Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


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 2170 of 3207 (861886)
08-28-2019 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2169 by ringo
08-28-2019 2:56 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
Who cares if they actually did or didn't? Again - popularity is irrational when considering a rational analysis of current knowledge.
We're wondering if it's valid to say it or not.
And it would be valid.
Appeal to popularity. If everybody jumps off a cliff, that doesn't make it a good idea.
Uh - no.
It was a fact that all people demonstrate negatives.
When all people do it - it also happens to be popular. It's not using the popularity as a reason to say it can be done, it "can be done" obviously - because everyone does it all the time.
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, ringo, that's not how it works. Now you're just wrong about how you're being wrong.
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.
It is equivalent to demonstrating a negative - which is what you said we can't do.
Your claim is that because you don't see any cars in one place, that no cars exist in any place.
Again with the strawman...
If that was my claim - you would be right.
However, my claim is actually "because we never see any cars, ever - that no cars exist in any place."
How is that unreasonable?
ringo writes:
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.
You never asked me.
Why not? - Because no one is able to identify one. As soon as one's identified - I'll change my position.
Rational roadblock? - 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. What makes you think this is important?
It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you have looked everywhere for anomalies.
But you don't even believe this.
I've explained many times how "anomalies" can exist for knowing ringo-can-bake-cakes. Yet you find it quite reasonable to assume that pattern of ringo-can-bake-cakes is universal before you've looked everywhere for anomalies.
The same kind of anomalies (the ones with no link from imagination-to-reality) are present for knowing God does not exist. Yet you now find it unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you've looked everywhere for anomalies.
You're being inconsistent again.
You're applying a sense of "absolute-ness" to one, but not the other.
You're doing it because "billions of people" agree that you should do it.
But these billions of people are wrong - it is not rational to be inconsistent, it is not rational to appeal to authority when doing a rational analysis.
If there was something rational they were doing - you wouldn't have to appeal to their popularity - you could just point out the rational-thing.
The fact that you haven't done is is... very telling.
Really, though - what's actually unreasonable, is to think we need to "look everywhere (beyond our available information)" before creating a valid pattern.
It's extremely reasonable to create a pattern based upon all of our available information.
It's also logical, rational, and how we know all things we claim to know.
It's how we know ringo can bake cakes.
It's how we know cars are not there so we can turn left.
It's how we know God does not exist.
All the same.
All the same "universalish-ness" (according to our available information)
All the same "looking everywhere-ness" (according to our available information)
All the same doubt.
All the same process.
All the same valid conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2169 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2184 by ringo, posted 08-29-2019 11:56 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2182 of 3207 (861913)
08-29-2019 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2152 by Faith
08-27-2019 6:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Faith writes:
Except of course things that have no physical substance but nevertheless do exist and exert influence in the physical world.
Perhaps.
But our current best-known-method restricts itself to rational analysis.
If rational analysis cannot identify the things you're talking about... then (according to our best-known-method) - my conclusion still stands.
I agree that my best-known-method is not perfect, and could be wrong.
It could be replaced with an even-better-method at some point, one that possibly includes the items you're talking about.
If that ever happens - then my argument will fail, and I'll have to change it at that point.
It just doesn't change the facts of what is our current best-known-method right now, what that method entails, and how that method only describes the conclusion I'm arguing.
"Knowledge" is never a claim to absolute reality.
"Knowledge" is always a claim of 'what-our-best-methods-tell-us-we-should-be-thinking-about-reality-to-have-our-best-chances-at-being-correct-about-reality'
Which is, basically, why doubt is always involved to some degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2152 by Faith, posted 08-27-2019 6:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2183 by Faith, posted 08-29-2019 11:24 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2209 of 3207 (861983)
08-30-2019 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2183 by Faith
08-29-2019 11:24 AM


Re: God as Nonphysical, as Spirit, as Mind
Faith writes:
My point was that a mind is nonphysical and science only has means to recognize physicality.
I don't think science is as limited as you suggest.
If human mental activity produces some form of energy, electrical energy perhaps, since our minds are intimately connected to our physical brains in this physical universe, that activity might be detected, but the mind itself won't be detected.
Right. Even if we can't detect what this "nonphysical mind" is you're speaking of - we can certainly detect it's effects. Therefore, we can know that it exists.
And if God is Mind (Spirit is also nonphysical) since He doesn't need a brain for His mental activity, not being Himself physical, I don't see how there could ever be a scientific means to detect God.
