|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That has nothing to do with what I said. The general (and universal) principle that logic does not depend on its inputs for rationality can not be overruled by any specific case(s) in which the inputs are invalid.
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...) Stile writes:
We can also say, "We are Napoleon," and we'd be wrong about that too. What we should say is, "according to the information available to us, we do not know that God exists." 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.""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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You have it backwards. You need a rational reason for assuming that God is not hidden by dark matter before you can claim to "know" He doesn't exist.
What is the rational reason to suggest that God may exist behind dark matter? Stile writes:
And it seemed that the Northwest Passage would not be up this river or that inlet - but that conclusion was both wrong and based on irrational thinking.
It seems that the rational/logical/pattern-following conclusion is that God will not exist behind the dark matter, either. Stile writes:
It's not an irrational search. Claiming you "know" something doesn't exist before you finish the search is irrational. The search is essential, not "irrational". Why would you think an irrational search should affect a rational conclusion before the results are in?"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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That's why. We don't have enough information to say we do know. So we say we don't know.
ringo writes:
Why would we say that? What we should say is, "according to the information available to us, we do not know that God exists."Everything about the information available to us tells us God doesn't exist. Stile writes:
There was no Northwest Passage in the information available to us, until there was. Every time we looked, we confirmed another place that the Northwest Passage didn't exist. But it was always wrong - and irrational - to claim that we "knew" the Northwest Passage didn't exist. Not only is there no God in the information available to us... we have grown our information (in limited ways)... but every time we've grown, we confirm that God still doesn't exist."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That isn't rational. I have such a rational reason. 1. God doesn't exist in any currently known information.2. When our information has expanded before - God was never found in any of the expanstions. 3. This has been confirmed for thousands of years.s Not finding something in the past is not an indicator of not finding it in the future. And since we didn't know about dark matter at all until very recently, your "thousands of years" are worthless. You've been looking on the wrong menu.
Stile writes:
By the same logic, we will never find the Northwest Passage.
This sets a pattern: When our information expands - if anyone searches for God - they still don't find Him. Stile writes:
What? There certainly was a rational reason to think the Northwest Passage existed.
You yourself are adamant that there was no rational reason to suggest that the NWP existed. Stile writes:
But there's always a rational reason to search: If you don't search, you won't find anything. That's the foundation of science. Searching for something when there's no rational reason to search for it is irrational."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't think that "makes sense" at all. If God was omnipresent, it would "make more sense" for Him to be detectable by anybody. Consider people who seek ghosts or Loch Ness monsters "with all of their hearts". They are predisposed to finding what they're looking for, even if what they're looking for isn't real.
If God exists in our heart and is found by those who seek Him with all of their hearts, it would only make sense that He would never be found by someone merely looking for objective evidence on an electric meter or an instrument designed to detect energy. Phat writes:
Nobody needed to commune with electrons but we looked for them anyway - and we found them. Nobody needs dark matter but we're looking for it anyway.
Moreover, if the ones who search have already personally concluded that they don't need God...that they don't need to commune with this alleged character.... Phat writes:
They won't find Him if He doesn't exist. They certainly might find Him without wanting to or without expecting to. The idea that you have to believe to find Him is ridiculous. electric meter or an instrument designed to detect energy. Moreover, if the ones who search have already personally concluded that they don't need God...that they don't need to commune with this alleged character....except on equal terms and the way *they* imagine God *should behave*...they wont find Him."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
If you had zero information, you could say the same thing. It's a meaningless statement.
We do have enough information to say we do know according to the information we have available to us. Stile writes:
On the contrary, there is no logic that concludes that a Northwest Passage couldn't exist. It was always irrational to pretend that we "knew" it didn't exist. We just didn't know that it did exist. ringo writes:
It was always wrong. But it was always wrong - and irrational - to claim that we "knew" the Northwest Passage didn't exist.But - it was rational. Because it followed from the logic. "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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Then not finding the Northwest passage in 1800 meant we would never find it. Not finding dark matter in 2000 means we will never find it. That doesn't make any sense.
ringo writes:
Of course it is. Not finding something in the past is not an indicator of not finding it in the future. Stile writes:
Logic follows rules - and those rules don't change with time or depend on what we know. What was logical in ancient Greece is still logical today. That's exactly what 'rational' or 'logical' means: following a pattern. If it was logical to look for the Northwest passage in 1500, it was logical to look for it in 1600 and in 1700 and in 1800. Not finding it was no logical basis for thinking it would never be found.
Stile writes:
The pattern was set: whenever something new came up - we didn't find the Northwest Passage there. The patter is set: whenever something new comes up - we don't find God there.This pattern has worked for thousands of years. That pattern worked for hundreds of years. But that pattern was wrong.
Stile writes:
See above. Patterns are not infallible. We should not say we "know" they are.
If you want to suggest that this pattern is no longer going to continue for God - what is your rational reason to think so? Stile writes:
A real example shows that your logic doesn't work - i.e. that your thinking is irrational.
