|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We did not pretend to "know" the luminiferous ether did not exist until the search for it reached a definitive conclusion. 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. Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No. Our available information is that there are places where we have not looked, so no definitive conclusion has been reached.
A definitive conlcusion 'based on our available information' - because no knowledge is based on information we don't have. Stile writes:
I have never disagreed with your methodology or your conclusion. I only disagree with your terminology. Claiming you know (not A) when you don't know A is incorrect. You're pretty sure about (not A). You don't know. Thanks for agreeing with my method and conclusion.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Michelson and Morley had a method for detecting the ether. So far, the search for God is at a stage before Michelson and Morley, so it's premature to make a conclusion that Michelson and Morley didn't make until after their experiments. ringo writes:
Has it reached a definitive conclusion? We did not pretend to "know" the luminiferous ether did not exist until the search for it reached a definitive conclusion.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Name one experiment that has been done that is equivalent to Michelson-Morley. ringo writes:
The search for God is at a stage many hundreds of millions of iterations and many thousands of years beyond Michelson-Morley. So far, the search for God is at a stage before Michelson and MorleyMaturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
That is not relevant to what I have been saying in this thread. I'm just saying that it is not appropriate to claim we "know" (not A) when in fact we just don't know A. I'm pretty sure you made your own search for the gods. How did that turn out for you?Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
And yet you haven't named even one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley that would lend legitimacy to those "null" results. And I'm saying the millions of null results over millennia....Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
If we know there's a place we haven't looked, that's information too. We can't ignore that information when we make a conclusion.
If we haven't looked, then the information isn't available. Stile writes:
Wrong. I do know (not A) about God as much as I know (not A) about cars not being there so it's safe to turn left or as much as I know (not A) about Luminiferous Ether or as much as I know (A) about ringo-baking-cakes. In the case of cars, there is not equivalent "I do not know A", so the example is not relevant. In the case of luminiferous ether, there are experiments to confirm (not A); there are no such experiments in the case of God. Likewise in the case of baking cakes, the cakes are experimentally confirmed.
Stile writes:
Not at all. We "know" (not A) in the cases of luminiferous ether and cakes because of experimental evidence. We do not "know" (not A) in the case of God because there is no experimental evidence.
You're the one using the same terminology, but with different meanings, in different situations... Stile writes:
You're confusing popularity with objectivity.
... according to how "popularity" leans. Stile writes:
You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A). I'm being consistent and rational in my terminology.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Nothing semantic about it. It's just demanding the same scientific evidence for your claim as for anything else. Without objective empirical evidence, your claim of "knowing" something about God is no different from Faith's. ringo writes:
Right there is a semantic rabbit hole I will not go down. experiment equivalent to Michelson-MorleyMaturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It isn't unreasonable doubt.
You said so yourself: we don't need to consider unreasonable doubt. Stile writes:
That's an unreasonable requirement. If we had to have a link before we look for a link, we'd never find anything.
There is no link from the imagination of this idea to reality that this "place we haven't looked" even *might* show us evidence that God could exist. Stile writes:
And we haven't looked within all of the information available to us - we know of places that we haven't looked. The fact that we have no way of looking there (yet) is not an excuse for pretending we "know" something about those places.
Same with God - if we don't look within the information available to us, we won't know. Stile writes:
Looking out the window and not seeing God does not qualify as an experiment.
Experiment: Look at all our available information and see if God exists or not. Stile writes:
Nonsense. The Michelson-Morley experiment had two distinct possible outcomes - either the speed of light was different parallel to the "ether wind" and perpendicular to it or it was the same. There is no equivalent test for God or not-God that will yield one of two distinctly different results like that.
Replace "God" with "Luminiferous Ether" and it's the exact same experiment and result. Stile writes:
And nothing I have said has anything to do with popularity.
Objectivity is based on facts - and it so happens that many people will agree, because of the facts.Popularity is based on popularity - regardless of the facts. Stile writes:
According to Stile?
Who is inconsistent, irrational and appeals to popularity over objectivity? Stile writes:
I'm not the one who's making a claim. You are. I'm just pointing out the errors in your claim. If you had any facts, you could show them but all you're doing is claiming to "know" (not A) when you really just don't know A. You're free to claim anything you'd like.I'm more interested in what you can objectively show - according to the facts. Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We don't always know before we look whether or not there is a "rational link". We don't just sit in an ivory tower listing all of the "rational links" before we look for something.
We don't have to have a link before we look for a link.We only have to have a link before we have a rational reason to look for a link. Stile writes:
We found a lot of things that way. We didn't dream up a "rational link" to elephants before we found them.
Or if we look "just to explore, to see whatever it is we might be able to see" - again, how would this rationally indicate to us that we should expect to find God? Stile writes:
Again - false. If we know the place is there, that is information that is currently available to us. We can not say we "know" something is not there before we look there.
Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us. Stile writes:
No, it is not the same. We have a positive test for luminiferous either; the speed of light should be different "with the flow" and "across the flow". If the speed is the same, we can conclude (not luminiferous ether). There is no corresponding concrete test for God from which we could conclude (not God). Based on the rational pattern of facts - we know God does not exist in the places we haven't searched yet. Just as we do with Luminiferous Ether. Furthermore, the luminescent ether was expected to be everywhere, if it existed. That is not a universal expectation for God, so failure to find Him in one place is not necessarily evidence for non-existence.