The means would be the same as the means to detect the nonphysical mind - detect the effects. If there are no effects or "no effects that are not otherwise already explained," then such tests would indicate that there's no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2183 by Faith, posted 08-29-2019 11:24 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2210 of 3207 (861984)
08-30-2019 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2184 by ringo
08-29-2019 11:56 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
But no, it is not irrational to look for a consensus.
Of course not - I fully agree.
It is, however, irrational to consider "a consensus" being more important than looking at the facts when doing a rational analysis.
I'm saying that if everybody you look at happens to hold their breath while you're looking, that doesn't mean nobody breathes.
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.
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.
I understand this is what you've been attempting to say.
What you've been unable to do - is explain why this should be considered in a serious discussion.
All you've done is proven over and over that "positive" and "negative" conclusions are both based on "objective observations according to our current information" and they both include the same level of doubt that something different may be found "outside our current information."
If you have an actual, rational reason why they should be considered differently - please go ahead and explain it.
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.
Why? If we've looked for cars everywhere, for thousands of years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that one even might possibly exist in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?
Just as if we see ringo-bake-cakes, for tens-of-years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?
Exact.
Same.
Process.
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.
We've been over this.
Of course there was.
Pre-cursors to all those things existed in one form or another prior to finding those specific items.
You can't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking. If we did that, we'd never find anything.
For first-time-finding-things (of which none of your above examples qualify, but still, you do have a point here...) - you are correct.
Of course, if you understand my argument, this isn't a problem:
I don't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking.
I have no problem with people irrationally looking for things. Almost all irrational searches turn up fruitless - but some of them turn up incredibly new and previously-unknown discoveries.
I do, however, use "rational indicators" as a reason to say we rationally know something or not - why would I?
But your "explanation" was stupid. It relied on conspiracy theories or time travel.
Exactly. No connection between imagination and reality.
Just like your "explanation" that we might find God beyond our currently available information.
There's no connection between imagination and reality - you have nothing but popular conspiracy theories to suggest it.
The fact that I can bake a cake is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.
The fact that God does not exist is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.
All of our objective observations within our currently-available information support the fact.
There is no connection between imagination and reality to suggest that anything outside our currently-available-information will lead to anything different. Only conspiracy theories.
Granted - the conspiracy theories for God existing outside our currently-available-information are much more popular than those saying evolution is wrong or our earth is not round.
But - in the context of a rational analysis, this popularity is irrelevant and we should be looking at what the facts say.
The pattern of no God is like the pattern of no water passages. You can't consider it reliable until you're finished looking.
Before the NWP? Nope - evidence of water passages existed at that time. Therefore, not like God at all.
Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found? - Yes, you're absolutely right - but this only supports my argument and goes against yours.
Knowledge is not absolute. Knowledge is based on our currently-available-information.
"Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found" - then, obviously, based on the currently-available information - water passages did not exist. Proven wrong when evidence of water passages was found. Find evidence of God - and you'll overturn my currently-valid-according-to-our-available-information conclusion. Without that - my conclusion stands:
I know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2184 by ringo, posted 08-29-2019 11:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2214 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 12:09 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2215 of 3207 (861999)
08-30-2019 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2214 by ringo
08-30-2019 12:09 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
"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.
That's the rational analysis I'm describing - yes - rational analysis should be a consensus based on facts.
You keep bringing up "consensus" that is not based on facts (billions of people concluding that God exists) and acting as if it should be seriously considered because it's a large consensus.
There's a difference.
The fact is that the vast majority of the human race have seen people breathing (have "discovered God" in one way or another).
No one has a rational observation that can be used as a basis to provide consensus to conclude they have "discovered God."
All you have is a consensus not-at-all-based-on-objective-observations-or-facts. Which is irrelevant to a rational analysis.
It's a small minority who have failed to see anybody breathing (failed to discover god in any way). Failure does not nullify success.
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.
This "small minority" you mention is irrelevant to a rational analysis.
The group I mention - the one relevant to a rational analysis - is also billions strong.
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.
Yes - wrong about reality.
But no - not wrong about "being valid to say according to a rational analysis of their currently-available information at the time."
Since knowledge is "a rational analysis according to currently available information..." take a wild guess as to which one is relevant.
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.
This aught to be fun...
You're implying a level of absoluteness to "knowledge" again that doesn't exist.
