Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:11 PM
820 online now:
edge, funny, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli, ramoss, Sarah Bellum (7 members, 813 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 1318 (675416)
10-11-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by 1.61803
10-10-2012 5:42 PM


Numbers writes:

A common side step is to say that indeed God does not exist. Some theist contend God simply is, rather than exist.

I'm sure in their mind there is a difference.... But I doubt they can coherently state what that difference is to themselves never-mind anyone else.

Numbers writes:

A undifferentiated, manifested reality of being itself.

And this is just a word kebab. Some skewered verbiage wrapped up in a sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 10-10-2012 5:42 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 15 of 1318 (675423)
10-11-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by 1.61803
10-11-2012 9:38 AM


Knowledge
Can you tell us something you do know? Something based on evidence rather than deductive definitions.

Do you think 'scientific knowledge' is possible? Or is the notion oxymoronic in your view?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 10-11-2012 9:38 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 10-11-2012 9:58 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 1318 (675428)
10-11-2012 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by 1.61803
10-11-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Knowledge
Straggler writes:

Can you tell us something you do know? Something based on evidence rather than deductive definitions.

Numbers writes:

"Congito ergo sum."

Anything else?

Numbers writes:

Hi Straggler, I do think scientific knowledge is possible.

Then an example of such would be helpful....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 10-11-2012 9:58 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by 1.61803, posted 10-12-2012 10:02 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 25 of 1318 (675444)
10-11-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2012 10:45 AM


CS writes:

What do you mean by "God"?

You have said previously that you are convinced such things exist. So you tell me – What is it you are convinced of the existence of?

CS writes:

I think the more specific and discrete you get about gods, the more confident you can get about them not existing. As you approach the other end, where God becomes more abstract, your confidence in any position towards it approaches zero.

Except that there comes a point of ambiguity well before zero where the thing under discussion cannot any longer meaningfully be called a “god”.

If you ask an atheist whether he believes that reality contains “unknowns” I expect you’ll find widespread agreement that there are all sorts of unknown (and quite possibly unknowable) phenomena out there. But when you start applying attributes like supernaturality, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, omnipotence, omniscience etc. etc. to these “unknowns” the atheist will role his eyes and point out that you are just inventing anthropomorphic-super-beings in the way that so many have unsuccessfully done before you.

It seems that many theists want to take the idea of “unknowns”, impose their personal beliefs on top and then blur the distinction between the two in order to defend their beliefs from critical analysis.

Either that or you literally have not the foggiest idea as to what it is you believe in…….


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 1:52 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 1318 (675470)
10-11-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2012 1:52 PM


Straggler writes:

Either that or you literally have not the foggiest idea as to what it is you believe in…….

CS writes:

I think that's closer to it

Well with all due respect I don't believe you.

I think you and most other theists have a pretty consistent albeit vague idea of what they believe in.

It's something along the lines of a conscious intelligent being who is inherently unable to be investigated or understood by any material means and whose intellect and abilities are so super-human as to be effectively incomprehensible to us necessarily limited mere mortals. This being is generally deemed to be the creator of the universe (and anything else which might exist).

Sure - The details will fluctuate. But that's the core idea. That's the sort of thing we are talking about here.

Am I wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 4:17 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 1318 (675504)
10-11-2012 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2012 4:17 PM


In what sense does the thing you believe in qualify as a god?

It sounds more like some mysterious unconscious/mindless "force"....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 1318 (675757)
10-15-2012 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
10-14-2012 5:52 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:

The operative phrase there is "every feasible effort".

Isn't that all we ever have?

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

Because beyond "every feasible effort" I'm not sure what else we can take into account with regard to the possibility that any specific piece of knowledge is wrong.

I know this will inspire groans but.... We can say we know that life on Earth evolved without taking into account philosophical possibilities like omphalism. So why can't we say we know that God does not exist without dismissing equally pointless undetectable possibilities?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 10-14-2012 5:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 12:05 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 110 of 1318 (675808)
10-16-2012 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by TrueCreation
10-16-2012 3:16 AM


Re: Ideas and Data
Stating something as a fact and it being an actual fact are two different things.

'You are a buffalo' is an example of something being stated as a fact. But given that you are a human-being and not a buffalo it would be ridiculous to describe the statement 'You are a buffalo' as a fact.

TC writes:

This is just the convention I have used.

It is not a helpful convention. I suggest you drop it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by TrueCreation, posted 10-16-2012 3:16 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 112 of 1318 (675810)
10-16-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Stile
10-16-2012 9:23 AM


Re: Equivocation on "knowing things"
I think those objecting to your statement in this thread (i.e. "I Know That God Does Not Exist") need to give a concrete example of something that they do consider to be genuinely 'known'.

Because any knowledge can be questioned by invoking evidenceless-unfalsifiable-philosophical possibilities of the sort many are putting forward as some sort of counter-argument here.

