Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2067 of 3207 (860843)
08-12-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2066 by Stile
08-12-2019 1:03 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?
My answer to the final question is "no."
What error in logic are you pointing out?
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.
Your claim that we can un-know something is irrational. Making changes in our knowledge base is not equivalent to undoing something that has been done.

"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 2066 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:03 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2069 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2070 of 3207 (860861)
08-12-2019 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2068 by Stile
08-12-2019 1:29 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
But you haven't demonstrated it yet.
Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.
Stile writes:
I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt.
But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake.
Stile writes:
I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework.
Then you should apologize for the whole thread.

"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 2068 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2072 by Stile, posted 08-13-2019 8:37 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2071 of 3207 (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 seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2073 of 3207 (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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2075 of 3207 (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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2077 of 3207 (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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2079 of 3207 (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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2081 of 3207 (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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2082 by Stile, posted 08-19-2019 10:40 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 2083 of 3207 (861288)
08-19-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2082 by Stile
08-19-2019 10:40 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
There is a link from imagination to reality for the NWP before we found it.
There was a link from imagination to God too - thunder and lightning, life itself.
Stile writes:
We have no information to suggest that any gods exist.
Sure we do. We have an alternative explanation for thunder and lightning but the alternative explanation for life is still pretty tenuous. You're trying to make a big difference where there might not even be a small one.
Stile writes:
We have no information to suggest that any god might exist in undiscovered areas.
But you've changed your story. Originally you said we've searched everywhere. Then, when I pointed out that we've only searched a fraction of the universe, you switched to, "We don't have to search at all."
Stile writes:
Agreement doesn't change anything.
Yes it does. It's the difference between subjective and objective.
Stile writes:
If we haven't checked there yet - then it's not part of our available information.
Our available information includes the fact that there are places we haven't looked. It's foolish to try to predict what might or might not exist in places we haven't looked.
Stile writes:
And objective observations don't allow you (or any amount of popular opinion) make an absolute claim about reality.
And I haven't.
Stile writes:
Any conclusion is tentative.
If you had said that you tentatively conclude that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"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 2082 by Stile, posted 08-19-2019 10:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2084 by Tangle, posted 08-19-2019 1:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2085 by Stile, posted 08-19-2019 3:29 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2089 of 3207 (861309)
08-19-2019 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2085 by Stile
08-19-2019 3:29 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
That's an irrational idea.
What's irrational about it?
Stile writes:
Are you saying you can show me how thunder and lightning connect to God in reality?
If not - you have no link.
We have as much of a link as we had for water passages before any water passages were known.
Stile writes:
Link to reality vs. no link to reality is not a small difference.
But you haven't shown that there is no link to reality. You're assuming the conclusion.
Stile writes:
This doesn't change the fact that if we can't look there - it's not available.
We know there is a place. Not being able to look there is not an excuse for pretending you "know" what's there.
Stile writes:
All knowledge is tentative - simply because it's not absolute.
Tentative does not mean reversible. We can not un-know what we used to know. That's precisely why we should not say we "know" something when we're only pretty sure.

"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 2085 by Stile, posted 08-19-2019 3:29 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2097 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 9:42 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2101 of 3207 (861349)
08-20-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2097 by Stile
08-20-2019 9:42 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
It has no link to reality and yet you suggest it should be taken into account when we're describing reality.
How do you know it has no link to reality unless you look for one? What is inherently irrational about the idea?
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
We have as much of a link as we had for water passages before any water passages were known.
Are you insane?
Water passages exist in Europe, no?
Can you read? Did you miss the phrase, "before any water passages were known"?
Before any water passages were known, we did not know about any water passages in Europe. The situation was the same as not knowing any Gods exist until we look.
Stile writes:
How many Gods do we know exist before searching for God behind dark matter?
Zero passages until the first passage was discovered. Zero Gods until the first God was discovered. Zero excuse for not looking.
Stile writes:
How can you possibly call those equivalent links to reality?
How can you not?
Stile writes:
We have evidence that water passages existed before the NWP.
We had no such evidence until we started looking.
Stile writes:
If this is true - then we cannot know anything and the word is useless.
Not at all. We can use the word for distinguishing between somebody who can bake a cake and somebody who can not. Employers use the word in that way every day - and the criterion for knowledge is the ability to demonstrate that your knowledge is real, that you know how to bake a cake.
Stile writes:
We once knew light things fell slower than heavy things.
We once believed that light things fall faster than heavy things. We weren't even "pretty sure" about it because we hadn't tested it. It was an empty belief, like the belief in Noah's flood.
Stile writes:
But it was tentative, and reversed when we learned more information.
It wasn't knowledge being "reversed". It was belief being overthrown by knowledge.

