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 11:16 AM
27 online now:
JonF, vimesey (2 members, 25 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
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 142 of 2138 (675926)
10-17-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:

How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist?


But there was a rational reason to think that it did exist.
That is why they were looking for it.

Someone didn't just wake up one morning and say "I think there is an undiscovered 'particle' that exists.
They followed a rational reasoned argument that indicated that the Higgs existed.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

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 149 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:30 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 144 of 2138 (675928)
10-17-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:03 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
ringo writes:

Nor is there any rational indication that a McDonald's menu doesn't exist on another planet. It is rational to suggest that life evolving on another planet might have some similarities to earthly life forms - e.g. warm-bloodedness, large brains, opposable thumbs, etc. Thus, it is also rational to suggest that a McDonald's menu might evolve on another planet.


Which puts you in the position of saying that you do not know anything about what is (or is not) on the McD's menu.
This is philosophically fine (I suppose) but everyone will look at you with incredulity when you say that you do not know if/if not McD's sell heroine or donkeys or planets.

It also puts you in the position of not being able to say that you know anything.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:19 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 145 of 2138 (675929)
10-17-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:

He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is.


Can you provide a definition of knowledge that you would agree with?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:51 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 152 of 2138 (675936)
10-17-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:19 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
ringo writes:

I still know how to bake a cake with a pretty high level of confidence.


But you don't know that.
You don't even know if you have ever baked a cake in the past as those memories could have been implanted.
And the next time you go to bake a cake you might find that you have forgotten.

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


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:51 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 156 of 2138 (675947)
10-17-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 3:30 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:

Prior to the construction of Super colliders' was there any way such physical evidence would of been obtained?


I don't think so.

numbers writes:

Is that a problem concerning the rational for the potential existence of God? That there is no way to test such a proposal so it must be null?


But there is no reason to test.
There is no reason to suppose that god exists.
But there were reasons to think that the Higgs existed.

numbers writes:

Sure and when if no positive data presented itself what would you conclude?


That the Higgs does not exist.
(It would not stop at that though, as there are still reasons to think that a Higgs-like particle exists.)

numbers writes:

Data that does not exist does not mean it is not forthcoming.


Which means that anything could exist and you are left not being able to know anything but can suggest any random thing you wish.

I think there is a dragon in my lounge but evidence of its existence is not yet forthcoming?
I think that would be a irrational claim.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:30 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 158 of 2138 (675952)
10-17-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:

So we confine our inquiry to that which is only reasonable?


We should confine ourselves to those claims that are reasonable.
(It was reasonable to claim that a Higgs-like particle existed.)
You would prefer that we made unreasonable claims?

Certainly, if you want to run off and investigate (e.g.) the spaghetti monster, then go ahead.
But the fact that you are investigating the spaghetti monster does not lend credence to it existing.

numbers writes:

Seems like a argument from incredulity again.


I don't agree.

I am not saying: "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."
I am saying: "There is no evidence that a god exists."
Do you think that me saying: "There are no dragons in my lounge." is an argument from incredulity also?

I am not denying any evidence: there is none.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 5:31 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2012 6:51 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 160 of 2138 (675961)
10-17-2012 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rahvin
10-17-2012 6:51 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
Rahvin writes:

It is rather the lack of conspicuous, or strongly expected, evidence which is evidence of absence.


There is also a lack of inconspicuous evidence, possibly expected evidence and also unexpected evidence.

But, yes, that is what I meant by "there is none".


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2012 6:51 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 2138 (676357)
10-22-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by herebedragons
10-22-2012 10:54 AM


Re: Imagination without experience?
HBD writes:

How did the early humans imagine something they had no experience with? I see this as very advanced thinking on the part of the early humans.


Do you mean this guy...?

Yeah - it must have been difficult to imagine...erm...a big flying man.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2012 10:54 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 233 of 2138 (676448)
10-22-2012 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by ringo
10-22-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Absence of Certainty - Likelihood Only Option
Ringo writes:

Straggler writes:

Do you know that the Sun will rise tomorrow?


No.

Unless you await each morning with a sense of trepidation, then you are equivocating with the word 'know' again.
Please re-read the opening post.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 3:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 03-11-2014 1:07 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 241 of 2138 (676502)
10-23-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:11 PM


Re: A good foundation
*Given up arguing with Ringo's special pleading*

...or have I?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:41 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 243 of 2138 (676510)
10-23-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:41 PM


Re: A good foundation
Ringo writes:

If you think there's any specal pleading involved, feel free to point it out.


