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
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

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


(1)
Message 2133 of 3207 (861580)
08-23-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2130 by Phat
08-23-2019 11:53 AM


Re: Knowledge is not Certainty
Thugpreacha writes:
All that I can present is the idea that I have found God and *know* that He exists.
The point of this thread is to define the epistemology behind what it means to *know* if God exists or not.
Just saying you know it doesn't count.
You have to explain how you know it, and why that method should be considered useful.
See here: Message 2122
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....
In this thread, I'm searching for any God that exists.
In life, I'm wishing that a helpful God exits.
If my internal protection prevented God - I am suspect as to how much God is allowing anyone to find Him, as I do not have any internal protections I can control that aren't already fully open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2130 by Phat, posted 08-23-2019 11:53 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2134 of 3207 (861591)
08-23-2019 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2131 by ringo
08-23-2019 12:00 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
You're the only one who is talking about absolutes.
When I say that knowledge is not absolute? How strange of you to think so.
ringo writes:
Events that have been observed can not un-happen.
Irrelevent.
Our conclusions based on those observations can always be updated.
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.
...
The negative can be reversed. The positive can not.
Depending on the specifics you're talking about, you're either irrelevant, or wrong.
Take a good look at this:
quote:
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."
Message 2122
Are you saying "knowing ringo can bake a cake" has no doubt to it?
If yes - you're wrong. Every claim of knowledge has doubt as we don't know everything.
If no - then explain what sort of doubt it is, as I have.
My explanation shows that it's the same doubt as for "knowing God does not exist."
Your explanation shows????
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.
You just say "positive thing are irreversible!" without explaining it.
And then you say "negative things are reversible!" without explaining it.
When you explain it, you'll see that it gets into the doubt surrounding the claim.
And that this doubt is equal for both.
Or, perhaps not - maybe you do understand something I don't - but if you can't explain it, then I highly doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2131 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 12:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2136 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 1:25 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2135 of 3207 (861594)
08-23-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2129 by Phat
08-23-2019 11:37 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
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?
But... I don't think such a thing.
quote:
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."
That's what I think.
I am as confident that we will not find God beyond our available information as I am confident that we won't find out that ringo can't actually bake cakes beyond our available information.
Both could happen.
Both doubts are included in our knowledge claims.