Stile writes:
That's a ridiculous comparision. You can't do the same test for two different things. You might as well try to use an interferometer to find the Northwest Passage or use a thermometer to measure your height. Let's say I do the exact same experiment but with "God" supposed to be causing the difference instead of "Luminiferous Ether."Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
I asked for one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morely and you provided none. I doubt whether either Albert Michelson or Edward Morley would accept the wishy-washy "tests" that you cite as equivalent to their work.
Then the millions and millions of null results over many millennia are that evidence. Null results count as scientific evidence. Just ask Albert Michelson. AZPaul3 writes:
I'm telling you that I can discern an objective "know". The fact that I can bake a cake is an objective "know". I can demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt. You telling me you don't discern an absolute "know" from a tentative "know"? The idea that God does not exist is not remotely similar. It can not be demonstrated objectively. Failure to demonstrate existence is not evidence of non-existence. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
And nobody here is doing that.
There's only something wrong with taking such a search, and then implying that there's a rational aspect leading us to find God (or any other non-indicated thing.) Stile writes:
I care because you're contradicting yourself. You say we've looked everywhere, according to our available information and now you're saying you don't even care if we've looked everywhere because you've already made up your mind.
The "information that we know we haven't looked there" is certainly available to us - but who cares? Stile writes:
Because we haven't looked there yet. Our current information was that there was a continent of land blocking Europe from Asia. We could not say we "knew" that there was no passage through it until we looked in all of the places that we knew existed.
The "information of whatever-is-there" is certainly not available to us.... Stile writes:
That's a God-answers-prayer test, not a God-exists test.
Prayer - tested and God failed. Stile writes:
Really? What specific test did you perform in the sun?
God in the sun - tested and God failed. Stile writes:
That's a God-controls-the-weather test, not a God-exists test.
God controlling weather - tested and God failed. Stile writes:
That's a God-created-a-flood test, not a God-exists test.
God creating a world-wide flood - tested and God failed. Stile writes:
No. It's not the same. If luminiferous ether is required for the propagation of light, than it has to exist everywhere where light can go - i.e. here, in our back yard, where the experiment was done. But the idea of God does not require Him to be everywhere.
The test for luminiferous ether could be changed to include "maybe luminiferous ether only exists behind dark matter" too... Stile writes:
The assumption was that a luminiferous ether was "needed" for light to propagate. That assumption turns out to be wrong. Of course, there was a rational posited explanation for luminescent ether.Where is the rational posited explanation for a non-universal God? There is also an assumption that God is needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc. There has never been a Michelson-Morley-equivalent experiment to disprove that assumption.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You have it backwards. It is not irrational to search everywhere that we know exists.
You're taking an irrational search (no rational indication that the search will lead to finding God) and suggesting that it's conclusion should seriously be considered. Stile writes:
You're wrong about that. We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there.
We have looked everywhere, according to our available information. Stile writes:
It isn't beyond our available information. It's beyond our present ability to search there. Similarly, we knew that there were places we had not yet searched for the Northwest Passage; it would have been foolish to claim we "knew" the Northwest Passage did not exist before we had the capacity to search those places.
We don't care about looking everywhere beyond our available information when forming a rational conclusion based on our available information - why would we? Stile writes:
We're not changing the definition of God. We're recognizing that God is not defined as narrowly as luminiferous ether. That's why we can't draw simplistic conclusions about God.
If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the previous test(s) for Luminiferous Ether mean nothing as well. Stile writes:
I've looked for elephants on my couch and didn't find any. That doesn't mean elephants don't exist.
ringo writes:
Observations. What specific test did you perform in the sun?No God. Stile writes:
Non sequitur.
If God answer prayers, or controls weather, or is in the Sun, or created a past flood - then God has to exist wherever those things happen. Stile writes:
We're not changing the definition of God. We're saying that your definition is inadequate. You're trying to define God out of existence. If we don't change the definition of God - then the tests stand.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No it isn't. It's unreasonable to stop looking.
But if we've historically searched everywhere we can, and it creates a pattern that God does not exist everywhere we've been able to search, and there's no rational reason to suggest that God might actually exist in places we haven't yet searched... Then it's unreasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in the places we haven't yet searched. Stile writes:
Nothing is more than imagination until it is.
Anything more than imagination - and you have a point. Stile writes:
And you knowing that the Northwest Passage didn't exist had the same reasoning. But the reasoning was wrong. I know that God does not exist.I know that Luminiferous Ether does not exist. I know that Winged horses with 5 horns do not exist. Because they all have the same reasoning...Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We've been through that. Your time-travelling conspiracy theory is worthless. It throws all possibility of objectivity out the window.
Of course it's unreasonable - otherwise it leads to not know that ringo can bake cakes. Stile writes:
It's just as reasonable as imagining a Northwest Passage existing in places we haven't yet searched.
If you think it's reasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in places we haven't yet searched... Stile writes:
I've asked you for examples of real tests that have been done, equivalent to the Michelson-Morley experiment. You haven't been able to cite a single one.
...we've tested for "God not existing" everywhere we can.... Stile writes:
And I'm saying that you don't have a "rational analysis", since you haven't done any actual tests and you haven't even done a cursory look-around in all of the places available.
I'm only suggesting that it's unreasonable to use the fact that "people can imagine something" to cast doubt on what a rational analysis of our current information tells us. Stile writes:
We've been through that. What has happened can not un-happen. What has not happened can possibly happen.
Why use imagination to cast doubt on God, but not on ringo-baking-cakes? Stile writes:
We've been through that. Before the specific Northwest Passge, there was a time when no water-throughways were known - i.e a time when all water-throughways were only imagination. That's where we always start. The NWP was more than imagination while it was being searched for.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024