Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
26 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,948 Year: 21,984/19,786 Month: 547/1,834 Week: 47/500 Day: 5/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 2312 (675445)
10-11-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
10-10-2012 2:27 PM


Stile writes:

I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance.


This strikes me as more of a talking point than an actual argument. You're sitting back with your arms folded and demanding, "Show me the evidence." If there is no evidence forthcoming, you claim victory. It may be technically valid but it's weak.

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 29 by Stile, posted 10-11-2012 1:29 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 32 of 2312 (675457)
10-11-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Stile
10-11-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Neener
Stile writes:

Can you suggest a better way to "know" things?


It's always better to "know" things based on positive evidence rather than lack of evidence.

Stile writes:

You have no problem saying "I know that the Loch Ness monster does not exist."


I do have a problem with that actually. I think the likelihood of the Loch Ness monster existing is much higher than the likelihood of fairies or gods existing - simply because there are no unnatural attributes required.

Edited by ringo, : Xpelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Stile, posted 10-11-2012 1:29 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 10-11-2012 2:11 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 45 of 2312 (675491)
10-11-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
10-11-2012 2:11 PM


Re: Neener
subbie writes:

Stile has investigated and found no evidence where such evidence would be expected to be.


That could be because his expectations are unrealistic. If he expects to find an elephant in his living room and doesn't, it may be premature to conclude that elephants don't exist. He may need to broaden his scope.

subbie writes:

Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?


Yes.

I think we should maintain a healthy state of agnosticism about things that do exist too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 10-11-2012 2:11 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 10-11-2012 4:32 PM ringo has responded
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 9:38 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 68 of 2312 (675586)
10-12-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
10-11-2012 4:32 PM


Re: Neener
subbie writes:

You don't actually maintain an agnostic position on the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a real person.


Allow me to tweak your example slightly. I have a book which purports itself to be an actual biography of James Bond. It tells what "really" happened in some of Bond's adventures and it also contends that some of them were just made up by Ian Fleming.

Nothing in the book suggests that it is fiction. So yes, I do maintain an agnostic position on whether James Bond was real. It's plausible that he was, just as it's plausible that Sherlock Holmes or Jesus was real. The one difference in Sherlock Holmes is that he was billed as fiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 10-11-2012 4:32 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 70 of 2312 (675588)
10-12-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
10-12-2012 9:38 AM


Re: Neener
Stile writes:

If we have checked all testable proposals, wouldn't you say that we have broadened our scope sufficiently to rationally say that "I know God does not exist?"


How long did it take to find the Northwest Passage? We've only just begun to explore one little corner of the universe, so I think it's ludicrously premature to pretend that we've broadened our scope sufficiently.

Stile writes:

Do you know anything?

I can say that I "know" how to do long division. I think we should leave it at that.

Your idea of claiming we know something until we're proven wrong just seems silly to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 9:38 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:22 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 75 of 2312 (675595)
10-12-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
10-12-2012 3:22 PM


Re: Neener
Stile writes:

Are you claiming that God exists somewhere else in the universe?


I'm claiming that you don't "know" He doesn't.

Stile writes:

What rationally makes you think God will exist somewhere else in the universe?


Not "will" exist, could exist.

Stile writes:

... then we most certainly cannot say that we know long division, or any of the rest of mathematics.


It isn't just mathematics.I also know how to bake a cake. I know how to operate a table saw. I know how an airplane flies - to the extent that I could build one. I know how to get to France.

I think you're misusing the word "know", diluting it from something that we can use on a repeatable basis to something that just hasn't been proven wrong yet.

Stile writes:

I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.


"All areas we're able to investigate" begins with nothing and we don't know where it ends. At what point on that continuum do you decide that you "know" something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 10-12-2012 3:22 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 12:02 PM ringo has responded
 Message 378 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-23-2018 3:15 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 87 of 2312 (675680)
10-14-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
10-14-2012 8:18 AM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:

If these snakes are invisible and leave no evidence of themselves, it makes no difference whether they exist or not - for all practical purposes they don't exist. And given the total lack of any evidence, only the delusional would continue to believe in them.


