|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No it doesn't. Looking in a place we haven't looked yet is entirely different from unseeing what we have already observed.
It has as much "rational analysis" support for it as does the idea that we could find God behind dark matter.... Stile writes:
When you're comparing your "analysis" to real science like Michelson-Morley, citing real examples most certainly is a requirement.
"Citing" isn't a requirement.I'm doing a rational analysis - not scientific tests. I'm not looking for that level of rigor. Stile writes:
We certainly have not tested for God before. If we had, you should be able to give some proper examples.
If you don't think so, you can show: 1. We have never tested for God before - ever.... Stile writes:
Give some examples. ... a difference that can only be attributable to God.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No we have not. There are places that we're pretty sure exist where we haven't looked.
We have already observed (according to everything we can) that God does not exist. Stile writes:
We don't need to. Once we find something, we can say we know it exists.
We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for ringo-baking-cakes.... Stile writes:
Been there. Done that. Not tests for the existence of God.
Sun. Prayer. Our hearts. Miracles. The flood. Stile writes:
So, until we have a God test within our capabilities of testing, we can't say we "know" the result of a non-existent test. Remember - the Luminiferous Ether test was within our capabilities of testing.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We've been through that. The search for God is at the same stage as the search for the Northwest Passage before any passages were known. It is premature to say we "know" that no passages exist.
And what is the observation that leads us to believe that God might be found there? Stile writes:
We've been through that. They are not included because they are not tests for God. They are tests for specific things that God is supposed to have done.
Unless you have an objective, consistent method for testing things that describes why these God tests are not included .... Stile writes:
We've been through that. The rational reason is that we can't find anything if we don't look. ...until we have a rational reason to even try and have a "God test" in the first place....Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Nonsense. What we have observed we can say we know. It would take a reliable counter-observation to nullify the knowledge. But what we have not observed we can not say we have knowledge. We have only lack of knowledge. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).
We have been through this - if, at that stage, you are unable to say "I know that water passages do not exist."Then, at this current stage, you also can't say "I know ringo can bake cakes." Stile writes:
No they were not. The events that were attributed to God were not found. That has no bearing on the existence of God. they were tests for GodMaturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.
And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes. Stile writes:
Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A).
We have observed God not existing. Stile writes:
Using what test? A flood that didn't happen has nothing to do with the existence of God.
We don't have a lack of knowledge, we have positive, objective, factual observations that God does not exist. Stile writes:
There never has been a definition of God that is adequate for testing His existence. All you're repeating is the currently-changed-to-definition such that the previous tests are no longer applicable.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It is relevant because you said it is "as much as":
ringo writes:
True, but irrelevant. Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.quote:You're contradicting yourself. Stile writes:
There is no such thing as a positive non-observation.
I'm getting a positive observation of "not God" everywhere we're able to check. Stile writes:
Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.
All the various things people have attributed to God.All of them tested, all of them conclude: no God. Stile writes:
I haven't changed any definition. You're the one who is tailoring the definition to fit your pre-determined conclusion. You just changed the definition after.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
That's not a positive observation. It's a negative observation and if it was reliable there would be no accidents.
It's how we know we can turn left because "no cars are coming" and therefore it's safe. Stile writes:
If you don't know whether or not the tests were objective, you can't claim to "know" that the conclusion was objective.
ringo writes:
I don't know. Maybe one of them did. Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method. Stile writes:
So you admit that no actual tests have been done and nothing has actually been observed. It's all just an ivory tower fantasy.
I'm doing a rational analysis - based on facts.Not a rigorous scientific test. Stile writes:
If you're not requiring scientific testing, you can't equate your fantasy with me baking a cake because that has been scientifically tested.
I agree that the tests for God likely do not come to scientific par with the tests for Luminiferous Ether - but who cares?No one's requiring scientific testing. Stile writes:
And that's invalid - because cakes and luminiferous ether have been scientifically tested. I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AlexCaledin writes:
The Queen is probably one of the most scientifically-tested people in the world. Come to the Queen's palace in London and say to the guard, "Let me scientifically test your Queen". They don't let every bozo off the street walk into CERN and play with the large hadron Collider either.Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing. -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
But not to the point where you can say you know that cars do not exist. You're only looking in one very limited place.
The rest of us do it quite safely, and quite often. Stile writes:
But you haven't - not one single, solitary test that would pass scientific muster. You haven't even specified what "detection of God" would look like.
I've shown you all the rational tests that have been done. Looking for God, pretty much everywhere, and never finding Him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You keep assuming I'm a Marxist. I'm not. Do Christianity and Marxism Have Anything In Common? You're more of a Marxist than I am with your predictions of class struggles in the future."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
If that was true, it should be a clue to you: If only one guy saw a unicorn, he might well be mistaken. So that we we'll never know if the supernatural is real since the Bible is one of the few documents that reveal it to us. But of course it isn't true. Every religion has its own documents that "reveal the supernatural"."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Exactly like the Bible. People like you assert that it's unique but you hvae no revelation.
Actually they don't, they may assert it but they don't reveal it. Faith writes:
Just like every other "holy" book. The Qur'an is a notable example.
But the Bible specifically describes events in terms of the supernatural AND it reports multiple witnesses of such events besides claiming to be written by direct witnesses. Faith writes:
It has nothing to do with what I believe or what you believe. The fact is that the Bible is not unique. I don't care if you want to believe other accounts of the supernatural...."If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
The question I asked im Message 1953 was, "What are the LOGICAL errors in the idea of God?" You still haven't answered that question.
Reluctant? I've discussed it for longer than I'd really care to! But anyway, to continue... Sarah Bellum writes:
I agree that the details are made up. But why is the idea of gods illogical? The concept of a god is a human invention, not a real thing, a personification of volcanoes or the ocean (Vulcan or Neptune) or of good and evil (Jesus and Beelzebub). What are the logical errors?"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
Still waiting. What's illogical about the idea of gods? be specific. But there's a difference between rational and irrational."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
If your concept of illogical was fully thought out, you should be able to give some examples of logical errors in the concept of gods. Appeal to popularity? Ad hominem? What are the errors?
Maybe your concept of "irrational" or "illogical" isn't fully thought out? Sarah Bellum writes:
There's a difference between not real and not logical. We had no reason to think that platypuses were real until we discoveted that they are. But there was never anything illogical about platypuses. For instance, we both know that horses are real and unicorns are fanciful (however many people may believe in them, or even write descriptions of their physiology and powers)."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024