As you have pointed out, if we are to take into account such things we cannot actually know anything at all and knowledge becomes a redundant word.

That doesn't seem a very effective approach to epistemology.....


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 114 by Stile, posted 10-16-2012 10:14 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 1318 (675834)
10-16-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ringo
10-16-2012 12:05 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:

The operative phrase there is "every feasible effort".

Straggler writes:

Isn't that all we ever have? Can you give an example of something you think we can legitimately describe as "known"....?

Ringo writes:

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

And everytime we have repeated them we have got the same result. But how do you know that some unexpected anomolous result isn't around the corner? How do you know that when you attempt to bake a cake tomorrow you won't end up pulling a lasagne out of the oven because the laws of chemistry are suddenly different in some very specific way?

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.

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?

Because it is always philosophically possible that some anomolous 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 12:05 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-16-2012 1:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 2:37 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 163 of 1318 (675988)
10-18-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
10-16-2012 2:37 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?

Ringo writes:

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

Exactly. And I also have a high level of confidence that god isn't going to turn up anytime soon.

Ringo writes:

The snakes could be living in the neighour's yard and naturally retreat there whenever Tangle looks for them.

Are these snakes also hiding their poo and eliminating all other forensic evidence of their presence in Stile's garden? Clever snakes.

Ringo writes:

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

Unless you are claiming to have been to this certain planet orbiting this certain star or are claiming some other indirect evidence of god's presence there, we know for a fact that this proposition of yours amounts to you plucking 'what-ifs' from your humanly-imaginative arse.

Ringo writes:

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

Whilst your imagination could have stumbled across some deep truth of reality by sheer random flukey chance this is, to say the least, unlikely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 10-16-2012 2:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 10-18-2012 12:21 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 164 of 1318 (675989)
10-18-2012 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by TrueCreation
10-18-2012 12:45 AM


Re: Ideas and Data
TrueCreation writes:

I do not understand how Stile's epistemology is rational.

It's as rational as saying that you know there isn't an undetectable unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type.

Do you know that?

Can you give an example of something that you do know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by TrueCreation, posted 10-18-2012 12:45 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by TrueCreation, posted 10-18-2012 10:25 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 165 of 1318 (675990)
10-18-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:51 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Ringo writes:

Panda writes:

You (according to your logic) do not know anything - because you can imagine unfounded reasons for your knowledge to be wrong.

True. When you tell me how delicious my cake is, that could all be in my own imagination too.

Yes it could. Which is why absolute certainty is a stupid measure of knowledge.

We can know things based on evidence. But that knowledge may be wrong. All we can really say is that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced propositions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 10-18-2012 12:29 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 169 of 1318 (676046)
10-18-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
10-18-2012 12:29 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Every cake baking process you've ever undertaken has resulted in a cake.

Every route to France you have taken has resulted in you ending up in France.

Every god we have ever investigated has turned out to be a product of human invention.

Now it might be that the next time you follow a cake recipe you end up with lasagne. This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".

Now it might be that the next time you follow the route to France you end up in Timbuctoo. This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".

Now it might be that the next time we investigate somebody's concept of god that we actually find a god at the end of the rainbow (or wherever). This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 10-18-2012 12:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:39 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 170 of 1318 (676049)
10-18-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ringo
10-18-2012 12:21 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:

That's a long way from claiming that I "know" elephants don't exist.

We know elephants do exist. So the chances of an elephant parade through your front room would seem considerably higher than the product of your imaginings actually existing.

Ringo writes:

You and I both know that Tangle has not examined his garden with the forensic thoroughness of a crime scene.

Actually I thought he had stipulated that he had....

quote:
Suppose I suspect that there are snakes in my garden. There are a number of things I could do to prove it; I could lay traps, I could turn over stones, I could search for discarded skin, I could look for snake poo, I could call in an expert etc etc.

But suppose I spent an entire year and used every known test for snakes - including stripping everything down to bare soil - but found none, the absense of evidence is then evidence of absense.


Ringo writes:

Neither has he or anybody else examined the entire universe with that kind of thoroughness for signs of God.

Then we are back to Immaterial Unicorns and ethereal squirrels and suchlike. Because we haven't scoured the universe for these either. But still we know they are human inventions rather than real things.

Straggler writes:

Unless you are claiming to have been to this certain planet orbiting this certain star or are claiming some other indirect evidence of god's presence there, we know for a fact that this proposition of yours amounts to you plucking 'what-ifs' from your humanly-imaginative arse.

Ringo writes:

My knowledge of that planet is based on exactly the same foundation as your knowledge of God - the absence of contradictory evidence.

I know you've made-up this god-behind-a-planet. And so do you. Do you think your random imaginings are really likely to actually exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 10-18-2012 12:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:35 PM Straggler has responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019