Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


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 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

  
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

  
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

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


    Message 2149 of 3207 (861829)
    08-27-2019 4:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 2145 by Stile
    08-27-2019 11:27 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2145 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 11:27 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2150 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 4:23 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 2154 by ringo, posted 08-27-2019 11:20 PM Phat has not 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

      
    AlexCaledin
    Member (Idle past 413 days)
    Posts: 64
    From: Samara, Russia
    Joined: 10-22-2016


    Message 2151 of 3207 (861840)
    08-27-2019 6:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 2150 by Stile
    08-27-2019 4:23 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Einstein said reality is illusion, so your best method is no more than studying an illusion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2150 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 4:23 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2156 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 8:24 AM AlexCaledin has not replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 2152 of 3207 (861841)
    08-27-2019 6:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 2150 by Stile
    08-27-2019 4:23 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2150 by Stile, posted 08-27-2019 4:23 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2182 by Stile, posted 08-29-2019 8:51 AM Faith 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

      
    AZPaul3
    Member
    Posts: 8513
    From: Phoenix
    Joined: 11-06-2006
    Member Rating: 5.3


    Message 2155 of 3207 (861848)
    08-28-2019 2:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 2153 by ringo
    08-27-2019 11:16 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    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.

    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 2158 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 11:18 AM AZPaul3 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

      
    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

      
    AZPaul3
    Member
    Posts: 8513
    From: Phoenix
    Joined: 11-06-2006
    Member Rating: 5.3


    Message 2160 of 3207 (861863)
    08-28-2019 11:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 2158 by ringo
    08-28-2019 11:18 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Billions would disagree.
    Really? So they can show us these gods. Where?

    Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2158 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 11:18 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2161 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 12:15 PM AZPaul3 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