Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2255 of 3207 (862537)
09-06-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2246 by ringo
09-05-2019 11:47 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
No. Our available information is that there are places where we have not looked, so no definitive conclusion has been reached.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2246 by ringo, posted 09-05-2019 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2257 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 11:45 AM Stile has replied
 Message 2258 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:47 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2261 of 3207 (862548)
09-06-2019 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2257 by Tangle
09-06-2019 11:45 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:
You've spent 150 pages just buggering about with what the word 'know' means.
And it looks like you're heading for another 150.
I think your memory is off. Here's the last message you never replied to: Message 2114
As 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2257 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 11:45 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2264 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 1:34 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2265 by Phat, posted 09-06-2019 1:57 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2262 of 3207 (862550)
09-06-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2258 by ringo
09-06-2019 11:47 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo 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.
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.
In the case of cars, there is not equivalent "I do not know A", so the example is not relevant.
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.
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.
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...
You're confusing popularity with objectivity.
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.
You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2258 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2263 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 1:12 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2268 of 3207 (862560)
09-06-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2263 by ringo
09-06-2019 1:12 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
That's an unreasonable requirement. If we had to have a link before we look for a link, we'd never find anything.
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.
If the reason we look is irrational - why should it be considered in a rational analysis of knowledge?
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?
It doesn't.
And we haven't looked within all of the information available to us - we know of places that we haven't looked.
Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us.
Regardless of why we haven't looked there.
The fact that we have no way of looking there (yet) is not an excuse for pretending we "know" something about those places.
Of course, the fact that we rationally know nothing is there is because we have expanded our knowledge many times before, and no indication of God is ever found in any expansion of our knowledge. And there's no rational indication that God would be found anywhere at all.
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.
This is how we know (not A.)
We know Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
We know God does not exist.
They are both exactly the same: nothing in our available information indicates that they might exist within or beyond our available information.
We could be wrong about either, or both.
Or we could be right.
But, until we identify information showing they could exist: we know that they do not exist.
Looking out the window and not seeing God does not qualify as an experiment.
But looking everywhere over thousands of years does.
No God ever found.
If you disagree - just identify the one place we've looked and found God.
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.
Let's say I do the exact same experiment but with "God" supposed to be causing the difference instead of "Luminiferous Ether."
Do you have any reasonable doubt that the result will be any different?
I'm going to assume that you're honest enough to say "no - we can be extremely confident that the two results would be exactly the same."
Therefore, according to your same requirements - both God and Luminiferous Ether do not exist.
If you disagree with this example, you're free to run your own for verification.
Or at least identify something reasonable that would indicate that we would find a different result.
And nothing I have said has anything to do with popularity.
Thanks for the retraction.
Let's finally focus on the facts.
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
Who is inconsistent, irrational and appeals to popularity over objectivity?
According to Stile?
According to the facts.
Anyone can read the posts in this thread and see.
I'm not the one who's making a claim. You are. I'm just pointing out the errors in your claim.
And all the errors you claim to exist - are inconsistent, irrational, or appeals to popularity over objectivity.
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.
My facts:
Any and all rational analysis ever done to any information available to us has always shows that God does not exist as much as Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
If you claim to disagree, or claim errors exist - feel free to offer any fact to show how my claim is incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2263 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 1:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2278 by ringo, posted 09-07-2019 12:32 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2269 of 3207 (862561)
09-06-2019 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2264 by Tangle
09-06-2019 1:34 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:
eh, I know what your position is. It's a pedantic, nit-picking, silly and wrong point.
I don't think so.
I'm not the one confusing the word with multiple meanings.
We do know many things for certain.
For absolutely-cannot-possibly-ever-be-wrong certain?
Of for certain "beyond any reasonable doubt?"
If you mean the former - you're obviously wrong.
If you mean the latter - that's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what leads to the conclusion that I know God does not exist.
Your certainty about things that we have no knowledge of is not scientific.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the same level of certainty we have for any and all things we declare as "certain."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2264 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 1:34 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2275 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 3:49 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2270 of 3207 (862562)
09-06-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2265 by Phat
09-06-2019 1:57 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
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.
