Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 9:34 AM
24 online now:
JonF, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,832 Year: 14,868/19,786 Month: 1,591/3,058 Week: 369/868 Day: 8/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
134135136137138
139
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2071 of 2081 (860863)
08-12-2019 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2069 by Stile
08-12-2019 1:29 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Answered in Message 2068 above.


Answered in Message 2070 above.

"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 2069 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2072 of 2081 (860903)
08-13-2019 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2070 by ringo
08-12-2019 5:12 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

Stile writes:

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

...

But you haven't demonstrated it yet.

Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.

Interesting.
Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter.
There's a scientific community that would find it very interesting.

But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake.

That's not the question.
There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information.
Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information.

The question is - Can you demonstrate-away-the-doubt that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when you attempt to bake a cake behind dark matter?
The question is - Can we demonstrate-away-the-doubt that God doesn't exist behind dark matter?

My answer is that these questions are irrational as there is no link between their imaginary ideas and reality.
All our currently-available-information supports that a new location won't change how you bake cakes as this hasn't happened anywhere else.
All our currently-available-information supports that no God will be found behind dark matter as no God has ever been found anywhere else.

Your answer seems to be that we can't demonstrate away this doubt for God, but we can for cakes.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework.

Then you should apologize for the whole thread.

Why?
I'm the one being consistent, clear and descriptive.
You're the one remaining vague to attempt to hide within contextual ambiguity while refusing to focus on the actual questions being presented to you so you can cling to an obvious inconsistency.

The absurdity of your position is on display.
Your inability to address it is clear.
The required correction is obvious.

There isn't much more to do here.
You are unable to move the discussion forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2070 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 5:12 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2073 by ringo, posted 08-13-2019 11:53 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2073 of 2081 (860920)
08-13-2019 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2072 by Stile
08-13-2019 8:37 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

ringo writes:

And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.


Interesting.
Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter.

Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions. Radiometric dating can not be demonstrated behind dark matter (yet) either. That doesn't make it less real.

Stile writes:

There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information.


It has nothing to do with available information. It is an undeniable event in the real world. No amount of additional information would make it not have happened.

Stile writes:

Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information.


That's completely different. Something that didn't happen in the past - e.g. finding God or the Northwest Passage - can happen in the future; something that did happen in the past - e.g. baking a cake or finding the Northwest Passage - can not un-happen.

Stile writes:

There isn't much more to do here.
You are unable to move the discussion forward.


This thread died once before. You dug up it's rotting corpse but you haven't been abler to Frankenstein it back to life. You're the one who's unable to move the discussion forward.

"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 2072 by Stile, posted 08-13-2019 8:37 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2074 by Stile, posted 08-14-2019 9:12 AM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2074 of 2081 (860942)
08-14-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2073 by ringo
08-13-2019 11:53 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions.

But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet.

Radiometric dating can not be demonstrated behind dark matter (yet) either. That doesn't make it less real.

I know that.
But, apparently, you don't.
You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter.
You're the one saying our current information isn't enough to base a conclusion on our current information.

It is an undeniable event in the real world. No amount of additional information would make it not have happened.

Of course it would.
If we found additional information that told us we were wrong - and you actually can't bake cakes - then we would be wrong, and you actually cannot bake cakes.
That's what new information can do - overturn previously-held tentative conclusions of knowledge.

Something that didn't happen in the past - e.g. finding God or the Northwest Passage - can happen in the future

These are not the same thing.
The NWP is a water-throughway, there is evidence that water-throughways can exist in undiscovered areas before anyone went searching for the NWP.
There is no evidence of any Gods - ever.

You're the one who's unable to move the discussion forward.

I have a detailed, specific answer for every issue you raise.

You're the one who keeps claiming that "knowledge-doubt" for baking cakes behind dark matter is different from "knowledge-doubt" of finding God behind dark matter without explaining why.

I'm the one that says they should be treated the same - as irrational (no link to reality) ideas that should be ignored when making tentative conclusions of knowledge based on our available information (rational knowledge claims.)

Why would I move the discussion forward?
My position is solid and you can't seem to indicate anything actually wrong with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2073 by ringo, posted 08-13-2019 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2075 by ringo, posted 08-14-2019 11:15 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2075 of 2081 (860946)
08-14-2019 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2074 by Stile
08-14-2019 9:12 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

ringo writes:

Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions.


