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


Message 2165 of 3207 (861874)
08-28-2019 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2164 by Stile
08-28-2019 1:13 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Just as there is no reasonable doubt in "I know that God does not exist."
So you're saying that most people are unreasonable - because most people do doubt that conclusion.
Stile writes:
Remember how there's no link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that God even "might" exist beyond our currently available information?
I remember that that's irrelevant. Obviously there's no link until we find one, so a link depends on looking and we've hardly begun to look.
Stile writes:
NWP had a link from imagination-to-reality showing it might exist.
God does not.
Not before any water passages were discovered. We've already been through that.
Stile writes:
You're the one who keeps saying I'm talking about "absolutes" when I continually repeat that I'm not.
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.
Stile writes:
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.
It isn't the same process at all. You can not demonstrate a negative beyond all reasonable doubt. Our currently available information includes the fact that there are places where you haven't looked. It is quite reasonable to doubt the assumption that you will continue to not find what you're looking for.

"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 2164 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 1:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2168 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 2:35 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2167 of 3207 (861878)
08-28-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2166 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 1:51 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So now you’re saying there have *not* been any successful searches and Stile’s null result still stands.
I said the opposite - that you can not convince people who have "found God" that they have not.
AZPaul3 writes:
...which is not correct since Stile's result has been repeated by me and many billions of others.
I said it can not be repeated reliably, since other billions have not confirmed Stile's results - i.e. his results are in 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 2166 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 1:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2171 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2169 of 3207 (861883)
08-28-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2168 by Stile
08-28-2019 2:35 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You do understand that considering popularity during a rational analysis is unreasonable - yes?
I understand that Napoleon thinks he's the only reasonable one in the asylum. But reality is based on a concensus of what is real. Reason is not isolated.
Stile writes:
Then why do you keep bringing up the NWP example - where the link was already present?
We've been through that already. There was a time when no link was present, when no water passages were known. At that time, people did not claim to "know" that water passages did not exist.
Stile writes:
Of course you can.
Everyone does it all the time.
Appeal to popularity. If everybody jumps off a cliff, that doesn't make it a good idea.
Stile writes:
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.
That does not in any way resemble what we've been talking about. Your claim is not equivalent to not seeing any cars that might interfere with you turning left. Your claim is that because you don't see any cars in one place, that no cars exist in any place.
Stile writes:
But... there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
Why not? What is the rational roadblock to finding God? Sarah refused to answer that question and I don't recall you answering it either.
Stile writes:
It is unreasonable to go against the pattern without some rational link from imagination to reality.
It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you have looked everywhere for anomalies.

"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 2168 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 2:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2170 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 3:39 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2184 of 3207 (861920)
08-29-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2170 by Stile
08-28-2019 3:39 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Who cares if they actually did or didn't? Again - popularity is irrational when considering a rational analysis of current knowledge.
I didn't say anything about popularity. But no, it is not irrational to look for a consensus.
Stile writes:
You're basically saying "You can't say 'everyone-breathes' to show me that breathing can be done - that's an appeal to popularity!"
No. I'm saying that if everybody you look at happens to hold their breath while you're looking, that doesn't mean nobody breathes.
Stile writes:
It is equivalent to demonstrating a negative - which is what you said we can't do.
I don't think I've said that. I've been saying that you can not demonstrate a negative with the same level of confidence that you can demonstrate a positive. You can be fairly sure that something doesn't exist based on a lot of observations but you can be a lot more sure that something exists based on a lot less observations.
Stile writes:
However, my claim is actually "because we never see any cars, ever - that no cars exist in any place."
How is that unreasonable?
The reasonable conclusion would be that no cars existed in the places you looked at the time you looked. It is unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times.
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
What is the rational roadblock to finding God?
I don't think there is one. But this is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
There was no rational indication that the Northwest passage would be found either. Just like there was no rational indication that the Great Lakes or the Mississippi would be found along the way. Just like there was no indication that a central passage would be found. Just like there was no indication that a water passage through the Andes would be found. You can't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking. If we did that, we'd never find anything.
Stile writes:
I've explained many times how "anomalies" can exist for knowing ringo-can-bake-cakes.
But your "explanation" was stupid. It relied on conspiracy theories or time travel. The fact that I can bake a cake is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth. The pattern of no God is like the pattern of no water passages. You can't consider it reliable until you're finished looking.