Perhaps.
But "internal confirmation" is known to have more errors accompanied with it than our best-known-method of rational analysis.
This doesn't mean rational analysis is right.
It just means what it is: that a rational analysis has proven itself to be our best-known-method (contain the smallest chance of being-wrong) of identifying the truth of reality.
Your choice if you want to use "internal confirmation" over rational analysis.
Your choice if you want to attempt to identify-something-about-reality using a method known to be more prone to error over a method known to be less prone to error.
Is it unreasonable to doubt the claim from so many people?
Not at all.
They're not being reasonable.
If we want to identify "something about reality" - wouldn't you think it would be reasonable to use our best-known-method over one that we know is more prone to being wrong?
Of course, if we want to "feel good about our life choices" - then perhaps we shouldn't focus on our best reality-identification method.
Just need to identify your priority (not always easy...) - then the "reasonable choice" is obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2265 by Phat, posted 09-06-2019 1:57 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 2276 of 3207 (862570)
09-06-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2275 by Tangle
09-06-2019 3:49 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:
I know for absolute certain that I'm typing stuff into this iPad.
You know for absolute certain that you're not mad?
You know for absolute certain that it's impossible for you to make a mistake?
You know for absolute certain that what you think about reality is actually reality?
You'd be the first...
So far, no human is capable of such things.
And I can prove it. More importantly so can you.
We can only prove things against the information we have available to us.
As "the information available to us" is not absolute - any proof is not absolute.
For both of us.
Unless you have absolute information?
You can not know about things that are outside our existing knowledge. By definition.
Exactly.
How can you say this right after saying you know something for "absolute certain??"
If you can't know things that are outside our existing knowledge, and our existing knowledge is not absolute - how are you "absolutely positive" something outside our existing knowledge will one day identify that what we currently think we know about [insert whatever here] is wrong?
But I'm off this roundabout again for another 50 pages. I'll leave you to go around and around.
Once again - I haven't moved.
Just identifying all these nonsensical, irrational, inconsistent "buggerings" you keep insisting on.
It's all here... the text won't disappear. Anytime you'd like to start being consistent and rational, feel free to return.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2275 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 3:49 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 2281 of 3207 (862648)
09-09-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2278 by ringo
09-07-2019 12:32 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo 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.
Which is an indication that the search is irrational.
There's nothing wrong with an irrational search - or searching for the sake of "just looking to see what we can see."
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.)
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us.
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.
The "information that we know we haven't looked there" is certainly available to us - but who cares?
The "information of whatever-is-there" is certainly not available to us - and this is what matters in searching everything "within our available information."
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).
Sure there is.
Prayer - tested and God failed.
God in the sun - tested and God failed.
God controlling weather - tested and God failed.
God creating a world-wide flood - tested and God failed.
You're just changing the test.
The test for luminiferous ether could be changed to include "maybe luminiferous ether only exists behind dark matter" too - we haven't done the luminiferous ether test behind dark matter yet - have we? Who's to say the results will be the same?
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.
Agreed.
Of course, there was a rational posited explanation for luminescent ether.
Where is the rational posited explanation for a non-universal God?
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.
Or change the definition of "God" to something that could be behind Dark Matter - with no rational reason to do so.
Thanks for proving my point, again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2278 by ringo, posted 09-07-2019 12:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2282 by ringo, posted 09-09-2019 12:11 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2289 by 1.61803, posted 09-12-2019 11:17 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2283 of 3207 (862678)
09-10-2019 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2282 by ringo
09-09-2019 12:11 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
here'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.)
And nobody here is doing that.
When you suggest that "perhaps God is behind Dark Matter" and this should cause serious doubt to adjust the rational conclusion of 'I know God does not exist' - you're doing exactly that.
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.
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.
You're wrong about this, I've been very clear and you even quoted it:
We have looked everywhere, according to our available information.
We don't care about looking everywhere beyond our available information when forming a rational conclusion based on our available information - why would we?
We do care if we, one day - perhaps, find something in our currently unavailable information that indicates God may actually exist - and upon this identification my conclusion will change immediately.
