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 11:36 AM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,394 Year: 15,430/19,786 Month: 2,153/3,058 Week: 11/516 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 860 of 2138 (856282)
06-29-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 859 by GDR
06-29-2019 10:36 AM


chances
I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?

Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.

Also you are obviously wrong if we make some judgements about the nature of unicorns. If they are at all horse like then we know the odds of unicorns on the moon are very, very, extremely, very close to zero.

On the other hand the experiments we have done so far indicate that life arising through reasonable chemical processes is certainly non-zero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 10:36 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 861 by GDR, posted 06-29-2019 11:31 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 905 of 2138 (856482)
07-01-2019 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 904 by ringo
07-01-2019 9:26 AM


Re: chances
Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist.

I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by ringo, posted 07-01-2019 9:26 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 906 by Tangle, posted 07-01-2019 10:10 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 907 by ringo, posted 07-01-2019 10:12 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1079 of 2138 (857100)
07-05-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1072 by GDR
07-05-2019 11:24 AM


GotGs
How did the evolutionary process start: what was the process for the first cell; how about consciousness etc.

You are playing at extremely simple minded and poor theology. God of the gaps has been used to death over the centuries and always ends up looking foolish.

Bad choice of argument according to both theologians and scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 11:24 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by dwise1, posted 07-05-2019 2:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 1086 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 4:30 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 1144 by Dredge, posted 07-07-2019 1:08 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1402 of 2138 (858588)
07-22-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1401 by Tangle
07-22-2019 10:22 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed.

Maybe as far as you're concerned but there are reasons to suggest 11 dimensions. They are powerful reasons if you know the history of physics. They're enough to create an hypothesis. There are even ongoing experiments to try to test the idea. There is nothing to support the hypothesis yet and it could very well be wrong. However, using Stile's definition of "rational" (which seems to be close to what almost everyone uses in regular day-to-day life) the idea of 11 dimensions is "rational".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1401 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2019 10:22 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1407 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2019 11:21 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 1748 of 2138 (859824)
08-03-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1745 by ringo
08-03-2019 11:50 AM


What is "rational"?
I doubt I can move this discussion along but I've just got to butt in.

It seems to me that rational decision making must involve "reasoning". You reason your way to a conclusion. Yes?

To reason you need some inputs. That is some facts to reason with/on.

If there are no facts as input there can be no rational decision making.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1745 by ringo, posted 08-03-2019 11:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1750 by ringo, posted 08-03-2019 1:27 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1753 of 2138 (859842)
08-03-2019 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1750 by ringo
08-03-2019 1:27 PM


Re: What is "rational"?
Yes, you can reason on non-facts. So I guess if you use that anything can be "rational".

So the discussion is over? The word has no meaning?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1750 by ringo, posted 08-03-2019 1:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1755 by ringo, posted 08-03-2019 4:24 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 1821 by 1.61803, posted 08-05-2019 5:23 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 1843 by Stile, posted 08-06-2019 9:33 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 2109 of 2138 (861359)
08-20-2019 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2106 by Tangle
08-20-2019 1:25 PM


Define "know"
From that you cannot say that you 'know' that such a thing doesn't exist.

Stile has been careful to define how he uses the word "know". You are not using the same "know".

Stile is attempting to capture how we all use the word in everyday language. You are using another definition that most of us mix up with the everyday usage.

The whole discussion between the two of you is only about which "know" applies or is most useful.

What you can say is that given the state of our current knowledge, it is unlikely to exist.

And that is exactly how most of us, most of the time, apply the word "know". When the likelihood of something is estimated to be low enough we say we "know" that isn't real. We may all have different values on "low enough" and have different values for "low enough" for different things but that is how we mean "know"

We do not get all pedantic (most of the time) and say "While I am not sure about this being non existent I estimate the probability to be 0.0000001." Instead we say "bullshit".

We also (other than in scientific papers) do not say things like "This suggests that the results have a bearing on the discussion at hand." Instead we say "That proves it!" Even you and I who know at some level of chance nothing is proved will still use that shorthand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2106 by Tangle, posted 08-20-2019 1:25 PM Tangle 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 © 2019