Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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 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

  
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

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


(1)
Message 2131 of 3207 (861575)
08-23-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2128 by Stile
08-23-2019 10:14 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You're forgetting that knowledge isn't absolute.
You're the only one who is talking about absolutes.
Stile writes:
Knowledge is according to our available information.
Our available information can be added to. It can not be subtracted from. Events that have been observed can not un-happen.
Stile writes:
This doubt also exists for baking a cake.
No it doesn't. Once a cake has been baked and observed objectively and peer-reviewed, it can not un-exist. The observation can not be un-observed. The event can not un-happen.
Stile writes:
The same doubt exists for both the positive and the negative.
No it doesn't. The negative can be reversed. The positive can not.
If I failed to find something yesterday, I can find it today. But if I did something yesterday, I can not make it not-have-happened today.
Stile writes:
New information can always overturn currently available information.
You're confusing "change" with "overturn". New information can change the interpretation of old information but new events can not make old events un-happen. New observations can not make old events un-have-happened.
Stile writes:
Your only reason seems to be that "God does not exist" is provocative.
That's one reason. When a statement is likely to be provocative, it's extra-important to use precise language.
Stile writes:
Well - that's not a rational reason when trying to make a knowledge claim.
On the contrary, it's irrational to use vague language when making a language claim.
Stile writes:
We can watch you bake a cake.
We can watch God not exist.
You can also watch France not exist if you're looking in the wrong direction. That doesn't make France un-exist.
Stile writes:
We can't watch you bake a cake everywhere....
You're still confusing everywhere with anywhere. If I can bake a cake anywhere I can say I know how to bake a cake. But if you haven't found God somewhere, that is not sufficient evidence to claim you know that He doesn't exist anywhere. You need to search everywhere before you can make a rational knowledge claim.

"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 2128 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 10:14 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2134 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 1:07 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2132 of 3207 (861576)
08-23-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2129 by Phat
08-23-2019 11:37 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:
To ringo: Why are you arguing?
Why wouldn't I? As long as Stile is wrong, I'll continue pointing out where he is wrong.
Phat writes:
Do you simply enjoy challenging us to consider alternatives to premature "final answers"?
I do but that isn't what this is about. This is about using language properly.

"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 2129 by Phat, posted 08-23-2019 11:37 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2136 of 3207 (861596)
08-23-2019 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2134 by Stile
08-23-2019 1:07 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Our conclusions based on those observations can always be updated.
But you can not "update" the conclusion that I baked a cake any more than you can "update" the conclusion that the earth moves around the sun. Those events have been observed and measured. The past can not be undone.
Stile writes:
Are you saying "knowing ringo can bake a cake" has no doubt to it?
If I was saying that, I would be saying that.
What I'm saying is that that is a proper use of the word "know". It is observable. It has been observed.
Not observing something is not in the same league with observing something. It is not proper to say you "know" a negative just because you have not observed it (yet).
Stile writes:
I'm very interested to know how you're measuring this doubt and saying that one's doubt is higher than the other.
But you never seem to get around to this part.
On the contrary, I have addressed that point many times. The difference is between something that has been measured and something that has not. It is rational to have more doubt about something that has not been measured than about something that has. We can "know" more about something that we have observed than something we have not.
Stile writes:
You just say "positive thing are irreversible!" without explaining it.
I've given you examples: You can not un-bake a cake. You can not un-see me make it. You can not un-eat it.
Stile writes:
And then you say "negative things are reversible!" without explaining it.
But I have explained it: Something that has not happened (yet) can be reversed by simply making it happen.
I've given you examples: You can reverse not finding the Northwest Passage by finding the Northwest Passage. You can (possibly) reverse not finding God by finding God.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2134 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 1:07 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2137 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 4:23 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2138 of 3207 (861612)
08-23-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2137 by Stile
08-23-2019 4:23 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You seem to think that the conclusion of you baking a cake is a "checkmark in reality" that you can absolutely bake a cake.
It has nothing to do with absolutes. It's just that you can't go backwards in time.
Stile writes:
Is it not possible that what we think of as "a cake" could change in the future and you're wrong today?
No. No more than it's possible that the earth will stop being the earth or the sun will stop being the sun or the earth going around the sun will change to the sun going around the earth.
Stile writes:
Of course - you'd be insane because you don't know the future as much as I don't know the future.
I do know the future in that I'm pretty sure the earth will continue to move around the sun.
Stile writes:
I know ringo can bake cakes.
I know God does not exist.
For exactly the same reasons.
Repeating the error won't make it go away. The reasons are different. You know I can bake a cake because you can watch me do it and you can confirm the result. But you can't watch the Northwest Passage not being found and conclude that it doesn't exist; it might be found tomorrow. Your existing information includes the fact that there are places you have not looked.
One is a done deal and the other is a deal that may or may not be done tomorrow. Different.

