Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2116 of 3207 (861372)
08-20-2019 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2115 by Stile
08-20-2019 2:47 PM


God Should Get Special Consideration By Definition
Stile writes:
It's because you've been trained to give God (or a non-interventionist deity) a free-pass.
You feel it's implied here.
You've been culturally indoctrinated to accept it's implied here.
It's popular opinion that it's implied here.
But it's irrational to consider any of that when attempting to make a serious, rationally based claim of knowledge.
Only if we humans (and you specifically) can honestly say that your attempts at defining reason in the specific case of a Creator of all seen and unseen have the default position of defining, locating, and accepting such a Deity just as easily as you would accept the definition of a character in a book. Part of the implication of finding such a Deity is in surrendering your absolute decision whether to accept such a Deity or whether you maintain all rationality, control, and acceptance or rejection of such a concept in order to know such a Deity.(Which I don't believe can happen. In this case, yes, God does have a special pass. His intellect and rationality has veto power over yours. God is not some accepted fantasy/creation of the human mind, despite the hollow insistence of AZPaul3 that that is exactly the implication. AZPaul3 is an atheist who has defined his rationality and likely wouldn't accept such a Deity even if One asked permission to enter his mind, autonomously of course. Its one thing to reject a concept you've never experienced, believed, or accepted rationally.(due to non evidence)
Its another thing to set the ground rules on what you will and will not accept and to reserve the right to define the evidence that you would accept as you began uncovering any potential and possible evidence. Now, to be fair, Stile...I know that you have personally claimed that you would in fact be open to meeting such a Creator. I simply want you to consider my argument that essentially says that humans reserve the right to accept only what they will allow, and there are some of us who wont allow our own reasoning process to take a back seat of control and definition. This entire argument between all of us suggests that this is true.
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2115 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 2:47 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2118 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 4:22 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2117 of 3207 (861377)
08-20-2019 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2115 by Stile
08-20-2019 2:47 PM


duplicate post
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2115 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 2:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2118 of 3207 (861383)
08-20-2019 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2116 by Phat
08-20-2019 3:29 PM


Re: Knowledge is not Certainty
Thugpreacha writes:
Part of the implication of finding such a Deity is in surrendering your absolute decision whether to accept such a Deity or whether you maintain all rationality, control, and acceptance or rejection of such a concept in order to know such a Deity.
I am under no illusion that I want to maintain all rationality.
I very often throw rationality out the window - it's not very fun. I like to have fun. Most of the fun I have is incredibly irrational.
However, if you want to claim that getting rid of rationality is helpful in identifying reality in some way - you're going to have to show why this should be considered. Because it has been considered before, and followed - it led us straight into the Dark Ages for hundreds of years.
That kind of irrationality wasn't very fun at all.
That's why I'm careful about my identification of what's rational and what's not - so I can understand what sort of situations I'm applying it to, and which ones I'm not. Sometimes it's incredibly dangerous, sometimes it's incredibly rewarding. But if you get confused, you can get left for dead.
Which I don't believe can happen
Your belief of what I'm capable of has no bearing on what I actually do.
In this case, yes, God does have a special pass. His intellect and rationality has veto power over yours. God is not some accepted fantasy/creation of the human mind, despite the hollow insistence of AZPaul3 that that is exactly the implication. AZPaul3 is an atheist who has defined his rationality and likely wouldn't accept such a Deity even if One asked permission to enter his mind, autonomously of course. Its one thing to reject a concept you've never experienced, believed, or accepted rationally.(due to non evidence)
Knowledge is not absolute.
Any claim I make can easily be updated by new information.
Find this information on God - present this information about God - show the connection between God and reality.
Do that, and I will retract my conclusion as it fits directly into my method for changing the conclusion.
Its another thing to set the ground rules on what you will and will not accept and to reserve the right to define the evidence that you would accept as you began uncovering any potential and possible evidence.
I'm not setting the ground rules for knowledge - I'm just using the same rules that lifted us out of the Dark Ages.
Seems like a pretty decent place to start after all the improvements to life we've discovered in the last few hundred years.
I simply want you to consider my argument that essentially says that humans reserve the right to accept only what they will allow, and there are some of us who wont allow our own reasoning process to take a back seat of control and definition. This entire argument between all of us suggests that this is true.