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

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


Message 2137 of 3207 (861611)
08-23-2019 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2136 by ringo
08-23-2019 1:25 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
You seem to think that the conclusion of you baking a cake is a "checkmark in reality" that you can absolutely bake a cake.
This is not true. We have no answer-book to reality. We have no way to ever identify such absolutes.
Is it not possible that what we think of as "a cake" could change in the future and you're wrong today? (therefore, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Is it not possible that what we think we conclude ringo doing could change in the future and you're not doing actually doing what we think you are doing today? (therefore, again, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Answer "No, that's not possible - those are strictly impossible" and you've got me.
Of course - you'd be insane because you don't know the future as much as I don't know the future.
If you can't say those items are strictly impossible - then I'm right.
The doubt is there.
The same doubt is there.
The same rational doubt is there.
I know ringo can bake cakes.
I know God does not exist.
For exactly the same reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2136 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 1:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2138 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 5:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2139 of 3207 (861744)
08-26-2019 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2138 by ringo
08-23-2019 5:14 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
You're avoiding the questions:
quote:
Is it not possible that what we think of as "a cake" could change in the future and you're wrong today? (therefore, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Is it not possible that what we think we conclude ringo doing could change in the future and you're not doing actually doing what we think you are doing today? (therefore, again, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Answer "No, that's not possible - those are strictly impossible" and you've got me.
Of course - you'd be insane because you don't know the future as much as I don't know the future.
If you can't say those items are strictly impossible - then I'm right.
The doubt is there.
The same doubt is there.
The same rational doubt is there.
One is a done deal and the other is a deal that may or may not be done tomorrow. Different.
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. Cannot ever be wrong, no matter what we learn in the future.
And - that's easily shown to be wrong as we do not know what the future may hold.
Just answer the questions.
Is there doubt in knowing ringo can bake a cake?
If yes - how is this doubt measured as "greater" than the doubt in knowing God does not exist?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2138 by ringo, posted 08-23-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2140 by ringo, posted 08-26-2019 11:43 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2141 of 3207 (861759)
08-26-2019 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2140 by ringo
08-26-2019 11:43 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
No I am not. I am saying it's objective. Do you understand the difference between objective and absolute?
Of course. I'm saying that your distinction is irrelevant.
Do you understand the difference between "there is doubt in I know ringo can bake a cake" and "there is no doubt in I know ringo can bake a cake?"
I'm saying that events that we have observed in the past can not be undone in the future.
Sure. But who cares?
You observed ringo to bake a cake here and now.
I've observed God to not exist here and now.
If there's still doubt in "I know ringo can bake a cake" - who cares if your observation cannot be undone when looking to identify how much doubt is in our knowledge?
ringo writes:
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.
Or doubt that God does not exist.
It's all the same:
Knowing you bake a cake is based on all the objective observations that ringo can bake a cake here or there or anywhere we can test based on a rational analysis of the information currently available to us.
Maybe if our information expands - we will identify that our previous objective observation was irrelevant, and the new information shows that ringo never actually did bake a cake, or that what we call "cakes" were not actually cakes.
But - we accept this doubt, and we accept our objective observations of our current information to form the tentative conclusion of: I know ringo can bake cakes.
Therefore "I know ringo can bake cakes."
Knowing God does not exist is based on all the objective observations that God does not exist here or there or anywhere we can test based on a rational analysis of the information currently available to us.
Maybe if our information expands - we will identify that our previous objective observation was irrelevant, and the new information shows that God has always existed, or that what we call "God" is actually something else.
But - we accept this doubt, and we accept our objective observations of our current information to form the tentative conclusion of: I know God does not exist.
Therefore "I know God does not exist."
Exactly the same process.
Both use objective observations based on our current information.
Both include doubt that our conclusions based on those objective observations could be wrong if/when our information is expanded.
Both accept the doubt and form a tentative conclusion.
Both short-form the statement.
What's different?
Unless you're able to "rationally measure doubt" and identify how "doubt that a positive conclusion based on objective observations could be overturned by new information" is less than "doubt that a negative conclusion based on objective observations could be overturned by new information" ... you're stuck with only your previous claims of "provocative-ness" or "popularity" or "trolling" ... which are all understood to be irrational for rationally measuring doubt.
All you're doing is truncating "I know ringo can bake a cake according to our currently available information" to "I know ringo can bake a cake" and expecting it to be taken more seriously than truncating "I know God does not exist according to our currently available information" to "I know God does not exist."
But your expectation is nothing more than "provocative-ness" or "popularity" or "trolling."
As the methods and truncation are based on exactly the same process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2140 by ringo, posted 08-26-2019 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2142 by Phat, posted 08-26-2019 4:51 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2144 by ringo, posted 08-26-2019 5:21 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2145 of 3207 (861807)
08-27-2019 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2142 by Phat
08-26-2019 4:51 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
So basically you can say that I, Stile know today that God does not exist. What you may or may not know an hour from now, a day from now, or a week from now may be different.
In the same sense that this statement applies to everything that anyone claims to know ever... yes.
Because that's how knowledge works.
I believe that God exists regardless of whether any or all of us *know* it or not.
Again, this is the same for anything we know.
Reality is reality.
Our knowledge of reality is (hopefully) the-best-we're-capable-of-at-the-moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2142 by Phat, posted 08-26-2019 4:51 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2149 by Phat, posted 08-27-2019 4:12 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2146 of 3207 (861811)
08-27-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2144 by ringo
08-26-2019 5:21 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
Which one is it?
Is there "no doubt?"
Or is there "no more doubt?" - which implies, of course, that the doubt exists.
If there's no doubt, then you are suggesting that your knowledge on "I know ringo can bake a cake" is absolute.
But this isn't true - what if we find out that what-ringo-thinks-a-cake-is actually is not a cake? Then ringo actually cannot bake cakes. Then we can not say "I know ringo can bake a cake" and therefore the knowledge claim was not absolute and doubt should have existed.
Therefore, if you're not crazy, you must be saying that is no more doubt - but the doubt exists.
This is in exact agreement with me. I'm saying that's no more doubt in baking cakes or God not existing - but the doubt exists in both.