But without a rational link that God may actually exist - something more than "well, I can imagine God existing!" - without anything more than that, the current rational conclusion remains that I know that God does not exist.
That's a God-answers-prayer test, not a God-exists test.
If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the previous test(s) for Luminiferous Ether mean nothing as well.
Thanks for proving my point - that God is the same as Luminiferous Ether.
And we can know that both do not exist.
Really? What specific test did you perform in the sun?
Observations.
No God.
You don't think we actually have to "go" somewhere in order to observe it, do you?
People thought God was in the Sun.
But observations show that the Sun is nothing more than burning gases. No Gods.
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.
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.
But God doesn't do any of those things.
If we don't change the definition of God - then the tests stand.
If we don't change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - then the test stands.
If we change the definition of God - then the tests are irrelevant.
If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the the previous tests are irrelevant.
If there's no rational reason to suggest this new definition of God (or Luminiferous Ether) exists in the first place - then the new definition doesn't lend serious consideration to God actually existing. Especially if the "change in definition" is specifically to something we cannot currently test - like being "behind Dark Matter."
Being "behind Dark Matter" isn't the bad thing here - the bad thing is "not having a rational reason to suggest that... (something may exist behind Dark Matter.)"
It's quite possible to have a rational reason to suggest that something may exist behind Dark Matter.
We just don't have such a thing for God.
With no rational reason - obviously it shouldn't be considered in a rational analysis of our current knowledge.
The assumption was that a luminiferous ether was "needed" for light to propagate. That assumption turns out to be wrong.
The assumption was that a God was "needed" to answer prayers. That assumption turns out to be wrong.
The definition for luminiferous ether was never updated.
The definition for God was. Irrationally so.
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.
But there are facts.
All our observations show us that God is not needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc.
We have no observations that indicate that God even might be needed to create life, or keep evil at bay, etc.
Which means - we only have irrational reasons: "I can imagine God creating life, keeping evil at bay, etc!"
And, of course, irrational ideas should be trash-binned when doing a rational analysis of our current knowledge.
Based on all our currently available information and facts:
I know that God does not exist.
Since all our knoweldge is based on our "currently available information and facts," such terminology can be truncated and assumed as it is with every other usage of the word "know:"
I know that God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2282 by ringo, posted 09-09-2019 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2284 by ringo, posted 09-10-2019 11:52 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2285 of 3207 (862722)
09-11-2019 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2284 by ringo
09-10-2019 11:52 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
You have it backwards. It is not irrational to search everywhere that we know exists.
No one ever said it was.
Search everywhere and anywhere - I support such things.
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.
Anything more than imagination - and you have a point.
But, as long as it's nothing more than simple imagination, and the current facts suggest a pattern that God will not be found... you're being unreasonable to suggest otherwise.
You're trying to define God out of existence.
Not really.
I'm just seeing what happens when we put the idea of God through a rational analysis of our knowledge.
The result is objective: I know that God does not exist.
Added after edit:
I thought I'd clarify this: I am not prescribing reality - that's not what knowledge does.
God either exists or He does not.
Luminiferious Ether exists or it does not.
Winged horses with 5 horns exist, or they do not.
No amount of our knowledge - or saying we know one way or other other - will ever change the above facts.
However, based on a rational analysis of our knowledge:
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:
All our current information leaves a pattern that when we search for them in places we can search - we find that they do not exist there.
There is nothing more than "imagination" to suggest that they will ever be found in additional places we search.
Therefore - it is unreasonable to suggest that we "might one day find them" based upon nothing more than imagination.
But whether they absolutely exist or not?
Can't reasonably say that about anything at all.
Which is why our knowledge isn't based on absolutes.
Edited by Stile, : Additional ending thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2284 by ringo, posted 09-10-2019 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2286 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 3:40 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2287 of 3207 (862729)
09-11-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2286 by ringo
09-11-2019 3:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
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.
No it isn't.
Of course it's unreasonable - otherwise it leads to not know that ringo can bake cakes.
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...
Why isn't it also reasonable to suggest that ringo might not actually be able to bake cakes just because some people can imagine discovering that ringo's never been able to bake cakes in places we haven't yet searched?