But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet.

Michelson and Morley haven't conducted their experiment behind dark matter either. So, according to your logic, you can say you know that the luminiferous aether does exist.

Stile writes:

You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter.


I'm saying we have to check every place we know of before we can "know" that something doesn't exist.

Stile writes:

If we found additional information that told us we were wrong - and you actually can't bake cakes - then we would be wrong, and you actually cannot bake cakes.


But that's impossible. New information doesn't undo old information. The objective observations don't change.

"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 2074 by Stile, posted 08-14-2019 9:12 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2076 by Stile, posted 08-15-2019 2:30 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2076 of 2081 (861015)
08-15-2019 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2075 by ringo
08-14-2019 11:15 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

Michelson and Morley haven't conducted their experiment behind dark matter either. So, according to your logic, you can say you know that the luminiferous aether does exist.

No.
I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information.
What is the link from imagination to reality for luminiferous aether existing behind dark matter?
Without that - I stick with knowing that luminiferous aether does not exist.

I don't know how you thought otherwise - this doesn't even make sense that you would suggest such a thing.

I'm saying we have to check every place we know of before we can "know" that something doesn't exist.

If "every place we know" is equivalent to "all of our currently available information" - then you agree with me.

If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes:

If you think this is accurate - then you have to be open to waiting until we check behind dark matter to see if "something that tells us ringo can't actually bake cakes" exists there.
That's "something."
Therefore - you don't know if you can bake a cake.

Your choice.
Agree with me, or you can't know if you can bake a cake.

But that's impossible. New information doesn't undo old information. The objective observations don't change.

"The objective observations" don't change - you're right.
But new information certainly does undo old conclusions.

Even the curvature of the earth, at one point we knew it was flat, then we knew it was spherical, now we know it's an oblong spheroid.

The observations that led to those conclusion didn't change.
You can still look at the window, and see how some people thought it was flat.
You can still see pictures from space, and see how some people thought it was spheical.
You can still see the observations that show an oblong-spheroid, and see how we think that's more-accurate.

The observations don't go away... but the conclusion (flat, spherical, oblong-spheroid) is updated along with new information.

The observation that you think you can bake a cake now won't go away.
But if we find information behind dark matter that shows you're not actually baking a cake, you only think you are... then the conclusion will change.

As it should.

This is how knowledge has worked since we moved past the dark ages.
What you're talking about - conclusions remaining static - is dark-age epistemology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2075 by ringo, posted 08-14-2019 11:15 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2077 by ringo, posted 08-15-2019 5:36 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2077 of 2081 (861019)
08-15-2019 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2076 by Stile
08-15-2019 2:30 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information.


All ideas are imaginary until they are linked to reality - and that link can not be found unless you look in every reasonable place, including the dark matter.

Stile writes:

If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes:


That rabbit hole is still just as silly as it was the first time you brought it up. Yes, we can possibly find something in a place we haven't looked, a place we didn't even know existed until recently. But no, we can not unfind something that we have already found, not even by looking in new places.

Stile writes:

"The objective observations" don't change - you're right.
But new information certainly does undo old conclusions.


A cake is an observation, not a conclusion.

"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 2076 by Stile, posted 08-15-2019 2:30 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2078 by Stile, posted 08-16-2019 11:16 AM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2078 of 2081 (861050)
08-16-2019 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2077 by ringo
08-15-2019 5:36 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

All ideas are imaginary until they are linked to reality - and that link can not be found unless you look in every reasonable place, including the dark matter.

Right.
And until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary.

Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information.

That rabbit hole is still just as silly as it was the first time you brought it up. Yes, we can possibly find something in a place we haven't looked, a place we didn't even know existed until recently. But no, we can not unfind something that we have already found, not even by looking in new places.

And, to me, this works for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" just as well as "knowing God doesn't exist."

Both things have been found - according to our available information.
Both things have silly ideas to overturn them - looking in places with no link to reality to suggest that they should be overturned.

I think they should be treated the same.
You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so. Everything you say about one is equally valid for the other.
You just say it's not, but can't explain why it's not - this is an indication that you're confused.

A cake is an observation, not a conclusion.