I have no problems taking a backseat to control and definition. The majority of my "fun time" is spent pissing all over control and definition. I highly enjoy not respecting control or definition. I'm up for it whenever it's helpful.
It's just that here - in defining things about reality - giving up control and definition is not helpful. It's very, very hurtful. Hundreds of years in the dark ages hurtful. Do you know how many people died then that didn't have to? Too many to count.
I'm not going to do something that's incredibly hurtful just because you say it's going to help.
But go ahead, give up control and definition for driving to work - see how much it helps.
Give up control and definition for taking a plane trip on vacation - see how much it helps.
Give up control and definition when your sick and need a doctor - see how much it helps.
Do any of those - and prosper - and I will think you're on to something.
We even know that those who "give up control and definition only for God but none of those other things" don't prosper any more than anyone else.
It makes it look like the only reason you're doing it is, again, cultural pressures (which I do agree are highly powerful.)
As for my argument, I also have no problems with someone not accepting my argument.
People are free to have whatever thoughts they like.
I am only taking issue with those who are claiming my argument "implies certainty" or that it's illogical, or irrational.
Because none of those things are true about my argument.
My argument is logical and rational.
My argument is unavoidable from an honest evaluation of our current information.
My argument is tentative - it could be wrong, but it should only be considered to be wrong once new information showing it's wrong is identified.
1. In explicit terms no one seems to have an issue with:
"A rational analysis of our current information demands the tentative conclusion that God does not exist."
Just like:
"A rational analysis of our current information demands the tentative conclusion that Santa Claus does not exist."
2. All knowledge is "a rational analysis of our current information" and all knowledge is tentative.
Therefore - these parts can be removed from the above statement as they are redundant.
-almost everyone seems to have an issue with this
-but no one can identify any knowledge that is not "a rational analysis of our current information"
-no one can identify any knowledge that is not tentative
-lots of people have an issue, but no one can explain what that issue is other that "I don't want to accept it!"
3. Putting 1 and 2 together:
Nobody has an issue for this coming together and saying "I know Santa Claus does not exist."
Everybody has an issue for this coming together and saying "I know God does not exist."
-but no one can identify why this should apply to Santa Claus and not to God without appealing to popular opinion or other cultural pressure or claiming that it somehow implies certainty even though this is strictly declared not to be a certainty
If you want to think otherwise - feel free.
I just won't allow any otherwise-thinkers to say this is inconsistent or wrong when they cannot identify anything that is inconsistent or wrong and in their attempts they only show how they, themselves are actually being inconsistent or wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2116 by Phat, posted 08-20-2019 3:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2130 by Phat, posted 08-23-2019 11:53 AM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2120 of 3207 (861445)
08-21-2019 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2119 by ringo
08-21-2019 11:21 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:
I have never suggested that knowledge is not tentative.
That's good.
Because it's always tentative.
Always.
I'm saying that you should be more explicit about how tentative it is.
Why?
If you understand knowledge is always tentative.
And I understand knowledge is always tentative.
Why should I be more explicit about how tentative it is?
That's like saying we shouldn't call you "ringo" but we should call you "ringo, member of EvCforum.net"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2119 by ringo, posted 08-21-2019 11:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2121 by ringo, posted 08-21-2019 12:30 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2122 of 3207 (861496)
08-22-2019 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2121 by ringo
08-21-2019 12:30 PM


When specifics are required
ringo writes:
It's better to be too specific than not specific enough.
I completely agree.
What you have failed to do is identify why "I know that God does not exist" is not specific enough, but something like "I know ringo can bake cakes" is specific enough.
I have, actually, described to you in detail why their levels of specification are treated in exactly the same way.
Here it is again:
1. How do we know things?
-From a rational analysis of our available information to form tentative conclusions
-The more rational analysis that's done, and the more our tentative conclusion is confirmed accordingly, the more we "know" the thing.
2. Rational Analysis
2a. Positive things can be known by a rational analysis that results in a positive conclusion according to our available information
-"I know ringo can bake cakes" can be rationally analyzed by seeing if ringo can put ingredients together and produce what we call a "cake"
-the more often ringo bakes cakes in various places he can do so, the more we "know" ringo can bake cakes according to our available information
-it would be fair to say that if ringo has baked 100 cakes in 100 different places... in the last 20-50 years: we're fairly confident that we can say "I know ringo can bake cakes according to our available information."