Ringo baking cakes is only valid according to the information we have available to us - we've tested for ringo being able to bake cakes everywhere we can, and the test is positive, there is nothing (other than imagination) that would indicate ringo actually can't bake cakes and we're wrong.
God not existing is only valid according to the information we have available to us - we've tested for "God not existing" everywhere we can, and the test is positive, there is nothing (other than imagination) that would indicate God actually exists and we're wrong.
ringo writes:
It's unreasonable to stop looking.
No one is suggesting you should stop looking.
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.
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
Anything more than imagination - and you have a point.
Nothing is more than imagination until it is.
Exactly.
And most things (an infinite number of "most things") will always just be imagination.
Why use imagination to cast doubt on God, but not on ringo-baking-cakes?
And you knowing that the Northwest Passage didn't exist had the same reasoning. But the reasoning was wrong.
Wrong again - you're attemping confusion again.
The NWP was more than imagination while it was being searched for.
You, again, mean to say "water-throughways" - which shows the point I'm making. It had the same reasoning, the reasoning was correct, the "current conlucsion of the time" was wrong.
That's how our system of knowledge works - not by "always having to be 100% correct" but by adjusting when new information comes to light.
It's a strength of the system, not a fault.
It's why we're no longer in the Dark Ages. Imagination is no longer enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2286 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 3:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 4:37 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2290 of 3207 (862816)
09-13-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2288 by ringo
09-11-2019 4:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
We've been through that. Your time-travelling conspiracy theory is worthless. It throws all possibility of objectivity out the window.
Exactly. It has as much "rational analysis" support for it as does the idea that we could find God behind dark matter - absolutely none at all.
This idea you have that imagination-about-God should be given more rational weight than imagination-about-cakes is the problem.
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.
I gave you plenty of examples.
"Citing" isn't a requirement.
I'm doing a rational analysis - not scientific tests. I'm not looking for that level of rigor.
If you can even rationally suggest that it's more than imagination that God could be found behind Dark matter - I'll change my position.
For the same reason, the "tests" on God do not have to be "cited" as long as they were done and rational.
I'm saying that all tests ever done for God have all come out to show that God does not exist.
If you don't think so, you can show:
1. We have never tested for God before - ever (in which case I claim you are absurd.)
or
2. Some test has been done and the rational results show that God very well could exist (not necessarily "does" - even "could.")
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.
Rational analysis - see message 1 of this thread.
Tests: If God exists in the sun, there would be "something" in the sun other that causes a difference that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists in our hearts, there would be "something" in our hearts that causes a difference that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists in the space around us, there would be "something" in the space around us that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists anywhere at all in any part of the information we're aware of, there would be "something" in our information that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Irrational possibility: We can imagine God existing outside our current information (perhaps Behind Dark Matter) and we just haven't yet found Him.
-but this is ignored, because it's nothing more than imagination
Please compare to Luminiferous Ether tests:
Tests: If Luminiferous Ether exists in the space around us, there would be "something" in the space around us that can only be attributable to Luminiferous Either. Nothing found.
Tests: If Luminiferous Ether exists anywhere at all in any part of the information we're aware of, there would be "something" in our information that can only be attributable to Luminiferous Ether. Nothing found.
Irrational possiblity: We can imagine Luminiferous Ether existing outside our current information (perhaps Behind Dark Matter) and we just haven't yet found it.
-but this is ignored, because it's nothing more than imagination
Again - you seem fine ignoring irrational imagination for Luminiferous Ether or ringo-baking-cakes. But you cling to it with no rational reason for God - and suggest that this should affect a rational analysis of our knowledge?
Absurd.
We've been through that. What has happened can not un-happen. What has not happened can possibly happen.
We did go through it.
You still haven't said why you favour imagination for God, but lend no weight for imagination about ringo-baking-cakes.
Other than, of course, your proposal of the popularity behind the imagination for God.
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.
Yes, and when we're there - the rational analysis says such things do not exist.
How can it say otherwise?
What information can possibly point to a rational reason to say something "might" exist when there's no information about it yet at all?
Wait... you don't think our claims of knowledge are absolute, do you?