Do you think knowledge is absolute? If so - we can go back to that discussion where you run around in circles for a few days before admitting that it's not.
If not - stop this argument, because it depends on knowledge being considered as an absolute.
Stop it. There was a time when there was no knowledge of water passages.
And I addressed that - which you conveniently forgot to quote. It was the very next line.
Stop being disingenuous, ringo.
Your tactics are unraveling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2214 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2216 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 1:15 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2217 of 3207 (862005)
08-30-2019 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2216 by ringo
08-30-2019 1:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
You claim it is not based on facts.
That's right - I claim that those who say "I know God exists" are not doing so based on facts.
And the second someone presents a fact that contradicts my claim - I will change my argument.
Just like any other rational argument against irrational claims of consensus.
We usually see a few thousand cranks with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. We just ignore them because they never present any facts.
For God's existence... we see a few billion people with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. I just ignore them because they never present any facts.
Either one - show any fact (rational objective observation) that actually supports them - and I'll change my position.
Anything else - is more driven by emotion than rationality.
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.
Heh.. that's funny. Now you're blaming me for what you're doing?
You're the one equivocating my claim of "I know (not A)" with a claim of "I do not know A."
There are thousands of years of human history of people searching for God. The rational, based-on-objective-observations conclusion of that search is "God does not exist."
I know (not A.) Because the search has happened.
Not I do not know A. Because the search hasn't happened.
If the search hasn't happened for God - then it hasn't happened for anything as we've searched for God more than any other single idea in the history of mankind. If this search is still ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion, then the search for everything else must also still be ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion - and now you can't say "I know ringo can bake a cake" anymore.
You don't get to take your error and just call it mine.
You're the one who keeps appealing to popularity instead of facts for a rational analysis.
You're the one who keeps implying knowledge-must-be-absolute when you've already agreed over and over and over that it's not.
You're the one being vague, inconsistent, irrational and confused.
I'm the one being detailed and specific.
But you're free to try and continue - the pattern so far shows that you'll only strengthen my argument further. So, please, continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2216 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 1:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2218 by ringo, posted 08-31-2019 12:24 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2219 of 3207 (862280)
09-03-2019 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2218 by ringo
08-31-2019 12:24 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
And your claim that you "know" God does not exist is based on lack of facts.
It is based on objective observations from our current information.
Just as "I know ringo can bake a cake" is based on objective observations from our current information.
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."
Be consistent.
I'm saying you don't know A. You're saying you know (not A).
Exactly.
And we can know (not A) about things.
That's how we know we can turn left - there are no cars coming.
That's how we know God does not exist - there are no Gods in any of our available information. All of it.
But the search is not finished.
Oh? What objective information within our current information shows God exists? That's right - none.
The search is finished - within our current information.
Of course - if you want to go beyond our current information, that's unreasonable - we don't do this for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" either.
Either take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods and cakes - in which case we can't know either (or anything at all, for that matter.)
Or consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for Gods and cakes - which is rational and consistent.
Most people consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for cakes - because it's rational and practical.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.
Most people take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods - but this is irrational, it's only done out of reasons of popularity, culture, tradition or personal desire. All of which are irrational when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.
It's your choice.
Either accept you're being irrational and inconsistent to side with popularity.
Or be consistent - and accept my argument.
No. The search for the Northwest Passage is not ongoing. It was finished when we found the Northwest Passage.
It's only over if you limit the search to "our currently available information."
If the search goes beyond our currently available information - then the search is still ongoing. We could identify something that tells us that we actually have not found the NWP - we only thought we did.
So - which is it?
Do you want to be consistent and apply a rational analysis the same way for all things - and agree with me?
Or do you want to be inconsistent for reasons of "popularity" - and therefore be irrational when considering a rational analysis for "I know that God does not exist?"
Your call.
You can no longer hide by being vague about what you're referring to.
You flip-flop between "within our current information" and "extending beyond our current information" when talking about cakes/NWPs or God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2218 by ringo, posted 08-31-2019 12:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2220 by Phat, posted 09-03-2019 4:19 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2224 by ringo, posted 09-03-2019 11:19 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2221 of 3207 (862287)
09-03-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2220 by Phat
09-03-2019 4:19 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
Are you basically rejecting an argument from popularity as akin to dismissing the idea that some of *us* have found God within our available information(within our own subjectivity) or are you declaring that all believers are mistaken in their claim that God exists?
