|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Do you doubt that World War Two happened?
Which one is it?Is there "no doubt?" Or is there "no more doubt?" - which implies, of course, that the doubt exists. Stile writes:
No. It's objective. Every rational observer agrees that it happened, which is as close as we can get to certainty.
If there's no doubt, then you are suggesting that your knowledge on "I know ringo can bake a cake" is absolute. Stile writes:
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.
But this isn't true - what if we find out that what-ringo-thinks-a-cake-is actually is not a cake? Stile writes:
No. It's what you've been arguing against.
ringo writes:
This is exactly what I'm saying. An event which can not be undone removes all reasonable doubt that it happened. Stile writes:
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.
This applies equally to baking-cakes as it does to God-existing. Stile writes:
So you're saying that World War Two might not have happened.
I'm only saying that our conclusions based on our perception of the event according to our current information can be incorrect. Stile writes:
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.
Popularity is not a rational reason to say a rational analysis of knowledge is invalid - regardless of how objective this is. Stile writes:
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. WW2 happening in the past is an objective conclusion.Just as God not existing in the past is 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Thugpreacha writes: I believe that God exists regardless of whether any or all of us *know* it or not. Stile writes: 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. Is my reality of *knowing* that God exists any different than your reality of *knowing* that God does not exist? Is the art of *knowing* objective for all or subjective for some? ringo seems to use the argument from popularity, which is unlike him...I think he just enjoys the sport of argumentative dialogues. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlexCaledin Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 64 From: Samara, Russia Joined: |
Einstein said reality is illusion, so your best method is no more than studying an illusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course, we do have a best-known-method-for-knowing-things. Except of course things that have no physical substance but nevertheless do exist and exert influence in the physical world. Minds for instance. And God is Spirit to whom the same description applies. When people in great numbers, and people of good character, claim to have witnessed the reality of such phenomena the rational thing to do is believe them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
The only one who's talking about absolutes is you. I'm talking about objective knowledge, knowledge that can be tested by anybody. 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. Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably.
Stile writes:
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. If there's anything you don't doubt - then that thing is "absolute" by definition. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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. ringo seems to use the argument from popularity, which is unlike him.."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably. Oh, I’ve repeated Stiles’s results. Others here have repeated Stile’s results. You, yourself repeated Stile’s results, unless you can show us different. 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. In science, that’s pretty reliable, ringo.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: The only one who's talking about absolutes is you. Are you sure? Ringo says things like:
quote: Stile says things like:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Billions would disagree. And successful searches take precedence over unsuccesful searches. 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."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?
It looks like the evidence directly contradicts your claim. Stile writes:
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.
But everyone objectively repeats my observations all the time, constantly, everyday. Stile writes:
You're really grasping at straws. As I clarified above, unless I say "absolutely", I don't mean absolutely.
Glad to hear you retract all your "there is no doubt" statements. Stile writes:
Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that I can bake a cake. Only the insane will have any doubt. There is doubt in "I know ringo can bake cakes" as much as there's doubt in "I know God does not exist.""Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Billions would disagree. Really? So they can show us these gods. Where?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024