Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 12:14 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,395 Year: 15,431/19,786 Month: 2,154/3,058 Week: 12/516 Day: 12/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12701
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 3 of 2138 (675377)
10-10-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
10-10-2012 2:27 PM


Rationality and Reasonableness.
Hi Stile! You are one of my favorite opponents, since we rarely agree and yet are so polite to each other!

Stile writes:

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

So by the definition of knowing, what you mean is that through all logic, rationality, and reasonableness you know that God does not exist...right? If so, I am inclined to agree with you. My only comment would be that just because one guy knows something does not lead to the logical presupposition that everyone knows it.
Stile writes:

I don't believe God doesn't exist, I don't have faith that God doesn't exist, I don't simply have a lack of belief in God. I know that God doesn't exist. And I think that my basis is rational.

Again, Ive no reason to doubt your position. I cannot counter it with the idea that I know that God exists. All I can say is that I believe that God exists.
Stile writes:

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

In the case of God, we don't really have a consensus on what this Being is supposed to do, nor where He/She/It resides. Thus, I would argue that the claim is more difficult than the Santa Claus one. Besides, some would argue that if the idea of Santa Claus classically defined exists in their hearts and minds, Santa Claus does in fact exist at their house...living through them, no doubt. Again, it is but a belief and a belief put into practice, however.
Stile writes:

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake? We don't. But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything.

And again, this is where I can't challenge your logic.

My only question is this: Is it possible that some people know differently than other people, or must we assign everyone a demand to adhere to the evidence apart from their own subjective musings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 10-10-2012 2:27 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 10-11-2012 10:49 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12701
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 7 of 2138 (675392)
10-11-2012 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
10-10-2012 7:02 PM


Absense Of Evidence
Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
...
subbie writes:

What it does not mean is proof of absence. That's because there are levels of evidence. Finding the fingerprints of someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that they were present, but it's not proof. Perhaps there's some other way to account for the fingerprints being there besides the person being there. But the point is that the presence of fingerprints does not need to definitively prove that the person was there to be evidence that they were there.

The only sort of subjective evidence that I can see supporting the possibility of a Deity is personal experiences and changed lives. I don't however, expect that to be counted as public evidence, but rather rationale for private and personal belief.

Again, in this subject...as discussed in a science forum, I have no argument with Stiles theory as to why God does not exist. On a personal level, I have my own standards, however.

Edited by Phat, :


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 10-10-2012 7:02 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12701
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 8 of 2138 (675393)
10-11-2012 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
10-11-2012 1:20 AM


Seeing Is Believing
PaulK writes:

Ask yourself, is the absence of evidence for an elephant in your living room evidence that an elephant is not present in your living room ?

From what I know of Elephants, I most definitely agree that absence of evidence...not to mention presence...is all that I need to conclude that no elephant is in my living room.

Of course, I dont expect a Deity to be visible to begin with, so my criteria for evidence of such a presence would revolve around beliefs, feelings, and bias. Logically, there is no verifiable nor recordable evidence for a Deity or any supernatural entity in my living room.

And yet I believe that He is there. Belief is all that I have. I have no knowledge apart from subjective experience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2012 1:20 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2012 4:10 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12701
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 78 of 2138 (675630)
10-13-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
10-12-2012 5:40 PM


Proof is in the Pudding
Crashfrog writes:

Conspicuous absence of evidence is positive evidence.

It all depends what you are trying to prove.

Wiki writes:

The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.

Edited by Phat, : added malarky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2012 5:40 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 3:45 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12701
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 80 of 2138 (675655)
10-14-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Tangle
10-14-2012 3:45 AM


Snakes may be in the pudding
tangle writes:

Mankind has spent thousands of years looking for this God thing and the only evidence he's found has been in his own mind. God is absent.

What if thats the only way God decided to reveal Himself?(Herself,Itself, etc)

Assuming a concept of communion, how would one tell whether God was entirely their own imagination or that they were communing with Him? Granted, not all of mankind has claimed to have found said Deity. If only one man claimed to have found it, would it count? Say we had a team of people searching for snakes in your garden. The only way to prove to everyone that the snakes were there would be physical evidence, right? But what if these snakes were invisible and nobody was certain whether or not they existed?

  • Some of the searchers, however, claimed to have felt these snakes slithering on their arms.
  • a few of the claimants were delusional or prone to exaggeration, yet at least one of them was an otherwise respectable intelligent man.
  • These invisible snakes were said (by cultural mythos) to possess a venom that could cure many ailments. In fact, many people who were healed claimed that the snakes bit them as they were about to die. How do we separate fairy tales from folklore?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 79 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 3:45 AM Tangle has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 81 by Larni, posted 10-14-2012 7:20 AM Thugpreacha has responded
     Message 83 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 8:18 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
     Message 85 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 8:48 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
  • Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 82 of 2138 (675657)
    10-14-2012 7:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 81 by Larni
    10-14-2012 7:20 AM


    Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
    Larni writes:

    ...Eventually the 'echo' of the anxiety fades away.

    So if there is no actual evidence of God we must conclude for all intents and purposes that that is no difference in him not existing or not interacting with us in any way.

    Perhaps I have anxiety over Him not being real. I feel that when I talk to Him (to an empty room) that He responds in a subtle way....if nothing else, its the saner calm altruistic part of my mind that calms my anxiety. I will admit that I need for Him to exist.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by Larni, posted 10-14-2012 7:20 AM Larni has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 84 by Larni, posted 10-14-2012 8:21 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 107 of 2138 (675798)
    10-16-2012 1:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
    10-16-2012 1:13 AM


    Re: Ideas and Data
    Wait, what? If it ain't true then how's it a statement of fact?