You're moving the goalposts. We're talking about "knowing" that God doesn't exist. Whether He exists "for practical purposes" is another question. If you can't find Him - and admittedly you've only looked in your own garden - that might mean that He doesn't matter but it has no bearing on whether or not He exists. As long as He could be "hiding", you can't legitimately claim that you "know" He doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 8:18 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 4:38 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 89 of 2312 (675686)
10-14-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tangle
10-14-2012 4:38 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:

It's an error to say absence of evidence is not indicative of a simple absence.


It's also an error to say that absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence. The proper approach is to say that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. However, it is weak evidence at best, which is why the OP fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 4:38 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 5:41 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 91 of 2312 (675690)
10-14-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tangle
10-14-2012 5:41 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:

If you've taken every feasible effort to establish evidence of presence, if it's not found, then it IS evidence of absence.


The operative phrase there is "every feasible effort". As I mentioned earlier, evidence that there is no elephant in your living room says nothing about the overall existence of elephants. Evidence that there are no snakes in your garden says nothing about the overall existence of snakes. And evidence that there are no gods anywhere that we have looked says nothing about the overall existence of gods.

Creationists use the same argument as the OP: Nothing we have tried has produced life in the lab, therefore they "know" that life can not arise by natural means. I don't like it when they use it and I don't like it when you use it either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 5:41 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 6:59 PM ringo has responded
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2012 2:42 PM ringo has responded
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 3:00 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 116 of 2312 (675826)
10-16-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
10-15-2012 2:42 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Straggler writes:

Can you give an example of something you think we can legitimately describe as "known"....?


I did. How to bake a cake is known. How to get to France is known. The experiments are repeatable.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2012 2:42 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2012 12:46 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 117 of 2312 (675829)
10-16-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Stile
10-15-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Stile writes:

I'm not asking for a lot, I'm not saying you have to produce God... just produce anything that even rationally points towards God.


Step outside tonight and look at the third star from the left. It's thirty-nine boolagazillion light-years away. Some day, if and when we develop the capability to study the planets orbiting around it, we might find God on the far side watching a really big big-screen TV.

That's the same position we were in with regard to the Northwest Passage in the 1600s - and your great-great ancestor was claiming that he knew the Northwest Passage didn't exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Stile, posted 10-15-2012 3:00 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 1:26 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 118 of 2312 (675830)
10-16-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
10-14-2012 6:59 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:

My parameters were marked, the question was whether there where snakes in my garden, not the world or cosmos.


So you're not just moving the goalposts; you're widening the goal to the point that kicking the ball in a vaguely easterly direction scores a goal. But your example becomes irrelevant to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 10-14-2012 6:59 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 124 of 2312 (675854)
10-16-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
10-16-2012 12:46 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Straggler writes:

But how do you know that some unexpected anomolous result isn't around the corner?


We don't know absolutely. We have a high level of confidence.

Straggler writes:

This is the equivalent response to your examples that the invisible snakes and gods that have yet to reveal themselves are to Stile's and Tangle's examples.


Nonsense. The snakes could be living in the neighour's yard and naturally retreat there whenever Tangle looks for them. He can not reasonably say, "I know there are no snakes in my garden." He can only have a high degree of confidence that they're not there when he's actually looking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 10-16-2012 12:46 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2012 7:50 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 125 of 2312 (675855)
10-16-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
10-16-2012 1:26 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Stile writes:

What is it about planets that we have learned that indicates that God might exist on one?


A better quetion would be, "What makes it impossible? Or even unlikely?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 1:26 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 3:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 128 of 2312 (675858)
10-16-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Stile
10-16-2012 3:01 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Stile writes:

"What makes God's existance unlikely?"

The fact that we have checked on every rational indication that's ever been proposed for God's existance (like being in the sun or protecting innocent people...) and they have all come up negative for God's existance.


But that isn't a fact. I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star. You are not capable of testing that proposition any more than your ancestor was capable of testing a certain hypothetical passage through the ice in 1600.

So again, what makes it unlikely that God is there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 3:01 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-16-2012 5:43 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 130 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 9:21 AM ringo has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019