The third time's the charm? I doubt it.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:41 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 1:01 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 290 of 2138 (677317)
10-29-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by TrueCreation
10-29-2012 7:41 AM


Re: Rational Swans
In your view, is there anything that does not exist?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 7:41 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 7:58 AM Panda has responded
 Message 292 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-29-2012 8:13 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 293 of 2138 (677329)
10-29-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by TrueCreation
10-29-2012 7:58 AM


Re: Rational Swans
You appear to be applying different criteria when declaring what you know and what you don't know.

TC writes:

I would agree that it is known that dinosaurs, as they are preserved in the fossil record, are extinct (and do not exist in that way)


But dinosaurs could exist in a hidden valley in the Amazon or on a different planet.
You have not looked everywhere for dinosaurs yet.
Until you do, you cannot claim they do not exist.

TC writes:

but I would not agree that we know that fluorescent ants ... do not exist.


Because you haven't looked everywhere for fluorescent ants?
Until you do, you cannot claim they do not exist?

And again:

TC writes:

Similarly, i would say that we can say that "we know that there are no large land dwelling organisms on Mars"


But there could be rock-like creatures (ala Apollo 18) living on the surface of Mars.
You have not looked everywhere on Mars for large land dwelling organisms.
Until you do, you cannot claim they do not exist.

TC writes:

but I would not say that "we know there is no life on Mars".


Because you haven't looked everywhere on Mars for life?
Until you do, you cannot claim it does not exist?

Your position seems contradictory. :S

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 7:58 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 9:43 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 298 of 2138 (677459)
10-29-2012 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by TrueCreation
10-29-2012 9:43 PM


Re: Rational Swans
(I'll switch the example to 'red swans', since (I think) we know black swans exist.)

TC writes:

Whether or not dinosaurs exist today is well constrained by what is already known about those organisms, so their existence is precluded by more than simply whether or not we have observed every place on Earth's surface.


But dinosaurs could exist somewhere on earth.
You haven't looked everywhere, so you can't claim they don't.

TC writes:

Stile has made assertions about circumstantial knowledge that we may have always observed swans to be white, but that simply isn't an appropriate constraint...


But inductive logic is used all the time by science.
To say that a scientific claim is invalid because it is based on previous experiences undermines most of science.

TC writes:

...all of it is trumped by the biological conceivability that a Swan can naturally acquire the characteristic of being colored black.


So - do red swans exist, then?
We have never found one and ornithologists will confidently claim that they know red swans don't exist.
But there is nothing stopping them from existing.

TC writes:

The main question is whether or not the characteristic of being black is impossible, which might be evidenced by, for instance, the knowledge that Swans simply cannot be black.


But our judgement of what is impossible is based on our current knowledge.
You haven't learnt all about everything, so you can't claim red swans are impossible.
Maybe red swans are only impossible via natural means.
But maybe some scientist mutated a swan into being red - you don't know.

TC writes:

But back to god. Science cannot say anything so we can't use scientific knowledge, or observations of nature, to say anything about the existence of god the way we can about dinosaurs on Earth or on Mars.


I disagree. Science can show (for example) that prayer doesn't work.
Science can look at many examples of proposed evidence of god and say "This is not evidence of god".
(In fact, it has done so. Many times. e.g. Lightning is not caused by Thor.)

TC writes:

Therefore, god can exist. Therefore "god does not exist" is an erroneous inference. Therefore the inference is not knowledge--not scientific, not logical, not rational.


And by the same logic, there is very little that can't exist.
As long as it is internally consistent (i.e. is not an invisible pink unicorn), then there is nothing stopping it from existing.
Can you give me an example of something that can't exist?

Dinosaurs: could exist, but are currently undiscovered.
Red swans: could exist, but are currently undiscovered.
Large lifeforms on Mars: could exist, but are currently undiscovered.
(But at least we have evidence that something similar does exist/has existed.)

Can you think of anything that could not exist, using your "No evidence for it and no evidence against it means it could exist"?
Because using that logic, I see nothing stopping fairies, goblins, invisible dragons and Santa Claus from existing.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by TrueCreation, posted 10-29-2012 9:43 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2012 12:08 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(5)
Message 308 of 2138 (677781)
11-01-2012 12:06 PM


We have people saying that god is undefined, and if something is undefined then we can't know anything about it - despite them happily defining their own god.

We have had people that say that they know almost nothing. (If true, I don't think their opinion has much weight.)

We have had people say that if we can't find an elephant in a room then that is not evidence of an absence of elephants in that room.

We have had people say that they don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow.
'Nuff said.

I think Mod said it most succinctly:

Modulous writes:

If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
If I can say I know there are no fairies
If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
Then I say I know there is no God.

Is there an unevidenced and undefined thing somewhere?
LOL

Is there a god?
No.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019