If you want to identify "how much" doubt is in baking cakes vs. God existing - then it's up to you to identify a doubt-scale-measurement that can rationally be applied to anything and everything and works. What are your units for measuring doubt? How many fingers are drummed on a table while thinking?
An event which can not be undone removes all reasonable doubt that it happened.
This is exactly what I'm saying.
This applies equally to baking-cakes as it does to God-existing.
All done according to "our available information."
Our knowledge of God-not-existing cannot extend beyond our available information just as much as our knowledge of ringo-baking-cakes cannot extend beyond our available information. Anything else would be "unreasonable."
Again - no one's saying the event can be undone.
I'm only saying that our conclusions based on our perception of the event according to our current information can be incorrect.
If you agree - then the doubt exists for knowing-ringo-can-bake-cakes as much as the doubt exists for knowing-God-does-not-exist.
If you disagree - then you need to explain this direct-connection-to-reality you have that no other human possesses such that your knowledge claims can go "beyond reasonable doubt" for cake-baking, but not (for some reason) for God not existing.
Billions of people doubt your conclusion that God does not exist.
Popularity is not a rational reason to say a rational analysis of knowledge is invalid - regardless of how objective this is.
Therefore this is irrelevant.
[God not existing] is not an objective conclusion.
The conclusion is based on a rational analysis of objective observations according to our current information as much as cake-baking is.
Rationally speaking, if ringo's-cake-baking is objective, then so is God not existing.
Popularly speaking - yes, you're correct - but who cares when attempting to do an actual rational analysis?
You are simply making an irrational appeal to the popular opinion that when-talking-about-cakes, it's culturally agreed that our knowledge is accepted "according to our current information."
And another irrational appeal to popular opinion that when-talking-about-God, it's culturally agreed that our knowledge is accepted "according to all reality-whatever-that-is beyond our current information."
Which is, of course, irrationally inconsistent when attempting to make a consistent rational approach to how we understand our knowledge of anything at all.
If the approach is rational, and consistent - you end up with them both being processed exactly the same. And we can know ringo bakes cakes as well as we can know God does not exist.
That's why your posts never include any applicable rational reason why I can't say "I know God does not exist."
All you ever have is appeals to popularity... "provocative-ness"... "trolling." All you have are opinions that are irrelevant when doing a rational analysis.
But on the other hand, hardly anybody doubts my conclusion that World War Two happened.
Again - popularity is irrelevant.
[WW2 happening is] an objective conclusion.
Sure.
WW2 happening in the past is an objective conclusion.
Just as God not existing in the past is an objective conclusion.
We could be wrong about WW2 happening in the past.
What if we find future objective information that informs us that WW2 never happened and it was an elaborate, successful hoax to cover up some other calamity despite all our previous objective observations to the contrary?
We could be wrong about God not existing in the past.
What if we find future objective information that informs us that God actually did exist in the past despite all our previous objective observations to the contrary?
Maybe we shouldn't worry about "elaborate hoaxes" or "possible future information with no link to reality that suggests it might exist in the first place."
Maybe we should base our knowledge claims on a rational analysis of objective observations on our currently available information?
-but if we do this, then we know God does not exist as much as we know WW2 happened.
There's a huge difference.
In irrelevant popularity - yes, I agree. Who cares?
In the actual rational process of the knowledge claim - no difference at all, as shown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2144 by ringo, posted 08-26-2019 5:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2147 by ringo, posted 08-27-2019 12:23 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2148 of 3207 (861828)
08-27-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2147 by ringo
08-27-2019 12:23 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
Do you doubt that World War Two happened?
Enough doubt to prevent me from saying "I know that World War Two happened?" - no.
But I do have some doubt - so yes.
I have as much doubt for WW2 happening as I do for ringo-being-able-to-bake-cakes and God not existing.
The same amount of doubt I have for all things that are known due to a rational analysis of objective observations within our currently available information.
If you don't have this doubt for all things - you're just wrong.
You're still being inconsistent:
Every rational observer agrees that it happened, which is as close as we can get to certainty.
...
There is agreement that I can bake a cake. There is agreement that World War Two happened. There is no doubt.
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.
Stop being inconsistent if you want to apply your ideas to a rational analysis.
Otherwise - it's you who have been confused and wrong this entire time.
So you're saying that World War Two might not have happened.
If you don't agree in the context I'm explaining it - you're wrong.
Again, from the very first post in this thread:
quote:
  • But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
    We don't.
    But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
    I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
    *"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.
  • All things contain doubt.
    If there's anything you don't doubt - then that thing is "absolute" by definition.
    There is no such thing as absolute knowledge for us current humans.
    If you think there is - you're wrong.
    There is doubt about your claim. There is no doubt about mine.
    Be consistent.
    Is there "no doubt" about your claim? Is it a claim of absolute knowledge? Then you're just wrong - because this is absurd.
    Or is it only "as close as we can get to certainty?" That is - doubt still exists, as I've been saying all along. The same doubt that exists for "I know God does not exist."
    You're moving the goalposts again.
    Nope. I didn't bring up something-we-know-from-past-history. You brought up WW2. I just adjusted my claim to fit into the analogy you brought up.
    You don't get to change how things are framed, and then when I frame-my-argument-to-match claim that I'm moving goalposts. That's irrational and just plain silly.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2147 by ringo, posted 08-27-2019 12:23 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2153 by ringo, posted 08-27-2019 11:16 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 2150 of 3207 (861832)
    08-27-2019 4:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 2149 by Phat
    08-27-2019 4:12 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Thugpreacha writes:
    Is my reality of *knowing* that God exists any different than your reality of *knowing* that God does not exist?
    I don't know.
    My reality of *knowing* that God does not exist is based on our best-known-method-for-knowing-things: rational analysis of objective observations from our currently available information.
    What's your reality of *knowing* that God exists based on?
    If it's based on feelings or desires or "personal experience" - it should be treated with a higher level of doubt than included in my method as these are methods understood to give more false-positives, to varying degrees within themselves as well.
    Is the art of *knowing* objective for all or subjective for some?
    Different for everyone that uses a different method.
    Of course, we do have a best-known-method-for-knowing-things.
    It's up to each of us, personally, to choose to apply it consistently to all knowledge claims or not.
    ringo seems to use the argument from popularity, which is unlike him...I think he just enjoys the sport of argumentative dialogues.
    I think ringo's just using popularity to describe things that are objective.
    Which, really, is fundamental to something being 'objective' - that everyone (barring differences in sensing abilities) experiences it in the same way.
    What objective doesn't mean, though, is that a knowledge claim is "without doubt."
    Edited by Stile, : Added the word "more" in front of "false positives." Without that word it implies that my method does not contain any false-postives. This is not true, it's simply understood to contain less - which is what makes it the "best-known-method" as opposed to a "perfect method."