Knowledge is not absolute - nor is it a claim to what "actually is."
Using our best method of acquiring knowledge - we can "know things" to the best of our ability.
Whether or not this is "correct" or "what we should be doing" - is up to the individual.
All I'm saying, is if we use our best method of acquiring knowledge (rational analysis), and apply it to what-information-we-have-acquired-on-God over the last few thousand years - the conclusion is obvious: I know that God does not exist.
There are just some things we *know* (or even believe) that can't simply be trotted out as objective facts for others to examine.
Perhaps there are.
Or perhaps there are many things we "think we know" that actually are not a part of reality.
Which one is accurate?
Again - we have our "best known method" to decide such things as described above.
Your choice if you want to apply it or not.
There is no "right or wrong" answer - but there is a "you are using our best-known-method or not" answer.
Up to you to consider if it's "right or wrong" to use it or not.
If it were so, everyone would have the same belief based on the objectivity of the community at large.
This is only if all humans were rational and consistent about all things all the time.
I think it's fairly obvious that this barely describes any human, let alone all of us.
Again - it's up to to the individual to put in the effort required to try to use our "best known method" or not.
You took an atheist position(based on the fact that atheists are a clear minority) and made it the default position...thus eliminating the majority position as being valid in any way.
I simply took our "best-known-method" and saw what would happen if we apply it to all-the-information-we-have about God.
Turns out a rational analysis comes out to "I know that God does not exist."
This doesn't eliminate other methods from being valid.
Other methods are eliminated from being "our best known method" because they include ideas that introduce more errors.
Our "best-known-method" is also not error-free, it simply has the "least amount" of error that we're (currently) capable of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2220 by Phat, posted 09-03-2019 4:19 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2222 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-03-2019 5:37 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2226 of 3207 (862319)
09-04-2019 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2222 by AlexCaledin
09-03-2019 5:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AlexCaledin writes:
In other words, since Einstein, Bohr etc. discovered the great and useful things, it's time to apply the scientific methods to wash people's brains.
If you are aware of a better method for knowing things - I am very interested in following your lead.
Just let me know if you have anything useful to offer...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2222 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-03-2019 5:37 PM AlexCaledin has not replied

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


Message 2227 of 3207 (862320)
09-04-2019 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2224 by ringo
09-03-2019 11:19 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
We've been through that already. The cake is a done deal. The search for God is not.
Did you forget?
You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.
There is doubt in the knowledge of God not existing.
I say it's the same doubt - one that exists in finding something "beyond our currently available information:"
All of our "currently available information" confirms that ringo can bake cakes.
All of our "currently available information" confirms that God does not exist.
There is no link from imagination-to-reality that there's any reason to consider that "something beyond our current information" will lead to us knowing ringo can't bake cakes.
There is no link from imagination-to-reality that there's any reason to consider that "something beyond our current information" will lead to us knowing God actually exists.
You seem to act as if the doubt is different - but the only different you've ever mentioned is based upon popularity - which is an irrational consideration when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.
But feel free to try again.
You just have to do better than claiming it to be so without any evidence or support or reason.
By that logic, we "knew" that God did not exist before we ever started looking;
Nope. Have to look first.
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.
we "knew" that the Northwest Passage did not exist before we ever started looking;
Again - nope.
We knew water-passages existed, therefore we knew the NWP could exist - there was a link between imagination and reality.
Not the same as God - yet you keep trying to use it as an analogy - exactly as someone would if trying to hide in vague generalities and popular opinion.
we "know" that our keys don't exist before we ever start looking.
Nope. Have to look first.
After we look for keys, and find no evidence of them ever existing in the first place, in the entire history of all available human information - we can say we know they don't exist.
After we look for God, and find no evidence of Him ever existing in the first place, in the entire history of all available human information - we can say we know He doesn't exist.
Based on no information, nothing exists.
This, actually, is true.
But, of course, we do have information. So we don't live in this "no information" vacuum you're speaking about.
Anytime you'd like to join us in rational reality - my conclusion that "I know God does not exist" is waiting for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2224 by ringo, posted 09-03-2019 11:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2229 by Phat, posted 09-04-2019 10:53 AM Stile has replied
 Message 2231 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 11:32 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2232 of 3207 (862371)
09-04-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2229 by Phat
09-04-2019 10:53 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
Absence of Evidence does *not* equate to evidence of absence.
Sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes it does.
If you want to turn left - you look for absence of evidence of oncoming cars - no?
Are you saying this isn't "evidence of absence" of oncoming cars when none are there?
How would anyone ever safely turn left if we can't provide evidence that no oncoming cars are present?
Of course absence of evidence *does* equate to evidence of absence, in the right context.
As well, if we search ALL of our current information, and it ALL confirms that God does not exist - then this is evidence of absence.
Objective, measurable physical evidence may be lacking, but people suspected that radar, x-rays, and other previously undetectable forms of energy existed even before ways were found to measure them. This is, I think, ringos point.
And it's a very good point to make.
If there's a link from imagination-to-reality indicating that something *might* exist beyond our current information - as there was for radar, x-rays, higgs-boson, the NWP, and many, many other things - this is valid for a rational analysis and would prevent me from saying I know such things do not exist.
Of course, if that link from imagination-to-reality is not present, then this point does not apply in a rational analysis.
Like Santa Claus and Luminiferous Ether and any other infinite number of ideas that only exist in our imagination with no rational link to reality.
Right now, again according to our available information, the idea of God only exists in our imagination and has no rational link to reality suggesting He *might* exist beyond our current information.
The argument is not one side or the other. The argument merely involves phraseology. You cant speak for everyone in your declaration.
I do not intend to "speak for everyone."
My statement only applies to those interested in an objective, rational analysis of knowledge claims using our best-known knowledge-identifying method.
If someone wants to be irrational (use a method other than that currently identified as our 'best method' in order to make a knowledge claim on God's existence) - they are free to do so - but it doesn't change what I'm saying based on our best method.
For me, personally--God does indeed exist. Critics could say that my position is illogical. Why fight them?
I have no fight with anyone claiming the use of another method, and honestly identifying it as "another method."
They likely said the same thing to early explorers insisting that the world was round, that x-rays and radio waves existed, or that the universe was not geo-centric.
Exactly. When, or "if," you ever come up with some link from imagination-to-reality - I will immediately change my conclusion - as is demanded by our currently-best-method.
Of course, there are an infinite number of ideas with no link from imagination to reality.
If you want to bet on this one being right - that's up to you.
I choose to use our best-known-method with the highest chance of leading to correct conclusions.
You are free to make your own personal decision on what method you want to use for what circumstances.
A bigger question for examination is this: Should God Exist? Perhaps at its deepest level, this is what you should be asking yourself. Your answer likely would be "No, there is no need for Him".
Why would you say that?
I've told you many time that I dearly wish an all-powerful, all-benevolent God existed to take care of us. It would make for a much better world than the one we currently live in.
Perhaps what gets me a bit riled is the idea that good guy Stile, whom I've always respected as openminded and willing to accept new information is, in reality, already set against information that may upset his world view.
I think you misunderstand.
This thread is about "what happens to the idea of God if we put it through the same rational analysis we use for everything else?"
It has nothing to do about my own personal ideas or feelings on the matter.
Some of my personal ideas/view align with this conclusion.
Some don't.
My personal ideas/views are generally irrational - and I identify them as such when thinking about them.
Irrationality is much more important that rationality - without it life would be boring and progress may very well be impossible.
Of course, if you fail to identify them properly, and use them in the wrong situations - you can end up in very, very bad circumstances.
Looking further in the mirror, I see that I too don't want to know---if the conclusion is not what I believe should be the conclusion.
I don't really see the problem.
If you don't like the conclusion provided by our currently-best-method for identifying knowledge - then don't accept it. Be honest and say "I don't want to apply our currently-best-method in this situation - I'm going to be irrational and believe otherwise." What's wrong with that? Belief is much stronger than rational conclusions as far as people are concerned anyway.
I'm just arguing against anyone who's suggesting that this is not what our best-known-method actually concludes, or if they think another method is "better" - but refuse to explain how or why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2229 by Phat, posted 09-04-2019 10:53 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2233 of 3207 (862377)
09-04-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2231 by ringo
09-04-2019 11:32 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.
I don't think I did.
Then what did you mean by this:
quote:
If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?
Message 2159
Is there "no doubt?"
Or is there "no reasonable doubt?"
I would assume you mean "no reasonable doubt."
And wouldn't it be unreasonable to consider information we *might* find beyond our currently-known-information, when there's no link from imagination-to-reality that we would actually find such information?