2b. Negative things can be known by a rational analysis of looking for them that results in a negative conclusion
-"I know God does not exist" can be rationally analyzed by looking for God everywhere we can and seeing if anything God-identifying is found
-the more often we look for God everywhere we can and find nothing, the more we "know" God doesn't exist according to our available information
-it would be fair to say that if we look for God everywhere we can and find nothing hundreds of thousands of times... in the last few thousand years: we're fairly confident that we can say "I know God does not exist according to our available information."
3. Doubt
3a. Positive things can be doubted
-perhaps the observation we think gives a positive conclusion - actually does not, and future information will show us that we were wrong the entire time - the observation actually falsifies our tentative positive conclusion
-perhaps what we call "a cake" is updated, and all previous "ringo-made-cakes" were not actually cakes at all
-perhaps our observations of ringo's-cake-baking-results are updated, and we can now identify that whatever-ringo-bakes no longer actually matches what we call "a cake"
-these sorts of doubts always exist, for everything, positive or negative
-it would be fair to say "I know ringo can bake cakes according to our available information including doubt that our observations could be wrong or are incomplete."
3b. Negative things can be doubted
-perhaps the observation we think gives a negative conclusion - actually does not, and future information will show us that we were wrong the entire time - the observation actually falsifies our tentative negative conclusion
-perhaps what we call "God existing" is updated, and all previous claims of "God does not exist" were actually God the whole time
-perhaps our observations of God-not-existing-results are updated, and we can now identify that whatever-God-exists-as was actually present the whole time
-these sorts of doubts always exist, for everything, positive or negative
-it would be fair to say "I know God does not exist according to our available information including doubt that our observations could be wrong or are incomplete."
Making a vague statement like, "I know that God does not exist," smacks of trolling.
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.
When rationally analyzed in the exact same way - we actually see that we should have more confidence in our tentative conclusion that we know God does not exist than we should have in our tentative conclusion that we know ringo can bake cakes. Based on the limited (20-50 years) experience we have of observing ringo baking cakes vs. the vast (thousands of years) experience we have of observing God not existing.
You've been free to explain why or how "I know ringo can bake cakes" is not as vague as "I know God does not exist."
But you've failed to do so.
Every time you bring something up - it either equally applies to both, or is in favour of giving more confidence to knowing God does not exist.
But, again, feel free to explain why you require one to be specific but not the other.
If you do actually identify a rationally-applicable reason - I have no problems immediately changing my conclusion.
Until then - I know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2121 by ringo, posted 08-21-2019 12:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2123 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 12:06 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 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

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2124 of 3207 (861505)
08-22-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2123 by ringo
08-22-2019 12:06 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
That's just a claim.
That's not an identification of why it should be accepted.
This is all you've ever done.
Made claims with no details as to why they should be accepted.
How is a cake not specific enough?
Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I don't know.
I'm only saying that "I know ringo can bake a cake" is as specific as "I know God does not exist."
Message 2122
You're the one saying one's more specific than the other but not saying why or why it should matter in a rational analysis of our knowledge - which is what we're talking about.
I can even bake several different kinds of cakes if you want more specificity.
I don't care about kinds or types of cakes. The process of knowledge, the doubt included - is all exactly the same for everything.
I care about you explaining why your claims of "this is enough specification!" should be taken seriously.
You're basically saying "I use specified information!" And only saying "ringo-can-bake-cake has enough specified information!" and "God-does-not-exist does not have enough specified information!"... but you're not explaining what "specified information" actually is, or how to measure it.
You're basically hiding in your claims the same way ID proponents hide in theirs - saying "there's a measure! it's obvious! and obviously it agrees with the conclusion I want!" but not explaining how it's measured or why it's obvious so no one else can do a similar analysis.
I've explained my method, and how to measure it.
Message 2122
Now: your turn.
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.
You can watch me not find God. You can not find God. You and anybody else who cares to test my knowledge can test my knowledge.
How is that not specific?
I'm not saying it's not specific.
I'm saying it's not more specific than "I know God does not exist."
You're the one saying it is, but not giving any details of how you measure it in order to say so.
There's nothing provocative about claiming I can bake cakes.
I agree.
Unfortunately, we understand that "provocative-ness" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion.
Nobody has questioned my ability to bake cakes.
I agree.
