|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
What error in logic are you pointing out?
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." Stile writes:
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. But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.
But you haven't demonstrated it yet. Stile writes:
But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake.
I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt. Stile writes:
Then you should apologize for the whole thread. I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Answered in Message 2070 above. Answered in Message 2068 above."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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.
ringo writes:
Interesting. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter. Stile writes:
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.
There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information. Stile writes:
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.
Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information. Stile writes:
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. There isn't much more to do here.You are 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
ringo writes:
But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet. Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions. Stile writes:
I'm saying we have to check every place we know of before we can "know" that something doesn't exist.
You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter. Stile writes:
But that's impossible. New information doesn't undo old information. The objective observations don't change. 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."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information. Stile writes:
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.
If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes: Stile writes:
A cake is an observation, not a conclusion. "The objective observations" don't change - you're right.But new information certainly does undo old conclusions. "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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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 until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary. Stile writes:
And the available information is that there are still places we haven't looked.
Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information. Stile writes:
On the contrary, I have explained it: We can observe objectively that I can bake a cake. An observation can not be un-observed. You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so. 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:
It isn't "me thinking I baked a cake". It's a consensus of all of the observers who watched me do it. You thinking you baked a cake is 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
By that logic, we "knew" that there was no Northwest Passage until we found it.
We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information. Stile writes:
You keep getting that wrong. Everybody involved agrees that it is a cake.
We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake. Stile writes:
But the dark matter is within our currently available information.
. 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. Stile writes:
Not at all. Don't you understand the difference between absolute and objective? You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
There was a link from imagination to God too - thunder and lightning, life itself.
There is a link from imagination to reality for the NWP before we found it. Stile writes:
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.
We have no information to suggest that any gods exist. Stile writes:
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."
We have no information to suggest that any god might exist in undiscovered areas. Stile writes:
Yes it does. It's the difference between subjective and objective.
Agreement doesn't change anything. Stile writes:
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.
If we haven't checked there yet - then it's not part of our available information. Stile writes:
And I haven't.
And objective observations don't allow you (or any amount of popular opinion) make an absolute claim about reality. Stile writes:
If you had said that you tentatively conclude that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any conclusion is tentative."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
What's irrational about it?
That's an irrational idea. Stile writes:
We have as much of a link as we had for water passages before any water passages were known.
Are you saying you can show me how thunder and lightning connect to God in reality?If not - you have no link. Stile writes:
But you haven't shown that there is no link to reality. You're assuming the conclusion.
Link to reality vs. no link to reality is not a small difference. Stile writes:
We know there is a place. Not being able to look there is not an excuse for pretending you "know" what's there.
This doesn't change the fact that if we can't look there - it's not available. Stile writes:
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. All knowledge is tentative - simply because it's not absolute."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
How do you know it has no link to reality unless you look for one? What is inherently irrational about the idea?
It has no link to reality and yet you suggest it should be taken into account when we're describing reality. Stile writes:
Can you read? Did you miss the phrase, "before any water passages were known"? ringo writes:
Are you insane? We have as much of a link as we had for water passages before any water passages were known.Water passages exist in Europe, no? 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:
Zero passages until the first passage was discovered. Zero Gods until the first God was discovered. Zero excuse for not looking.
How many Gods do we know exist before searching for God behind dark matter? Stile writes:
How can you not?
How can you possibly call those equivalent links to reality? Stile writes:
We had no such evidence until we started looking.
We have evidence that water passages existed before the NWP. Stile writes:
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.
If this is true - then we cannot know anything and the word is useless. Stile writes:
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.
We once knew light things fell slower than heavy things. Stile writes:
It wasn't knowledge being "reversed". It was belief being overthrown by knowledge. But it was tentative, and reversed when we learned more information."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there.
We have looked in all of our available information. None exists. Stile writes:
That's an irrational conclusion. The only way to tell whether there is a link or not is by looking.
It is irrational to consider that an idea with no link to reality should be considered when identifying our knowledge about reality. Stile writes:
Why not? That's what we did with God.
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? Stile writes:
For the same reason you've been wrong throughout the entire thread: A tentative conclusion should not be confused with knowledge.
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? Stile writes:
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.
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? Stile writes:
I don't have a problem with that.
Otherwise we can't say "I know it doesn't exist" about anything, ever. Stile writes:
That makes no sense. We can demonstrate positive things.
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. Stile writes:
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.
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. Stile writes:
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.
I'm saying we have to demonstrate that our knowledge is real. Stile writes:
No I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" that. I'm saying that you shouldn't use the word improperly.
You're the one claiming to know that I can't say "I know God does not exist" Stile writes:
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.
Please show how it was an "empty belief" to them, during their time, amidst their currently available information. Stile writes:
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. Of course we can un-know what we used to know."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 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Strawman. I have never suggested that knowledge is not tentative. If you do not think this accurately describes "knowledge" please name a single thing you think is knowledge that 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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. Why should I 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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.
What you have failed to do is identify why "I know that God does not exist" is not specific enough... Stile writes:
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. ... but something like "I know ringo can bake cakes" is specific enough. 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:
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. 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. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024