"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 2137 by Stile, posted 08-23-2019 4:23 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2139 by Stile, posted 08-26-2019 8:41 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 2140 of 3207 (861748)
08-26-2019 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2139 by Stile
08-26-2019 8:41 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
If you think there's no doubt in knowing ringo can bake a cake - if it's a "done deal" - then you're suggesting such knowledge is absolute.
No I am not. I am saying it's objective. Do you understand the difference between objective and absolute?
Stile writes:
Cannot ever be wrong, no matter what we learn in the future.
I'm saying that events that we have observed in the past can not be undone in the future. Nothing we learn in the future will make the eruption of Vesuvius not have happened. Nothing we learn in the future will make World War Two not have happened. Nothing we learn in the future will make baking the cake not have happened.
Stile writes:
Is there doubt in knowing ringo can bake a cake?
No more than there is doubt that Vesuvius erupted or doubt that World War Two happened.
Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2139 by Stile, posted 08-26-2019 8:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2141 by Stile, posted 08-26-2019 1:53 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2144 of 3207 (861777)
08-26-2019 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2141 by Stile
08-26-2019 1:53 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
If there's still doubt in "I know ringo can bake a cake"...
There isn't - no more doubt than there is in the eruption of Vesuvius or the Second World War.
Stile writes:
... who cares if your observation cannot be undone when looking to identify how much doubt is in our knowledge?
An event which can not be undone removes all reasonable doubt that it happened.
Stile writes:
Or doubt that God does not exist.
It's all the same:
There's a huge difference. Billions of people doubt your conclusion that God does not exist. It is not an objective conclusion. But on the other hand, hardly anybody doubts my conclusion that World War Two happened. It's an objective 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 2141 by Stile, posted 08-26-2019 1:53 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2146 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 11:57 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 2147 of 3207 (861813)
08-27-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2146 by Stile
08-27-2019 11:57 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Which one is it?
Is there "no doubt?"
Or is there "no more doubt?" - which implies, of course, that the doubt exists.
Do you doubt that World War Two happened?
Stile writes:
If there's no doubt, then you are suggesting that your knowledge on "I know ringo can bake a cake" is absolute.
No. It's objective. Every rational observer agrees that it happened, which is as close as we can get to certainty.
Stile writes:
But this isn't true - what if we find out that what-ringo-thinks-a-cake-is actually is not a cake?
Again, it isn't just ringo. It's everybody who observed the event. If the event of ringo baking a cake can be denied, then World War Two can be denied.
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
An event which can not be undone removes all reasonable doubt that it happened.
This is exactly what I'm saying.
No. It's what you've been arguing against.
Stile writes:
This applies equally to baking-cakes as it does to God-existing.
No it doesn't. There is agreement that I can bake a cake. There is agreement that World War Two happened. There is no doubt. But there are billions of people who doubt your conclusion that God does not exist. There is no objective agreement that God does not exist.
Stile writes:
I'm only saying that our conclusions based on our perception of the event according to our current information can be incorrect.
So you're saying that World War Two might not have happened.
Stile writes:
Popularity is not a rational reason to say a rational analysis of knowledge is invalid - regardless of how objective this is.
It's not about popularity. It's about objectivity. There is no objective basis for your claim. There is doubt about your claim. There is no doubt about mine.
Stile writes:
WW2 happening in the past is an objective conclusion.
Just as God not existing in the past is an objective conclusion.
You're moving the goalposts again. Based on the past, the most you can say is that in the past we did not know that the Northwest Passage existed - or that in the past we did not know that God existed. You can not extrapolate what we did not know in to past to what we do know in the present.