Unfortunately, we understand that "people questioning things" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion.
That would be foolish. It's easily tested.
Tested! Nice! Testing is understood to have value when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Unfortunately, for you - we have tested "I know God does not exist" according to our available information a lot more often than we've tested "I know ringo can bake a cake." Therefore - this would mean we have more confidence in "I know God does not exist" than "I know ringo can bake a cake."
Testing is actually part of my method for identifying when "enough is enough."
Unfortunately, it ends up agreeing with my conclusion - and disagreeing with yours.
Message 2122
But saying you "know" that God doesn't exist is bound to be provocative, especially on a forum where atheist predominate.
I agree - it was part of my intention, even.
Unfortunately, we understand that "provocative-ness" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion.
If you said, "I know that the Clintons are murderers," wouldn't that be considered trolling?
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Probably depends on the audience.
But, again, we understand that "considered trolling" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2123 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2125 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 12:58 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 2125 of 3207 (861508)
08-22-2019 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2124 by Stile
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You can watch me not find God.
But I can't tell the difference between you not finding God and you not baking a cake. They both have the same result, nothing.
We can only distinguish between things that do happen.
Stile writes:
Unfortunately, we understand that "provocative-ness" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
The context was trolling, not human knowledge. When you use a trolling title like "I know That God Does Not Exist", you can't expect people to take your "analysis" seriously.
Stile writes:
Unfortunately, for you - we have tested "I know God does not exist" according to our available information a lot more often than we've tested "I know ringo can bake a cake."
Nonsense. The existence of God implies everywhere and we certainly have not searched everywhere. Baking a cake does not specify a location. If I know how to bake a cake anywhere, I know how to bake a cake.
Stile writes:
Testing is actually part of my method for identifying when "enough is enough."
But you're using the George W. Bush method of testing. When George is ahead, stop counting. When we don't find God in one place, stop looking. You're setting up the test for failure.
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
But saying you "know" that God doesn't exist is bound to be provocative, especially on a forum where atheist predominate.
I agree - it was part of my intention, even.
So you admit to 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 2124 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2126 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 4:40 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2126 of 3207 (861523)
08-22-2019 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2125 by ringo
08-22-2019 12:58 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
But I can't tell the difference between you not finding God and you not baking a cake. They both have the same result, nothing.
But if you watch me not find God - you can also confirm that we didn't find God.
And if you watch me not bake a cake - you can also confirm that I didn't bake a cake.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make that they're both the same - I agree.
We can only distinguish between things that do happen.
The point is: how does ringo do this distinguishing? How do you know you baked a cake? What sort of rational analysis shows it? What sort of doubt is involved? Why is the same rational analysis and doubt not apply to God existing?
I've explained Stile's way of distinguishing. And it works equally for cakes and Gods.
Message 2122
The context was trolling, not human knowledge. When you use a trolling title like "I know That God Does Not Exist", you can't expect people to take your "analysis" seriously.
Of course I can.
I have, and it's working flawlessly.
We've discussed it for over 2000 messages.
Nonsense. The existence of God implies everywhere and we certainly have not searched everywhere. Baking a cake does not specify a location.
If this is the implication to ringo - then it's a problem with ringo.
The only way this is an implication is if you subscribe to judgements of popularity or "provocative-ness" or "trolling."
But, as we are well aware - these are terrible methods for determining knowledge.
Therefore - if these things are implied for ringo when ringo sees a determination of knowledge - then there's something wrong with ringo.
To those who understand a rational analysis in determining knowledge - there is no such implication at all.
Again, in my method I've described how it's all according to our available information.
Why do you limit "knowing ringo's ability to bake cakes" to our available information but not "knowing if God exists or not" to our available information?
What is it that implies to you that you should treat them differently?
Information that isn't currently available to us could show us that ringo actually cannot, and has never baked a cake.
Information that isn't currently available to us could show us that God actually does exist.
When such information comes around - we update our tentative conclusions.
This is my consistent method.
Your method seems incredibly inconsistent.
When knowing if ringo can bake cakes - you seem to ignore information that is not currently available and focus only on information that is available.
When knowing if God exists - you seem incredibly focused on information that is not currently available to us.
Why the double standard?
What's ringo's method?
Is there any consistency or is it just put together adhoc to agree with ringo's desired conclusions?
