Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8961 total)
32 online now:
Dr Adequate, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,272 Year: 1,020/23,288 Month: 1,020/1,851 Week: 143/321 Day: 2/56 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 145 of 271 (572561)
08-06-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 7:59 AM


Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

[Pluto] was there before we detected anything. Before we were able to detect anything. Long before we had the science or tools to detect it, back when Isaac Newton was creating his Newtonian telescope, it was there. Currently we look at stars and may not be able to detect wobbles from stars billions of light years away, but there could be planets there, we just can't detect it.

That's not the point, though. The point is that while we cannot detect it, it is irrational and unreasonable to claim that it is there. There are an infinite number of things we can claim to exist prior to their detection. Only a finite number of them will actually exist. Therefore, claiming something exists "before we are able to detect anything" is incredibly irrational and unreasonable.

It's simple logic, and I am correct in saying for the inth time that just because we cannot detect something, does not mean, it is not there.
(is there a better way of saying this since my English sucks?)

In naively taking this statement as it is... you are absolutely correct.
It also absolutely lowers the status of God or The Supernatural or whatever else is being discussed to the same level as ghosts, goblins and golden-golfing-gophers.

In taking this statement as an indication of the possiblity for existance for something... we must consider all the other infinite, ridiculous ideas that come along for the ride. Therefore, it is useless. Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to use such a statement in order to persuade anyone in thinking the possibility of existance of that something has increased above 0.00%


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 7:59 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:43 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 152 of 271 (572986)
08-09-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by riVeRraT
08-06-2010 11:43 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

Lack of being able to detect it, is not proof of it's non existence.

Yes, I know. I agreed with you in that previous post. My point is that "lack of being able to detect it" also doesn't provide a rational or reasonable basis to think it actually exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by riVeRraT, posted 08-06-2010 11:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:26 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 157 of 271 (573004)
08-09-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

Gideons test was pretty objective, but not a double blind controlled experiment.

Objective within the confines of the Bible... and the Bible is far from being objectively true. Therefore, Gideon's test does nothing to give us anything objective currently.

The other tests are subjective also. So no where in the bible are we told to objectively test God's existence. It is all subjective. We are to have faith. If God exists, and He is the creator of the universe we live in, I would think that He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him. So not being able to "objectively" find God, does not make me lose faith. Sometimes personal subjectivity is all you need. Personal subjectivity is the basis for many things in your life.

I agree. All I'm saying is that all these subjective things (including the things based on personal subjectivity in my life) are irrational and unreasonable reasons to believe that something actually exists in reality. I agree that you "are to have faith". I'm just pointing out that such faith is irrational and unreasonable simply because "He could hide Himself from all objective tests for Him". If we can't detect anything, then there's nothing to base any rational and reasonable judgements upon.

Let me state it this way:

It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because of the personally subjective feelings of love I get when I think of her.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that my wife loves me because:
-she doesn't cheat on me
-she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company
-she says she loves me
-she goes out of her way to help build our lives together

However, NONE of these rational and reasonable reasons PROVE that my wife loves me (equivalent to the "science doesn't prove things" stuff you always hear about)
They are only rational and reasonable reasons to build a theory that my wife loves me.
This theory can (potentially) be falsified by many things:
-my wife cheating on me
-my wife saying she doesn't love me anymore and serving me with divorce papers
-my wife sabotaging our lives and purposefully making things difficult for me

And again with God:

It is irrational and unreasonable for me to claim that God exists because of the personally subjective feelings I get when I think of Him.
It is rational and reasonable for me to claim that God exists because:
-???
-there are no points here because God is not detectable

Because we don't have any rational and reasonable points to use, we cannot create a "God really does exist" theory. Without any of those points, any theory is unfalsifiable as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 11:26 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 5:52 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 160 of 271 (573111)
08-09-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by riVeRraT
08-09-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

That's what you see when you look at that?

No. We weren't talking about what I see when I look at that in the general sense. We were talking about how I see that applying to our topic. And yes, that's how I see it applying to our topic about detecting God.

If we can't detect anything objectively is what you meant?

Yes, that's what this topic is about. Did you read the opening post? I'll quote it for you here:

killinghurts writes:

By 'detect' I mean "to discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of".

Sounds pretty objective to me.

riVeRraT writes:

But that does not objectively prove that she really loves you.

I agree. That's why I said none of that proves she loves me.

This proves nothing either. She may actually still love you, just have problems.

I think it's more likely that her concept of "love" isn't the same as my concept of "love"... in which case, as far as I'm concerned... she doesn't love me.