Do you remember that our claims of knowledge do not prescribe reality?
Are you aware that our currently-best-method of identifying reality (rational analysis) is not 100% accurate? It does contain error! It simply contains less error than the other methods.
When we follow it, of course.
If you insist on letting imagination cloud your judgement of God's existence, but not for cakes or Luminiferous Ether... then you are not using our "best-known-method" you're actually using a method closer linked to that used during the Dark Ages.
It's up to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 4:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2291 by Phat, posted 09-13-2019 5:02 PM Stile has replied
 Message 2292 by ringo, posted 09-13-2019 5:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2293 of 3207 (862896)
09-16-2019 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2292 by ringo
09-13-2019 5:14 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
No it doesn't. Looking in a place we haven't looked yet is entirely different from unseeing what we have already observed.
The same applies to both.
We have already observed (according to everything we can) that ringo can bake cakes.
We have already observed (according to everything we can) that God does not exist.
We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for ringo-baking-cakes, maybe we'll find something that tells us that we were wrong, and previous observations of ringo-baking-cakes were mis-interpreted and no longer apply. Ringo actually cannot bake cakes, and never did for any historical time we thought he could.
We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for God existing, maybe we'll find something that tells us that we were wrong, and previous observations of God-not-existing were mis-interpreted and no longer apply. God actually does exist, for always did for any historical time we thought he could.
You're just cherry picking.
Be consistent.
ringo writes:
We certainly have not tested for God before. If we had, you should be able to give some proper examples.
Sun. Prayer. Our hearts. Miracles. The flood.
Again - just because you don't accept them, and you accept the Luminiferous Either test does not make a difference unless you explain why you accept some and not others. In a coherent, objectively-applicable, rational way.
Remember - the Luminiferous Ether test was within our capabilities of testing.
If you're trying to say that God is not within our capabilities of testing - because (according to our current facts) God only exists as an imaginary construct with no link to reality - you fall into being irrational again. Such an idea is irrelevant to a current rational analysis of our knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2292 by ringo, posted 09-13-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2295 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 11:55 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 2294 of 3207 (862897)
09-16-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2291 by Phat
09-13-2019 5:02 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:
You essentially place no higher of value on God than you do on a hypothetical cake.
In all senses of the word "value?" Absolutely not. In fact, I place more value on God than cakes.
Of course, the sense of the word "value" when used in the context of a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge - then you're right - I treat all items with equal value for considering such an aspect. I would also say that if you increase the value of one over another - then you're not doing a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge.
The greatest commandment was and is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength.
If this forces you to be unable to do a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge - so be it.
But be honest about it.
Don't say you're doing both, when you can't.
I can understand your arguments using rationality and the mind. I can't understand nor determine how hard you search with your heart, intuition, and desire.
Perhaps you only need to understand the difference.
I'm not saying the mind is better than the heart.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite a few times already - that I think irrational searches and ideas can be much more powerful than rational ones. And they are required for human advancement.
But can you separate the two?
Are you able to identify when a "mind" search is being done - and restrict yourself to a "mind" conclusion?
Are you able to identify when a "heart" search is being done - and restrict yourself to a "heart" conclusion?
Are you able to identify when/where they should be applied?
Like using a mind conclusion to know when you can turn left at an intersection.
And using a heart conclusion to know when you are ready to have kids.
It doesn't mean one is greater than the other.
Turning left safely can protect your kids.
Having kids may mean you need to drive places.
But mixing them up in the wrong ways can be devastating.
If you turn left "when you're ready" instead of when it's safe - you can destroy your entire family.
If you have kids when your mind says all facts are safe instead of when your heart says you're ready - you may never have kids.
Separate and identify in order to have a family and keep them safe.
Confuse and mix at your own (and those around you!) peril.
This thread happens to be focused on the mind-conclusion, and what the mind-conclusion says about God's existence.
This doesn't mean it's correct or "more important" than the heart conclusion - just separate and the current context doesn't include the heart conclusion.
From the first post in this thread, even:
quote:
And I think that my basis is rational.
...
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.
