldn't know anything.
Because you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it.You learned later that what you've been doing all this time is not "baking a cake." Stile writes:
I have never made any such demand. I have been telling you that knowledge can change - in this context, from no knowledge to some knowledge. When we have no knowledge, we can not legitimately claim that we know. What use are the words "tentative" or "...information available to us" if you demand for our knowledge to never change?"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 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I'm saying that you have to look. You said, "Things that only exist in our imagination will never exist in reality: all their ends will be dead." I'm asking how you can know they don't exist in reality unless you look? How can you know that "all" of the ends will be dead before you look at all of the ends? Are you saying no one has ever looked for God before and found nothing?"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 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why? I can find mosquitoes without wanting them or needing them.
You have to want/need Him. Phat writes:
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
In times such as these, life often no longer makes sense. it becomes irrational. Trust itself becomes irrational. Many people turn to God. Whether God actually exists or whether God is a panacea in their mind, they equate belief in God with an unwaverable trust---out of desperation. Phat writes:
You picked a fine time to start paying attention to the scriptures. Why don't you pay attention to what Jesus said? The idea that everyone has an equal chance(opportunity) at finding God is not scriptural."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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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. 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. We are accepting that I can actually bake a cake. We are accepting that we have searched for God. Unless we accept that we do have a connection to reality, there is nothing to discuss. But of course we don't know whether there is a link from imagination to reality until we look for one. We can not say the idea is irrational before we look. And we can not say that we "know" there is no link when there are still lots of places to look."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 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No we haven't. Dark matter.
We have looked - scoured all of our available information. Stile writes:
Nope. Dark matter. You're asking me to look outside of our available information...."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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024