We have no idea because you've never explained what your method is, and everything you suggest is loaded with inconsistencies that you refuse to explain.
But you're using the George W. Bush method of testing. When George is ahead, stop counting. When we don't find God in one place, stop looking. You're setting up the test for failure.
Are you saying that more searching (observations) doesn't lead to stronger conclusions?
Are you saying that we have more observations for ringo-baking-cakes than we have for God not existing?
Are you saying that one observation of God existing isn't enough to overturn my conclusion?
If you're saying anything else... the point you're making is irrelevant to the discussion.
So you admit to trolling.
I really wanted to discuss this.
I really wanted to defend this.
You've been instrumental in showing exactly how robust and defensible my argument is - I'm very thankful.
So - no. In that sense, it's not trolling at all.
Of course - if you think it's trolling - then I guess it is to you, I just don't care - you've shown an affinity for inconsistency and irrelevancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2125 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 12:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2127 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 5:20 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2127 of 3207 (861525)
08-22-2019 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2126 by Stile
08-22-2019 4:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
But if you watch me not find God - you can also confirm that we didn't find God.
And if you watch me not bake a cake - you can also confirm that I didn't bake a cake.
Confirming that you didn't do something is not the same as confirming that you did. I could make a whole list of things that you didn't do; you didn't walk on the moon for sure and you most likely didn't go over Niagara Falls in a barrel or climb Mount Everest or swim the Hellespont or trek on foot to Timbuktu.... It's a lot harder to confirm things that you actually do.
Stile writes:
The point is: how does ringo do this distinguishing? How do you know you baked a cake?
The point is that it isn't me doing the distinguishing. It's us, including you. There's no room for any questions about me hallucinating because it's objective. Everybody can agree about what they observed. The only hiding place you have is some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory in which the whole world gets together to convince you that I can bake a cake.
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
When you use a trolling title like "I know That God Does Not Exist", you can't expect people to take your "analysis" seriously.
Of course I can.
I have, and it's working flawlessly.
We've discussed it for over 2000 messages.
The 2000 messages are an indication that it has not worked "flawlessly". There are several of us pointing out the flaws.

"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 2126 by Stile, posted 08-22-2019 4:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2128 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 10:14 AM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2128 of 3207 (861553)
08-23-2019 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 2127 by ringo
08-22-2019 5:20 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
Confirming that you didn't do something is not the same as confirming that you did. I could make a whole list of things that you didn't do; you didn't walk on the moon for sure and you most likely didn't go over Niagara Falls in a barrel or climb Mount Everest or swim the Hellespont or trek on foot to Timbuktu.... It's a lot harder to confirm things that you actually do.
You're forgetting that knowledge isn't absolute.
Knowledge is according to our available information.
This doubt also exists for baking a cake.
Maybe if you bake a cake on the moon you'd learn that you don't actually know how to bake cakes, and all cakes you've ever baked have not actually been cakes.
Maybe if you bake a cake going over Niagara Falls in a barrel or climbing Mount Everest the same issue could arise.
The same doubt exists for both the positive and the negative.
New information can always overturn currently available information.
You seem very concerned about this doubt for knowing God does not exist.
But you seem very unconcerned about this doubt for knowing you can bake a cake.
Your only reason seems to be that "God does not exist" is provocative. Well - that's not a rational reason when trying to make a knowledge claim.
Why the double-standard?
There's no room for any questions about me hallucinating because it's objective.
As objective as knowing God doesn't exist.
We can watch you bake a cake.
We can watch God not exist.
We can't watch you bake a cake everywhere and confirm that we'll never uncover information that shows you actually have never baked a cake, and actually cannot.
We can't watch God not-exist everywhere and confirm that we'll never uncover information that shows God actually exists.
Same doubt.
Same objective observations.
Why are you being inconsistent about them?
The 2000 messages are an indication that it has not worked "flawlessly". There are several of us pointing out the flaws.
You certainly pointing out your own confusion a lot.
But you have yet to point out a single flaw that actually applies to a rational analysis of knowledge.
"Provocative-ness" is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2127 by ringo, posted 08-22-2019 5:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2129 by Phat, posted 08-23-2019 11:37 AM Stile has replied
 Message 2131 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 12:00 PM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2129 of 3207 (861568)
08-23-2019 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2128 by Stile
08-23-2019 10:14 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile, replying to ringo writes:
You're forgetting that knowledge isn't absolute.