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2149 by Phat, posted 08-27-2019 4:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2151 by AlexCaledin, posted 08-27-2019 6:28 PM Stile has replied
     Message 2152 by Faith, posted 08-27-2019 6:37 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 2156 of 3207 (861852)
    08-28-2019 8:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 2151 by AlexCaledin
    08-27-2019 6:28 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    AlexCaledin writes:
    Einstein said reality is illusion, so your best method is no more than studying an illusion.
    Exactly.
    Which is why "doubt" is included in all things we "know." As I've described.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2151 by AlexCaledin, posted 08-27-2019 6:28 PM AlexCaledin has not replied

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


    Message 2157 of 3207 (861856)
    08-28-2019 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 2153 by ringo
    08-27-2019 11:16 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    ringo writes:
    The only one who's talking about absolutes is you.
    Are you sure?
    Ringo says things like:
    quote:
    There is agreement that I can bake a cake. There is agreement that World War Two happened. There is no doubt.
    ...
    There is doubt about your claim. There is no doubt about mine.
    Stile says things like:
    quote:
    Therefore, according to our current information analyzed in a rational manner: I know that God does not exist.
    Then, since "according to our current information analyzed in a rational manner" is inherent in our modern process of "knowing things" - this specification becomes redundant and can be removed.
    Therefore: I know that God does not exist.
    It looks like the evidence directly contradicts your claim.
    Your choice if you want to follow the evidence or not.
    Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably.
    But everyone objectively repeats my observations all the time, constantly, everyday.
    Who has an objective observation that suggests God actually exists? No one.
    Because all objective observations constantly confirm that God actually does not exist.
    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.
    Glad to hear you retract all your "there is no doubt" statements.
    Thanks for agreeing with me.
    There is doubt in "I know ringo can bake cakes" as much as there's doubt in "I know God does not exist."
    Yet, we still say both.
    Same process.
    Same doubt.
    Same level of confidence in the conclusion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2153 by ringo, posted 08-27-2019 11:16 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2159 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 11:33 AM Stile has replied