You thinking you baked a cake is a conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2077 by ringo, posted 08-15-2019 5:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2079 by ringo, posted 08-16-2019 11:47 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2079 of 2081 (861055)
08-16-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2078 by Stile
08-16-2019 11:16 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

And until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary.


No. We can know that something isn't imaginary if we discover it in reality. But we can not know that it is imaginary until we're finished looking for it.

Stile writes:

Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information.


And the available information is that there are still places we haven't looked.

Stile writes:

You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so.


On the contrary, I have explained it: We can observe objectively that I can bake a cake. An observation can not be un-observed.

But we can not observe that something does not exist. We can surmise that something does not exist, based on our inability to find it but our confidence in that supposition depends heavily on how many places we have left to look. We should only say we "know" something when the likelihood of the supposition is extremely high.

Stile writes:

You thinking you baked a cake is a conclusion.


It isn't "me thinking I baked a cake". It's a consensus of all of the observers who watched me do 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 2078 by Stile, posted 08-16-2019 11:16 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2080 by Stile, posted 08-16-2019 1:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2080 of 2081 (861060)
08-16-2019 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2079 by ringo
08-16-2019 11:47 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

No. We can know that something isn't imaginary if we discover it in reality. But we can not know that it is imaginary until we're finished looking for it.

And this is where you're wrong.

We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information.
And that's what knowledge is.
Knowledge is not absolute.

And the available information is that there are still places we haven't looked.

Places we haven't looked that are not a part of our available information (as far as God is concerned, anyway.)
Your point is?

We can observe objectively that I can bake a cake. An observation can not be un-observed.

Nope.
We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake.

That conclusion can certainly be overturned. What if we found out that you actually aren't baking cakes and you only think you were?

Are you saying that such information is impossible to find out in the future?
Is your knowledge of baking cakes absolute?

Knowledge is not absolute. You keep trying to make it so. But that's dark-ages thinking.

But we can not observe that something does not exist.

Sure we can.
We look for it. If we find it - it exists. If we don't find it - then it doesn't.
If we look through all our available information - then we know it doesn't exist within all of our available information.

We can surmise that something does not exist, based on our inability to find it but our confidence in that supposition depends heavily on how many places we have left to look.

Exactly. And when "how many places we have left to look" is equal to "none at all within our currently available information" - then we can be highly confident.
This is called knowledge.
This is how we know things don't exist.

We should only say we "know" something when the likelihood of the supposition is extremely high.

Agreed.

It isn't "me thinking I baked a cake". It's a consensus of all of the observers who watched me do it.

Yes, actually, it is you thinking you baked a cake.
Just like people "thought they sailed on a flat lake" thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of years ago.
Then new information informed them otherwise.
Just like people "thought they sailed on a spherical surface on a lake" hundreds of years ago.
Then new information informed them otherwise.

We've just never had new information to inform us otherwise for thinking you can bake cakes.
This doesn't make such information impossible to come by - it's simply makes us confident in it.

We don't prescribe reality with our observations.
We can't ever know our observations are correct with reality - how would we?
All we ever know is that observations tell us according to our available information.
All we ever know is tentative conclusion based on our available information.

You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute.
But - we know that we can never have absolute knowledge of anything - because there is no "answer book" to reality to check it against.
Everything we observe is interpreted - that that interpretation can always be overturned by future information.

If you disagree - you're putting on a level of "absolute knowledge" (even if it's just 'absolute knowledge of an observation') neither are ever, ever possible for us.
According to our available information, of course

The more you cling to this "observations can't be un-observed" nonsense - the more your position is shown for the absolute-knowledge-holding you're trying to force into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2079 by ringo, posted 08-16-2019 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2081 by ringo, posted 08-16-2019 5:23 PM Stile has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2081 of 2081 (861068)
08-16-2019 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2080 by Stile
08-16-2019 1:58 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information.


By that logic, we "knew" that there was no Northwest Passage until we found it.

Stile writes:

We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake.


You keep getting that wrong. Everybody involved agrees that it is a cake.

Stile writes:

. And when "how many places we have left to look" is equal to "none at all within our currently available information" - then we can be highly confident.


But the dark matter is within our currently available information.

Stile writes:

You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute.


Not at all. Don't you understand the difference between absolute and objective?

"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 2080 by Stile, posted 08-16-2019 1:58 PM Stile has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
134135136137138
139
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019