"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 2170 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 3:39 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2188 by Phat, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM ringo has replied
 Message 2210 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 9:06 AM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 2185 of 3207 (861921)
08-29-2019 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2171 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 5:14 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So they found gods!
They haven't given up looking. They don't pretend to "know" there aren't any.

"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 2171 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 5:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2186 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 12:36 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2187 of 3207 (861926)
08-29-2019 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2186 by AZPaul3
08-29-2019 12:36 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So they haven't found any gods. Just accumulated more null results.
"In progress" is not a null result.

"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 2186 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 12:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2189 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 2212 of 3207 (861992)
08-30-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2188 by Phat
08-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:
It is reasonable *if* Who and What you are looking for has been defined as existing in all places and at all times.
You're kinda arguing against yourself here. I'm saying you don't "know" something doesn't exist until you've looked in every reasonable place that it might be. If what you say is right, we should only have to look in one place to confirm that an omnipresent God does not exist. In the case of an omnipresent God, Stile is right - He isn't sitting on my couch so He can't possibly exist.
But I've been giving a little more leeway to the concept of God. If He is not omnipresent, then we have to cover all the bases.
Of course, there is still the problem of detectability. If we do not have the apparatus to detect Him - like we do not have the apparatus to examine dark matter - then we have to say that "according to our available information" we can not know whether or not He exists.
We can surmise that dark matter exists based on how it affects the rest of the universe - and you and many others surmise that God exists based on how He affects the rest of the universe. Same thing, equally rational.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2188 by Phat, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 2213 of 3207 (861993)
08-30-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2189 by AZPaul3
08-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
In this instance "in progress" means a whole slew of null results. Can't find it here, look there. Can't find it this way, try that way.
So far it's null results all the way down.
Northwest Passage. It was all null results until it wasn't. The search was "in progress" as long as there were places that had not been searched. It was premature to say, "We know there is no Northwest Passage," until every reasonable possibility had been tested.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2189 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2214 of 3207 (861994)
08-30-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2210 by Stile
08-30-2019 9:06 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
It is, however, irrational to consider "a consensus" being more important than looking at the facts when doing a rational analysis.
"The facts" depend on consensus. If the observation can not be confirmed - i.e. if there is no consensus about the authenticity of the observation - it is not a fact.
Stile writes:
And I'm saying that if vast portions of the human race look for people breathing for thousands of years - and we never, ever see anyone breathing, regardless of what controls or tests we try - then this would means that nobody breathes.
That's a useless "what if". The fact is that the vast majority of the human race have seen people breathing (have "discovered God" in one way or another). It's a small minority who have failed to see anybody breathing (failed to discover god in any way). Failure does not nullify success.
Stile writes:
Pre-cursors to all those things existed in one form or another prior to finding those specific items.
Obviously wrong. For everything that we have discovered, there was a first time. It was wrong to say we knew fire didn't exist before we ever encountered fire. It was wrong to say we knew water passages didn't exist before we encountered water passages.
Stile writes:
The fact that God does not exist is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.
Indeed it is. And it is wrong to say you know the earth is flat until you've been outside your own backyard. You need to do the test before you "know" the result. The non-existence of God is a hypothesis, not knowledge, until the results of the testing are in.
Stile writes:
Before the NWP? Nope - evidence of water passages existed at that time.
Stop it. There was a time when there was no knowledge of water passages.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2210 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 9:06 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2215 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:06 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2216 of 3207 (862002)
08-30-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2215 by Stile
08-30-2019 1:06 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You keep bringing up "consensus" that is not based on facts (billions of people concluding that God exists)....
You claim it is not based on facts.
Stile writes:
No one has a rational observation that can be used as a basis to provide consensus to conclude they have "discovered God."
That is your claim.
Stile writes:
100% of all people who have done a rational analysis based on objective observations all agree to the consensus of not finding God according to those objective observations.
That's the "No True Rational Analysis" fallacy.
Stile writes:
Feel free to explain why it's wrong to say "I know fire doesn't exist according to our currently available information" when you have never encountered fire.
Not knowing is not the same as knowing. You keep equivocating "I do not know A" with "I know (not A)". Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2215 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:06 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2217 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:38 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2218 of 3207 (862077)
08-31-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2217 by Stile
08-30-2019 1:38 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
I claim that those who say "I know God exists" are not doing so based on facts.
And your claim that you "know" God does not exist is based on lack of facts.
Stile writes:
You're the one equivocating my claim of "I know (not A)" with a claim of "I do not know A."
I'm saying you don't know A. You're saying you know (not A).
Stile writes:
I know (not A.) Because the search has happened.
But the search is not finished. You're saying you know the Northwest Passage does not exist the day before it's discovered. You're saying you know your keys don't exist when you've only looked on the kitchen table.
Stile writes:
Not I do not know A. Because the search hasn't happened.
You do not know one way or the other - A or (not A) - until the search is finished. The search for God has begun but is not finished.
Stile writes:
If this search is still ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion...
As long as the search is ongoing, there is no "current conclusion". There is no "knowledge" one way or the other. There is only speculation.
Stil writes:
...then the search for everything else must also still be ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion...
No. The search for the Northwest Passage is not ongoing. It was finished when we found the Northwest Passage.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2217 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:38 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2219 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 3:03 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 2224 of 3207 (862312)
09-03-2019 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2219 by Stile
09-03-2019 3:03 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
If "I know God does not exist" has a "lack of facts" - from whatever is outside our "current information"....
Then so does "I know ringo can bake a cake" - because it, too, has an equal amount of lack-of-facts beyond our "current information."
We've been through that already. The cake is a done deal. The search for God is not.
Stile writes:
The search is finished - within our current information.
By that logic, we "knew" that God did not exist before we ever started looking; we "knew" that the Northwest Passage did not exist before we ever started looking; we "know" that our keys don't exist before we ever start looking. Based on no information, nothing exists.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2219 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 3:03 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2227 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:33 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 2231 of 3207 (862362)
09-04-2019 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2227 by Stile
09-04-2019 8:33 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.
I don't think I did.
Stile writes:
Thing is - we have looked for God. For the last few thousand years. Longer than we've looked for how ringo can bake cakes - that's for sure.
Thing is - when we find something, we stop looking. The search for the cake didn't take long - there it is. It doesn't matter how long you look for something and don't find it. What matters is that you look in every possible place that it could be. Our curremt available knowledge includes dark matter - but we haven't looked there yet, so it's premature to conclude that we won't find what we're looking for.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2227 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2233 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 12:36 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2234 of 3207 (862380)
09-04-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2233 by Stile
09-04-2019 12:36 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Is there "no doubt?"
Or is there "no reasonable doubt?"
Since we're talking about reason, it's the same thing.
Stile writes:
...there's no link from imagination-to-reality that we would actually find such information?
That's your claim, which I do not accept.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2233 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 12:36 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2235 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 1:01 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 2236 of 3207 (862387)
09-04-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2235 by Stile
09-04-2019 1:01 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
If you refuse to share (as you've done for over 2000 messages now...)....
I've asked you to show that the idea of God is inherently irrational and (I think) you've admitted that it is not. So the whole "no link to reality" thing is irrelevant.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2235 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 1:01 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2237 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 1:27 PM ringo 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