Knowledge is according to our available information.
This doubt also exists for baking a cake.
Maybe if you bake a cake on the moon you'd learn that you don't actually know how to bake cakes, and all cakes you've ever baked have not actually been cakes.
Maybe if you bake a cake going over Niagara Falls in a barrel or climbing Mount Everest the same issue could arise.
The same doubt exists for both the positive and the negative.
New information can always overturn currently available information.
You seem very concerned about this doubt for knowing God does not exist.
But you seem very unconcerned about this doubt for knowing you can bake a cake.
Your only reason seems to be that "God does not exist" is provocative. Well - that's not a rational reason when trying to make a knowledge claim.
Why the double-standard?
In matters of belief, rationality itself employs a double standard of sorts. Whom or what we consult in our search for truth is of course our responsibility. Knowledge may not be absolute, but for some of us truth *is* absolute, especially when God is involved. Critics would point out that we are in effect creating/defining the God Whom we want, and despite my disagreement, I see the value in considering such behavior. Let's break this down.
What do humans consult as authoritative in their individual and collective search for God, and/or Truth, and/or Knowledge? Believer may insist that the *Living Truth* found them and that they simply accepted Him. Stile might say that no such illusion ever plagued him and that he simply looked for this elusive truth, God, or source in which believers seemed to trust so adamantly. He has concluded (tentatively) that "It" does not exist. ringo, ever the contrarian, counters that with the adage that Stile has not looked everywhere. Perhaps ringo is challenging Stiles insistence that he should be confidant with his final answer.
To Stile: Why are you so confidant that this answer may be in a place that you have not, cannot, nor ever will allow yourself to look?
To ringo: Why are you arguing? Do you simply enjoy challenging us to consider alternatives to premature "final answers"?
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2128 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 10:14 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2132 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 12:03 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2135 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 1:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2130 of 3207 (861573)
08-23-2019 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2118 by Stile
08-20-2019 4:22 PM


Re: Knowledge is not Certainty
Stile writes:
Knowledge is not absolute.
Any claim I make can easily be updated by new information.
Find this information on God - present this information about God - show the connection between God and reality.
Do that, and I will retract my conclusion as it fits directly into my method for changing the conclusion.
All that I can present is the idea that I have found God and *know* that He exists. You could fairly examine my reasons and conclude that this "God" whom I found was merely a creation of my own mind. You also would likely say that you have found that you can feel the same feelings of peace, security, and contentment without God. Thus for you, God is irrational from the get-go. I see God, or at least the idea of God, as rational.
Philip Yancey writes:
A child must, at some point, learn to accept the world as it is rather than as he or she wants it to be. "It's not fair!" the foot-stamping lament of a child, mellows into "Life is not fair," the wisdom of adulthood. People vary in beauty, family background, athletic skill, intelligence, health, and wealth, and anyone who expects perfect fairness in this world will end up bitterly disappointed. Likewise, a Christian who expects God to solve all family problems, heal all diseases, and thwart baldness, graying, wrinkling, presbyopia, osteoporosis, senility, and the other effects of aging is pursuing childish magic, not mature religion. J. I. Packer explains that God ... is very gentle with very young Christians, just as mothers are with very young babies. Often the start of their Christian career is marked by great emotional joy, striking providences, remarkable answers to prayer, and immediate fruitfulness in their first acts of witness; thus God encourages them, and establishes them in "the life." But as they grow stronger, and are able to bear more, He exercises them in a tougher school. He exposes them to as much testing by the pressure of opposed and discouraging influences as they are able to bear-not more (see the promise, 1 Corinthians 10:13), but equally not less (see the admonition, Acts 14:22). Thus He builds our character, strengthens our faith, and prepares us to help others.(Yancey, Philip. Reaching for the Invisible God (pp. 215-216). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. )
ok, lets relax and ponder this philosophically a bit more.
Stile writes:
I highly enjoy not respecting control or definition. I'm up for it whenever it's helpful.
Which brings up a question. Are you sure you are searching for the right God? Are you searching for a helpful God or for a hurtful God? Would you perhaps be uncertain enough that you may have already *found* God yet He did not pass through your protective filters? In other words, your internal protection blocked Him due to potential harm to your software....

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2118 by Stile, posted 08-20-2019 4:22 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2133 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024