There are plenty of points, you just choose to ignore them, and explain them away to more rational(earthly) things.

If you have any points on how to detect God, objectively (as this topic is about), please go ahead and let everyone know.

Don't make the mistake of thinking we have to "claim" God exists. We shouldn't do that imo. I have found the only way to show people that God exists, is to love them, the way He loves me. That is the only way.

An excellent plan. Although that really wouldn't "show me" that God exists. It would just show me that you're a nice person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by riVeRraT, posted 08-09-2010 5:52 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:22 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 164 of 271 (573470)
08-11-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by riVeRraT
08-10-2010 9:22 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

Then you are just as guilty as a televangelist who takes things of the bible out of context, and uses the words for whatever he wants.
I showed you that because of all the subjective stuff in the bible, that was pretty objective.

...but it's not objective at all. There's nothing about it that can be shown to be objectively true. It's just a unverified claim that is claimed to be shown in an objective way. That's not objective in the sense of being any help in detecting God, objective things can be verified.

Don't get testy, I was just asking.

Don't get sensitive, I was just saying.

Which proves one of my points. Love is subjective, but it exists. There is no fail safe "love detector".

But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.

I've been trying to tell you for the last bunch of posts, that there is no objective test for God. That is not the point I am trying to make, so stop trying to refute it.

Then perhaps we agree and there is no futher point in discussion. It is currently irrational and unreasonable to assert that God can be detected... because He can't.

Yep, and God would do the rest.

Or not. It's quite possible that the reason God cannot be detected is because God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2010 9:22 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:47 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3873
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 176 of 271 (573700)
08-12-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by riVeRraT
08-12-2010 7:47 AM


Re: Correct, but uselessly so
riVeRraT writes:

I think you are mixing up objectivity with scientific consensus.

Then perhaps you could show something that is objective, yet cannot be verified? Otherwise, no, I am not confusing anything.

But that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a fail-safe "love detector" for me to identify if my wife loves me. Based upon the rational and reasonable indications that my wife loves me. The additional point was that there is not any rational and reasonable indications that can be used to detect God.

Love in itself is subjective. You have no way of proving it from your own personal standards, because the person who "loves" you may have different standards. Yet, it all exists.

Except I do have ways of showing it from my own personal standards. That's exactly what I showed you before.
The fact that the person who loves me may have different stanadard does nothing to reduce the objectivity of my own standards if I choose to make those standards public and hold to them.
All those rational and reasonable things I listed show that my wife loves me according to my own personal standards.
They can all be objectively falsified.

You subjectively detect your wife's love for you, and that is good enough for you.

You seem fond of saying such, and yet I've shown you that you're wrong.
The feelings of love I have when I think of my wife are subjective.
However, I certainly can (and do) objectively detect my wife's love for me according to the rational and reasonable things I've already listed.

If you're going to claim I can't do this, you're going to have to show how the things I listed cannot be objectively tested for, or why it would be impossible for these things to be indications of "love". Here's the list again:

Stile writes:

-she doesn't cheat on me
-she smiles and laughs and appears to enjoy my company
-she says she loves me
-she goes out of her way to help build our lives together

...sounds pretty objective to me, also sounds like love as far as any average couple in North America goes... but perhaps you can think of something I can't.

...perhaps what you are trying to get at is that I cannot read my wife's mind and it's possible (however slim) that she is deceiving me and actually does not love me. This is true, but again, irrelevant. The same objective, rational, reasonable list of things I have still exists and it's still objective, rational and reasonable. There does exist a possibility that it will lead to an inaccurate conclusion... but this is the same with any and all scientific theories as well. It's called "tentativity".

Just because we haven't objectively tested the existence of aliens, does not mean that they do not exist.

Exactly. Of course, this is a useless statement in trying to detect that aliens do, actually, exist.
Without confirmed objective tests, it is irrational and unreasonable to think that aliens exist... and the same with God. Even if it might be true.

Take the planet Pluto, for example. It's always existed (as long as humans have been around, anyway). However, before there was any verified, objective indication that Pluto existed, it was irrational and unreasonable to believe it existed. You would have been right... you just wouldn't be rational or reasonable about it.

Similar to me saying there are 50 more planets in our solar system beyond Pluto. Maybe we haven't detected them yet. Maybe they actually exist. Regardless... it is currently irrational and unreasonable for me to think that they actually do exist until there is some way to detect them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by riVeRraT, posted 08-12-2010 7:47 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020