Then there's no doubt for cake.
Of course - then there's no doubt for knowing God does not exist, either.
Make up your mind.
Be consistent.
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.
Make up your mind.
Be consistent.
You seem to want to consider ideas with no link from imagination-to-reality to provide doubt that God may be found behind Dark Matter - therefore, we're not done searching for Him?
But then you do not want to consider ideas with no link from imagination-to-reality to provide doubt that "ringo actually can't bake cakes" may be found behind Dark Matter - therefore, we're not done searching for ringo-baking-cakes?
Make up your mind.
Be consistent.
On one hand you want to dismiss imagination from causing doubt. (ringo can bake cakes.)
On the other hand, you want to accept imagination from causing doubt. (God does not exist.)
Both are only imagination.
Maybe behind Dark Matter we'll find that God actually does exist even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
Maybe behind Dark matter we'll find that ringo can't actually bake cakes at all, even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
Why accept the imagination to cause doubt for God?
Why not accept the imagination to cause doubt for cakes?
You have no rational explanation for this inconsistency.
That's why it is proven that you're being irrational.
If you want to remain irrational - that's up to you.
But any honest description of what you're doing must identify this inconsistency - because it exists, and you are (so far) unable to provide a rational explanation for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2231 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 11:32 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2234 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 12:54 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2235 of 3207 (862383)
09-04-2019 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2234 by ringo
09-04-2019 12:54 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
Feel free to share - otherwise, it's not a part of anyone-else's "currently available information."
And we can all still rationally continue to conclude that we know God does not exist.
If you refuse to share (as you've done for over 2000 messages now...) then it can rationally be assumed that you have nothing.
And the following still stands.
quote:
On one hand you want to dismiss imagination from causing doubt. (ringo can bake cakes.)
On the other hand, you want to accept imagination from causing doubt. (God does not exist.)
Both are only imagination.
Maybe behind Dark Matter we'll find that God actually does exist even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
Maybe behind Dark matter we'll find that ringo can't actually bake cakes at all, even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
Why accept the imagination to cause doubt for God?
Why not accept the imagination to cause doubt for cakes?
You have no rational explanation for this inconsistency.
That's why it is proven that you're being irrational.
If you want to remain irrational - that's up to you.
But any honest description of what you're doing must identify this inconsistency - because it exists, and you are (so far) unable to provide a rational explanation for it.
I have no problem with you not accepting rationality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2234 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 12:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2236 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 1:08 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2237 of 3207 (862393)
09-04-2019 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2236 by ringo
09-04-2019 1:08 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
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.
How so?
There are an infinite number of imagination-only ideas that are not inherently irrational - and they have no link to reality so therefore do not exist.
Like Santa Claus.
And Luminiferous Ether.
And winged horses, and unicorn winged horses, and 2-horned winged horses, and 3-horned winged horses, and 4-horned winged horses... do not exist.
God is in the exact same position.
All inherently rational (the idea can exist as imagination and is not self-contradictory like a square-circle)
Nothing but imagination and ideas.
No link to reality.
I know Santa Claus does not exist.
I know Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
I know winged horses, and unicorn winged horses, and 2-horned winged horses, and 3-horned winged horses, and 4-horned winged horses... do not exist.
I know God does not exist.
When there's no link to reality from the imagination, the idea can be ignored as "unreasonable to consider" - just like the idea that we'll find out behind Dark Matter that ringo can't bake cakes and never could. Not inherently irrational. Just no link to reality.
If you think it's irrelevant - you're back to not being able to know that ringo can bake cakes.
If you accept that it's relevant - the objective argument shows that "I know God does not exist" is a valid statement. Unless you'd like to describe the "rational link to reality" for God that no one else knows about?
All for all the same reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2236 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 1:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2238 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 1:45 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2240 of 3207 (862400)
09-04-2019 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2238 by ringo
09-04-2019 1:45 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
We did not pretend to "know" the luminiferous ether did not exist until the search for it reached a definitive conclusion.
Just like God!
A definitive conlcusion 'based on our available information' - because no knowledge is based on information we don't have.
I assume you would agree that there's only unreasonable doubt that we might find luminiferous ether behind Dark Matter?
Just like God!
Thanks for agreeing with my method and conclusion.
Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2238 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 1:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2246 by ringo, posted 09-05-2019 11:47 AM 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