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


    Message 2164 of 3207 (861873)
    08-28-2019 1:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 2159 by ringo
    08-28-2019 11:33 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    ringo writes:
    If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?
    Of course, because that's exactly what I'm saying.
    Just as there is no reasonable doubt in "I know that God does not exist."
    Remember how there's no link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that God even "might" exist beyond our currently available information?
    Therefore - thinking that "something outside our currently available information" should bring more doubt on "knowing God does not exist" is unreasonable.
    Just as thinking that "something outside our currently available information" should bring more doubt on "knowing ringo can bake a cake" without a link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that such a thing even "might" exist... is equally unreasonable.
    Same doubt.
    Same process.
    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.
    Of course.
    And, the day before the NWP was discovered, we had rational analysis of previous information that showed us that water-throughways sometimes exist beyond our currently-available information.
    Therefore - here, you're right.
    Of course, with God - we have no rational analysis of previous information that shows that "any God" could exist anywhere.
    Therefore - here, you're wrong.
    NWP had a link from imagination-to-reality showing it might exist.
    God does not.
    That's a big difference.
    That's why, the day before the NWP was discovered, I couldn't say "I know the NWP does not exist."
    That's why, today, I can say "I know God does not exist."
    As I clarified above, unless I say "absolutely", I don't mean absolutely.
    Then I kindly ask that you give me the same lee-way. You're the one who keeps saying I'm talking about "absolutes" when I continually repeat that I'm not.
    This is your semantic game - not mine.
    But, now that you agree we're on the same level, perhaps you're willing to proceed.
    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.
    As you just said, this is not an absolute.
    Therefore, what you really mean is:
    "Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that I can bake a cake beyond reasonable doubt. Only the insane will have any doubt."
    -based on the fact that all objective observations within our currently available information support this statement.
    And I can equally say:
    "Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that God does not exist beyond reasonable doubt. Only the insane will have any doubt."
    -based on the fact that all objective observations within our currently available information support this statement.
    Same process.
    Same conclusion.
    Same level of confidence.
    Same level of doubt.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2159 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 11:33 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2165 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 1:34 PM Stile has replied

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


    Message 2168 of 3207 (861882)
    08-28-2019 2:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 2165 by ringo
    08-28-2019 1:34 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    ringo writes:
    So you're saying that most people are unreasonable - because most people do doubt that conclusion.
    Exactly, yes.
    If your only reason is "because most other people do."
    This is "unreasonable" when doing a rational analysis.
    You do understand that considering popularity during a rational analysis is unreasonable - yes?
    Obviously there's no link until we find one, so a link depends on looking and we've hardly begun to look.
    Then why do you keep bringing up the NWP example - where the link was already present?
    Why not provide an example where the link is not already present? Why the strawman?
    Not before any water passages were discovered. We've already been through that.
    Yes, we have.
    And, before any water passages were discovered, we could say "I know that water passages do not exist."
    And it would be unreasonable to say otherwise. Why wouldn't it be?
    That statement is just blatantly false. I have never said that you are talking in absolutes. I have said that you falsely accused me of talking in absolutes. You are the only one who has brought up the possibility of absolutes. If you never mention absolutes in this discussion again, you can be assured that I will not either.
    The quotes I showed earlier prove that you're absolutely confused as to what occurred previously in the thread.
    You can not demonstrate a negative beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Of course you can.
    Everyone does it all the time.
    Otherwise, no one would ever turn left.
    If you can't demonstrate that no car is coming beyond all reasonable doubt, and you decide to turn left - you're a terrible driver and should be yanked off the roads and have your license removed.
    We demonstrate negatives beyond all reasonable doubt constantly.
    Sometimes we're wrong - that's why we stub our toes.
    Have you ever stubbed your toe? Then that's proof that you, too, constantly demonstrate negatives to yourself.
    Our currently available information includes the fact that there are places where you haven't looked.
    Very true, I agree.
    There is rational indication that a water-throughway could be found there.
    There is rational indication that ringo-can-bake-cakes there.
    But... there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
    This is the difference you keep avoiding.
    It is quite reasonable to doubt the assumption that you will continue to not find what you're looking for.
    No, actually, it's not.
    It's reasonable to follow patterns.
    The pattern for water-throughways is that sometimes they exist when we expand our information.
    The pattern for ringo-baking-cakes is that he usually can when we expand our information.
    The patter for God-existing is that he never does when we expand our information.
    It's reasonable to follow the pattern.
    It is unreasonable to go against the pattern without some rational link from imagination to reality.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2165 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 1:34 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2169 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:56 PM Stile 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