Stile writes:
You are confusing "rational" with "correct." By the same logic, we will never find the Northwest Passage.A rational conclusion says nothing about reality. Stile writes:
It's the same thing we keep telling creationists about micro/macro evolution: There's no reason to think you can't get there from here. If you want to claim that there's a barrier, you need a rational reason to claim there's a barrier.
ringo writes:
Okay - what was it? There certainly was a rational reason to think the Northwest Passage existed. Stile writes:
Again, it's always rational to search.
If there's a rational reason to think the NWP actually existed - then the search is rational. Stile writes:
You have it backwards. What was the link from imagining a barrier to suggest that one actually existed? What was the link from imagining the possibitlity of a NWP existing that would suggest that one actually exists? If you're aimed directly at the Azores, there's a barrier - but you can see open water on both sides so you have no reason to think there's an impenetrable barrier. Same with the Northwest Passage - there was always more open water to explore. Same with God. There is more open water to explore.
Stile writes:
It's a rational reason to think they might exist. That's the only reason we ever search for anything. That's not a rational reason to suggest that searching for the NWP will conclude in finding a NWP.That's not a rational reason to suggest that searching for God will conclude in finding God. "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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We had zero information about dark matter fairly recently.
When was the last time we had zero information? Stile writes:
We're just at an earlier stage in the search for God. We haven't explored the dark part of the universe (yet) so we're comparatively barely outside the Mediterranean.
... there's a rational reason to suggest that "a water passage" could exist in an as-yet-undiscovered area.This is a rational link between imagination and realtiy. This exists for the NWP.This doesn't exist for God. Stile writes:
If it confuses you, feel free to ask questions Your analogy is confused and doesn't align with what you're attempting to show."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It's tempting for the teacher to say, "You failed to learn," when he should be saying, "I failed to teach."
You're confused again.... Stile writes:
Different stage in the investigation.
That's because we've found water-passages to exist before.We have ever found Gods to exist before. Stile writes:
Non sequitur.
If we search more unknowns - we have a rational reason to expect finding water-passages.If we search more unknowns - we have no rational reason to expect finding God. Stile writes:
But I did - the Northwest Passage. I stand by it, whether you like it or not. You're a Northwest Passage denier in a different era.
A real example shows that your logic doesn't work - i.e. that your thinking is irrational. You're free to come up with one - so far you haven't done so. Stile writes:
It is not rational to impose expectations before the search is finished.
All you've ever done is attempt to come up with examples where you can confuse the use of terms like "rational/irrational" and "correct/incorrect"....What's relevant is: is it rational to expect that a search may conclude with "a water passage exists" or "God exists?" Stile writes:
There is no difference. It's just a different stage in the investigation. Every investigation begins with "no previous experience". With water passage - this is rational, because our previous experience shows that sometimes water passages exist.With God - this is irrational, because our previous experience shows that God is never found. You have yet been able to deal with this difference."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It's what I said. What you said was out of context.
That's not what I said, was it? Stile writes:
We did though. We had thunder and lightning, for example. Those were dead ends but there's no reason to conclude that all ends are dead.
We still have nothing to suggest that Gods might exist. Stile writes:
That's some pretty strange mathematics. Me + Tangle + ~1.6 ≠ 1 I prefer to show how you're wrong.It seems to work for everyone but you.... (Apologies to anybody I left out.)"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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You'll go from "knowing" one thing to "knowing" the opposite overnight. We can't afford to take seriously what you think you "know".
Once God hits the same stage in the investigation as water-passages - let me know.I'll change my position immediately. Stile writes:
I say I know how to bake a cake and I demonstrate that I can bake a cake. Then you say, "But you can't bake a cake while standing on one foot on the summit of Mount Everest." I never said I knew that. You're moving the goalposts. ringo writes:
Not true. It is not rational to impose expectations before the search is finished.If this was true - we go back to not being able to know you can bake a cake. We haven't searched all the places you could bake cakes in. I only need to bake one cake to demonstrate that I know how to bake a cake."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We don't know that they exist only in our imagination until we look. ringo writes:
Yes there is: Things that only exist in our imagination will never exist in reality: all their ends will be dead. ... there's no reason to conclude that all ends are dead."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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
How can I go from making a cake one day to not having made it the next day?
If we find, one day, that ringo actually cannot bake cakes, and we only thought he could before - we will go from "knowing" one thing to "knowing" the opposite overnight. Stile writes:
You are moving the goalposts. You're changing from "I can bake a cake" to where I can bake a cake.
you're the one attempting to put words in my mouth in order to say I'm 'moving goalposts.' Stile writes:
If I demonstrate that I can bake a cake, that event can not un-happen. We can not un-find the Northwest Passage. If we find God, we can not un-find Him. It's a one-way street. If the search is over for you baking cakes - and you don't have to consider possibly finding out that you were wrong and you actually can't bake cakes... Then the search is also over for not finding God - and I don't have to consider possibly finding out that I was wrong and I actually will find God... Edited by ringo, : No reason given."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 439 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024