"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 2146 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 11:57 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2148 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 2:26 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2153 of 3207 (861844)
08-27-2019 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2148 by Stile
08-27-2019 2:26 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Is it "as close as we can get to certainty," that is - doubt does exist.
Or is it "there is no doubt," that is - the knowledge is absolute.
The only one who's talking about absolutes is you. I'm talking about objective knowledge, knowledge that can be tested by anybody.
Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably.
Stile writes:
If there's anything you don't doubt - then that thing is "absolute" by definition.
I only use the word "absolute" for things like absolute zero and the absolute value of numbers. It has no place in a discusion about knowledge.
Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2148 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 2:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2155 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 2:48 AM ringo has replied
 Message 2157 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 10:26 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 2154 of 3207 (861845)
08-27-2019 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2149 by Phat
08-27-2019 4:12 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:
ringo seems to use the argument from popularity, which is unlike him..
It isn't about popularity. I'm just saying that it's hard to accept Stile's argument as objective when hardly anybody agrees with 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 2149 by Phat, posted 08-27-2019 4:12 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 2158 of 3207 (861860)
08-28-2019 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2155 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 2:48 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Billions of people over how many millennia cannot show us anything other than Stile’s results. There is not one reliable demonstrous instance of anyone anywhere obtaining anything other than Stile’s results.
Billions would disagree. And successful searches take precedence over unsuccesful searches.

"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 2155 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 2:48 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2160 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 11:54 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 2159 of 3207 (861861)
08-28-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2157 by Stile
08-28-2019 10:26 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
It looks like the evidence directly contradicts your claim.
If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?
Stile writes:
But everyone objectively repeats my observations all the time, constantly, everyday.
They repeat your lack of observation. They repeat your failure to observe. Lack of knowledge does not carry the same weight as actual knowledge. The day before the Northwest Passage was discovered, we did not "know" that it did not exist with the same level of confidence that we know today that it does exist.
Stile writes:
Glad to hear you retract all your "there is no doubt" statements.
You're really grasping at straws. As I clarified above, unless I say "absolutely", I don't mean absolutely.
Stile writes:
There is doubt in "I know ringo can bake cakes" as much as there's doubt in "I know God does not exist."
Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that I can bake a cake. Only the insane will have any doubt.

"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 2157 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 10:26 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2164 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 1:13 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2161 of 3207 (861864)
08-28-2019 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2160 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 11:54 AM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So they can show us these gods.
The issue here is doubt. The people who believe in God doubt your conclsion the same as you doubt theirs. You can't show them that God does not exist any more than they can show you that He does.
On the other hand, both sides can agree that I know how to bake a cake, so Stile's claim that it is equivalently doubtful is nonsense.

"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 2160 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 11:54 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2162 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 12:28 PM ringo has replied
 Message 2166 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 1:51 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2163 of 3207 (861870)
08-28-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2162 by Phat
08-28-2019 12:28 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:
If an individual insists on objective evidence as their default standard, they will never settle for any other claims and only insist that they have never tasted your cake nor seen it.
The point of the analogy is that anybody can see my cake and taste it. It is literally an object. Thus, the seeing and tasting are objective.
A lack of evidence is quite different, despite Stile's pretence that it is the same. I can show you a lack of cars in my driveway but that does not mean, as Stile insists, that cars do not exist. I can show you a lack of Bigfeet on my couch but that does not mean that Bigfoot does not exist. By it's very nature, a lack of evidence does not carry as much weight as actual evidence.
And a lack of evidence can be reversed by finding evidence. Actual evidence can not be reversed, despite Stile's attempts at time-travel.

"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 2162 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 12:28 PM Phat has 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