"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 2097 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 9:42 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2103 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 12:57 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2107 of 3207 (861357)
08-20-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2103 by Stile
08-20-2019 12:57 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
We have looked in all of our available information. None exists.
We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there.
Stile writes:
It is irrational to consider that an idea with no link to reality should be considered when identifying our knowledge about reality.
That's an irrational conclusion. The only way to tell whether there is a link or not is by looking.
Stile writes:
How would someone even say "I know water passages do not exist" when the idea wasn't even known?
Are you claiming that someone dreamed up the definition of water passages before they were discovered?
Why not? That's what we did with God.
Stile writes:
If so - then yes, it would be valid to say:
"I tentatively conclude that water passages as you've only dreamed them up do not exist according to our currently available information."
Or, since all knowledge is tentative and assessed according to currently available information:
"I know that water passages do not exist."
Why wouldn't that be correct?
For the same reason you've been wrong throughout the entire thread: A tentative conclusion should not be confused with knowledge.
Stile writes:
I still don't get the point you're trying to make since I completely agree.
As such - they should be treated the same. Why wouldn't they?
You're the one who keeps saying that searching for water passages is completely different from searching for gods. The onus is on you to explain why.
Stile writes:
Otherwise we can't say "I know it doesn't exist" about anything, ever.
I don't have a problem with that.
Stile writes:
If you start allowing dreamed-up imagination to have affects on rational knowledge claims.. you also run into not being able to claim positive things.
That makes no sense. We can demonstrate positive things.
Stile writes:
Now no one can say "I know ringo can bake a cake." No matter how many observations or demonstrations are ever done until the end of time.
Sure they can. You're being silly. They can see it, they can eat it, they can measure it, they can run it through a gas chromatograph. That is how we know things.
Stile writes:
I'm saying we have to demonstrate that our knowledge is real.
And we can demonstrate that something is not in a specific place at a specific time - but we can not demonstrate that it is not in any place at any time because we are not omniscient.
Stile writes:
You're the one claiming to know that I can't say "I know God does not exist"
No I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" that. I'm saying that you shouldn't use the word improperly.
Stile writes:
Please show how it was an "empty belief" to them, during their time, amidst their currently available information.
It doesn't matter whether it was an empty belief "to them". Fundamentalists' beliefs are not empty "to them" but they are still empty because they can not be demonstrated to be real.
Stile writes:
Of course we can un-know what we used to know.
Nope. If it turns out to be wrong, we didn't really know it - and we shouldn't have pretended that we did. But of course, real knowledge like how to bake a cake, can not be undone.

"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 2103 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 12:57 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2113 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 1:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2119 of 3207 (861443)
08-21-2019 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2113 by Stile
08-20-2019 1:59 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
If you do not think this accurately describes "knowledge" please name a single thing you think is knowledge that is not tentative..
Strawman. I have never suggested that knowledge is not tentative.
I'm saying that you should be more explicit about how tentative it is.

"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 2113 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 1:59 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2120 by Stile, posted 08-21-2019 12:18 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2121 of 3207 (861446)
08-21-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2120 by Stile
08-21-2019 12:18 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:
Why should I be more explicit about how tentative it is?
It's better to be too specific than not specific enough. Making a vague statement like, "I know that God does not exist," smacks of trolling.

"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 2120 by Stile, posted 08-21-2019 12:18 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2122 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 11:48 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2123 of 3207 (861498)
08-22-2019 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2122 by Stile
08-22-2019 11:48 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
What you have failed to do is identify why "I know that God does not exist" is not specific enough...
But of course I have. If you'd say you're "pretty sure" that God doesn't exist, that's a much more accurate description of your position.
Stile writes:
... but something like "I know ringo can bake cakes" is specific enough.
How is a cake not specific enough? If I had just said, "I know how to cook," that's not very specific because there are plenty of things that I don't know how to cook. But a cake is pretty specific. I can even bake several different kinds of cakes if you want more specificity.
You can watch me bake the cake. You can eat the cake. You and anybody else who cares to test my knowledge can test my knowledge. How is that not specific?
Stile writes:
What you have failed to do is show why "I know that God does not exist" smacks of trolling but "I know ringo can bake cakes" does not.
There's nothing provocative about claiming I can bake cakes. Nobody has questioned my ability to bake cakes. That would be foolish. It's easily tested.
But saying you "know" that God doesn't exist is bound to be provocative, especially on a forum where atheist predominate. If you said, "I know that the Clintons are murderers," wouldn't that be considered trolling?

"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 2122 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 11:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2124 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM ringo 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