I Know That God Does Not Exist

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.

Conservative YouTube Channel Prager U. sponsored by Dennis Prager is conservative and admittedly pro-apologetics leaning, but had a valid question and well-thought-out response to this whole idea of a null hypothesis.
Essentially making the argument that there were 4, rather than simply one big bang type of events in the evolution of the universe.

quote:

---

Science tells us that the universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science can't explain.

---

And I'm saying the millions of null results over millennia, including your result and my result, are as relevant to the search for gods as Michelson-Morley's null result in the search for the aether.Until there is a dramatic change in what we "know" today saying "We know there are no gods" is as valid as saying "We know there is no aether."

I love you, you PhatThug, but you just love those BS arguments.4 big bangs, my ass.This whole video is nothing but the usual arguments of personal incredulity from ignorance.There are things we don't know, yet. The religious knee jerk response, predictable, is to invoke a god.No new arguments, no new insights, to this piece of apologist tripe.Move along, citizens. Nothing to see here.
Edited by AZPaul3, : subtitle

If we haven't looked, then the information isn't available.
If there's no reason to expect that looking-somewhere-that-is-unavailable will turn up a positive result (no link from imagination to reality) - then it is unreasonable to suggest that such we "have to look there" first - just like with ringo-baking-cakes. It's your terminology that's inconsistent.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.You're the one using the same terminology, but with different meanings, in different situations - according to how "popularity" leans.I'm being consistent and rational in my terminology.
You're being inconsistent and irrational.

And yet you haven't named even one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley that would lend legitimacy to those "null" results.

You've spent 150 pages just buggering about with what the word 'know' means.And it looks like you're heading for another 150.

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. Wrong.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. 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 confusing popularity with objectivity. You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

Right there is a semantic rabbit hole I will not go down.

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.

I think your memory is off. Here's the last message you never replied to: Message 2114As we left off, it was you who was buggering about with what the word 'know' means using two different definitions - one where you suggest the word "know" implied certainty, and another where you suggest the word "know" is not absolute.Be consistent.
Which is it?My position was, and still is, that "know" is always not absolute. There is always doubt.And when that doubt is unreasonable - that is "there is no link from reality to imagination that such doubt should be rationally considered" - then the doubt can be ignored.I want to ignore all unreasonable doubt.You and ringo seem to want to consider unreasonable doubt for God, but ignore it for certain other things (like Luminiferous Ether.)
With no rational reason to do so.
Only irrational reasons - popularity, how you feel about...Your choice if you want to be confusing and irrational - just don't expect me to accept it.

Of course we can.
You said so yourself: we don't need to consider unreasonable doubt.This "information" you're speaking of is unreasonable doubt.
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.
Therefore, it's unreasonable and should be ignored.Unless, of course, you want to consider all unreasonable doubt?
In which case, we no longer know that ringo can bake cakes.Be consistent. Of course there is.
If you don't look within the information available to you, you won't know.
But if you do look - then you can know one way or the other.Same with God - if we don't look within the information available to us, we won't know.
But if you do look - then you can know one way or the other. Of course we have experimental evidence that God does not exist.
Hypothesis: If God exists, we would have identified something within our available information that indicates that God might exist.
Experiment: Look at all our available information and see if God exists or not.
Conclusion over the last few thousand years: No one has ever identified anything within our available information that indicates God might exist.
Therefore - I know that God does not exist.Replace "God" with "Luminiferous Ether" and it's the exact same experiment and result.This isn't hard... No. 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.You base your decision on popularity.
I base it on facts.
You can't argue with the facts - the facts say God does not exist.You can only argue with popularity - which is why the only reason you've ever provided is "well - lots of people say they found God!"
Good for them.
Objectivity deals in facts.
And the facts disagree with all of them.
There are no facts showing that God can be found anywhere. According to ringo?
Who is inconsistent, irrational and appeals to popularity over objectivity?You're free to claim anything you'd like.
I'm more interested in what you can objectively show - according to the facts.

It isn't unreasonable doubt. That's an unreasonable requirement. If we had to have a link before we look for a link, we'd never find anything. 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. Looking out the window and not seeing God does not qualify as an experiment. 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. And nothing I have said has anything to do with popularity. According to Stile? 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.

Yeh, I know what your position is. It's a pedantic, nit-picking, silly and wrong point.We do know many things for certain. When we don't know things for certain we say we don't know and/or can't know, but we are often able to form temporary probabilistic conclusions about them based on what we do know.Your certainty about things that we have no knowledge of is not scientific.

Many many people claim to have been "saved". Granted the concept appears unreasonable and a product of the imagination...particularly given the afterward behavior of some of these people.
Perhaps, however, being saved is an internal confirmation linking imagination to reality. Is it unreasonable to doubt the claim from so many people?