This should identify to you that I'm discussing a mind-conclusion and not a heart-conclusion.
If you want to make a heart-conclusion about God's existence, and deem that as more important - not only do I accept that, I applaud and support you for it.
I'm just clarifying that you can't take a heart-conclusion and say it corrects what the mind-conclusion side says.
You can ignore the mind-conclusion - but it would be deceitful to say the mind-conclusion is something-other-than-it-is just because you heart-conclusion is different.
It seems to me that you have basically laid out a case for why you don't really need Him.
It seems to me that you are unable to separate two different contexts without mixing them together.
I hope for your sake and the sake of those around you that you are actually able to do this when turning left.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by Phat, posted 09-13-2019 5:02 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 2296 of 3207 (862901)
09-16-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2289 by 1.61803
09-12-2019 11:17 AM


Re: When specifics are required
1.61803 writes:
I get the impression that Ringo and you are possibly talking about two completely different things.
In a sense, yes.
And in another, no.
God does not exist scientifically. In other words, in science something is said to exist if observations match predictions. In terms of God science has nothing to offer since there is no way to even begin to test something that by definition defies being scrutinized using the scientific method. Why because as you have pointed out God does not exist , (scientifically). It is a moot point.
I am not limiting myself to a "scientific" conclusion.
Science has a very rigorous level attached to it.
I am, however, limiting myself to a "rational" conclusion that is still attached to factual tests and evidence. Just not up to the level of rigour that comes with "science."
I have been calling this "rational" method our currently "best-known-method-for-knowing-things," since it is.
God is a religious/philosophical concept and in that framework does exist.
And as Ringo has pointed out there can be no proofs for the existence or non existence of a thing, only evidence that can be either evaluated or not.
I agree.
My point is to remain consistent.
If ringo wants to talk about religious/philosophical concept of God's existence... then why talk about cakes and North West Passages in a rational way and refuse to consider the religious/philosophical arguments as applied to those more mundane items?
If ringo wants to talk about cakes and the North West Passage in a rational way... then why not also talk about God's existence in a rational way?
If we're going to be consistent:
Either the religous/philosophical arguments apply to everything (cakes, NWP's and God) - and we don't "know" if any of them exist or not (as we can always philosophically identify some idea that would cause our current rationally-based conclusion to be incorrect.)
Or the rational arguments apply to everything (cakes, NWP's and God) - and we know that cakes exist, we know that the NWP exists and we know that God does not exist.
I've even left the door open to say both - but just explicitly specify which one you're using and when.
What I've been arguing against.... is flip-flopping between the usage of these two things, and using that confusion to come to a conclusion that we cannot say, rationally, that we know God does not exist.
I am perfectly fine with (and I've offered this myself) the explanation of "cakes and NWPs are popularly discussed in a rational sense while God is popularly discussed in a philosophical sense... and my conclusion is only valid when ignoring this argument-of-popularity with God and choosing (rightly or wrongly - personal opinion here) to discuss God's existence in a rational sense."
And since there is no physical evidence to evaluate, scientist do not have anything to make predictions on let alone the ability to test them.
Perhaps in science - but I'm not even sure about that (I'm not a scientist - so I don't claim to understand all the nuances within "science.")
However, in a rational analysis - we are definitely able to make positive observations about things not existing just as much as we can make positive observations of things existing. Such as identifying "no cars are coming" so it's safe to turn left. Or identifying that keys don't exist on tables. Or identifying that there are no facts anywhere, across human history, that would suggest the possibility of God existing somewhere.
I get the impression that Ringo and you are possibly talking about two completely different things.
I'm saying my description is correct in a rational sense according to our best-known-method-for-knowing-things.
ringo seems to pick parts of my discussion and say they are not rational, or applicable to our best-known-method-for-knowing-things.
If ringo is arguing that my statements do not apply to "irrational knowledge-methods" or "knowledge methods that are other than our best-known-methods-for-knowing-things." Then ringo is doing a terrible job explaining such a thing - as I would have no argument. It is not my intent to apply this idea to such things. It wouldn't even make sense to attempt such an endeavor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2289 by 1.61803, posted 09-12-2019 11:17 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024