    Maybe be cause it is pending. It ain't yet false neither.

    Perhaps we should call it a statement of proposed fact.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2012 1:13 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2012 1:21 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 121 of 2138 (675843)
    10-16-2012 1:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 111 by Stile
    10-16-2012 9:23 AM


    Re: Equivocation on "knowing things"
    Stile writes:

    The way I've set things up... it most certainly IS necessary for there to be evidential support for God's existence before you can use the statement of fact that "I know God exists." If we stop equivocating and use a single definition for the word "know," you either have to accept this, or stop using the word "know" for anything else.

    Is there a difference between saying "I know that God does not exist" and "we know that God does not exist?"

    I would argue that subjective experience allows for some people to honestly know that God does not exist and for other people to honestly doubt or even affirm that God exists.It is always good to continue questioning, however. And as for tangles "garden" not only is the universe a very big garden, but our human mind itself is a rather large garden as well. I don't think that we have explored every nook and cranny in there or out there either. In fact, I wouldnt even assign a probability, as others have done.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 9:23 AM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 123 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2012 1:57 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
     Message 126 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 2:44 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 122 of 2138 (675845)
    10-16-2012 1:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
    10-16-2012 12:46 PM


    What we know today may not be known tomorrow
    Ringo writes:

    Why can't we limit what is "known" to what actually is known instead of speculating that what is not known yet will never be known?

    Straggler writes:

    Because it is always philosophically possible that some anomalous result is around the corner waiting to blow away everything we think we know. Beyond accepting that all knowledge is tentative and fallible I see no reason to actually deny that we can know things because of this.

    I like this exchange. So for me personally, I can't say...beyond subjective experiences coupled with confirmation bias...that I know God exists, although I do often irrationally talk with Him. I also cannot honestly say that I know that He doesn't exist, though I suppose were I to wish to be in agreement with my neighbor on such a lofty philosophical possibility I may accept further knowledge.

    Lots depends on the motive, if we are to approach this from a strictly philosophical standpoint. First of all, if we have a room full of philosophers seeking something to conclude, bias often enters the picture. I may seek to prove X to be true, while you may seek to prove Y true. And further, what do we define as truth?
    DEFINITION OF TRUE or TRUTH:

  • That X is unknowable.
  • That X is knowable.
  • That logic is truth.
    etc etc. Do you see my point?

    Does this hypothetical room of philosophers wish to ultimately agree or disagree? Or perhaps the goal is simply to expand knowledge....


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2012 12:46 PM Straggler has not yet responded

      
  • Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 129 of 2138 (675871)
    10-16-2012 5:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
    10-16-2012 3:19 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Ringo writes:

    I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star.

    And I have also proposed that He/She/It may be somewhere in our mind or brain, which, by the way does not mean that we invented Him/Her/It. All that it means is that He can hide quite well.

    Still, Knowledge is not yet complete, and the facts are not all yet in. Stay tuned as we look in all of the gardens on the block...We dug up Tangles whole yard and all we found were earthworms to use as fishing bait!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 3:19 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 132 of 2138 (675906)
    10-17-2012 11:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
    10-17-2012 10:13 AM


    Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
    We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria.

    This topic is in the Science Forums.

    Thus I can summarize that I have no evidence apart from my subjective beliefs and feelings on the matter.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-17-2012 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 139 of 2138 (675923)
    10-17-2012 2:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
    10-17-2012 2:22 PM


    Re: Absurd fallacies
    As a believer, I seem to see that your argument is mixing emotion and expectation with logic, reason, and reality. Or am I misunderstanding you?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM 1.61803 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 237 of 2138 (676485)
    10-23-2012 9:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 232 by Tangle
    10-22-2012 5:22 PM


    Re: The Northwest Passage
    Tangle writes:

    The thing is, the god hypothesis isn't exactly new is it? The entire planet has been looking for this thing since the dawn of humanity with nothing to show for it but human corruption and wishful thinking.

    Personally, I'm entirely happy to rule out any and all the Gods we've so far invented, but leave open, as an outside possibility, the chance that one day a thoroughly disinterested god will be found playing dominos with himself in another dimension. (You can't rule it out can you?)

    In my opinion,and for the sake of science, if we cant rule one of them out we cant rule any of them out...but maybe we can have a tournament and reduce them down to the Final Four or something.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by Tangle, posted 10-22-2012 5:22 PM Tangle has not yet responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 292 of 2138 (677322)
    10-29-2012 8:13 AM
    Reply to: Message 290 by Panda
    10-29-2012 7:49 AM


    To Know and yet to Not Know
    This post serves as my topic summation.

    In your view, is there anything that does not exist?

    In my mind, anything within the realm of my imagination can exist. In my belief, GOD(as I understand Him) exists. Stile does, however, have a point in that testable observable human reality, we collectively must have logic, reason, and reality as our basis for knowledge.

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 290 by Panda, posted 10-29-2012 7:49 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12701
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.0


    Message 305 of 2138 (677577)
    10-30-2012 4:16 PM


    Summary
    I can honestly say that I can know that God is unprovable.

    I also can honestly say that my relationship with Him is in my mind and soul, if you will. I am trying to know Him.

    I believe that God can be known if one seeks Him with their whole heart. (integrity)

    I also believe that God draws men to seek Him. We have no desire to do so in our natural state of mind...unless the God we seek is one created entirely on our own terms and desires.


      
    1
    23456
    ...
    13NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019