Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2292 of 3207 (862827)
09-13-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2290 by Stile
09-13-2019 2:41 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
It has as much "rational analysis" support for it as does the idea that we could find God behind dark matter....
No it doesn't. Looking in a place we haven't looked yet is entirely different from unseeing what we have already observed.
Stile writes:
"Citing" isn't a requirement.
I'm doing a rational analysis - not scientific tests. I'm not looking for that level of rigor.
When you're comparing your "analysis" to real science like Michelson-Morley, citing real examples most certainly is a requirement.
Stile writes:
If you don't think so, you can show:
1. We have never tested for God before - ever....
We certainly have not tested for God before. If we had, you should be able to give some proper examples.
Stile writes:
... a difference that can only be attributable to God.
Give some examples.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2290 by Stile, posted 09-13-2019 2:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2293 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 10:37 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2295 of 3207 (862900)
09-16-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2293 by Stile
09-16-2019 10:37 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
We have already observed (according to everything we can) that God does not exist.
No we have not. There are places that we're pretty sure exist where we haven't looked.
Stile writes:
We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for ringo-baking-cakes....
We don't need to. Once we find something, we can say we know it exists.
Stile writes:
Sun. Prayer. Our hearts. Miracles. The flood.
Been there. Done that. Not tests for the existence of God.
Stile writes:
Remember - the Luminiferous Ether test was within our capabilities of testing.
So, until we have a God test within our capabilities of testing, we can't say we "know" the result of a non-existent test.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2293 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 10:37 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2297 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 12:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2298 of 3207 (862904)
09-16-2019 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2297 by Stile
09-16-2019 12:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
And what is the observation that leads us to believe that God might be found there?
We've been through that. The search for God is at the same stage as the search for the Northwest Passage before any passages were known. It is premature to say we "know" that no passages exist.
Stile writes:
Unless you have an objective, consistent method for testing things that describes why these God tests are not included ....
We've been through that. They are not included because they are not tests for God. They are tests for specific things that God is supposed to have done.
Stile writes:
...until we have a rational reason to even try and have a "God test" in the first place....
We've been through that. The rational reason is that we can't find anything if we don't look.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2297 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 12:33 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2299 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 1:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2300 of 3207 (862909)
09-16-2019 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2299 by Stile
09-16-2019 1:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
We have been through this - if, at that stage, you are unable to say "I know that water passages do not exist."
Then, at this current stage, you also can't say "I know ringo can bake cakes."
Nonsense. What we have observed we can say we know. It would take a reliable counter-observation to nullify the knowledge. But what we have not observed we can not say we have knowledge. We have only lack of knowledge. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).
Stile writes:
they were tests for God
No they were not. The events that were attributed to God were not found. That has no bearing on the existence of God.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2299 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 1:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2301 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 4:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2302 of 3207 (862911)
09-16-2019 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2301 by Stile
09-16-2019 4:44 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes.
Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.
Stile writes:
We have observed God not existing.
Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A).
Stile writes:
We don't have a lack of knowledge, we have positive, objective, factual observations that God does not exist.
Using what test? A flood that didn't happen has nothing to do with the existence of God.
Stile writes:
All you're repeating is the currently-changed-to-definition such that the previous tests are no longer applicable.
There never has been a definition of God that is adequate for testing His existence.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2301 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 4:44 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2303 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 3:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2304 of 3207 (863022)
09-18-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Stile
09-18-2019 3:45 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.
True, but irrelevant.
It is relevant because you said it is "as much as":
quote:
And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes. Message 2301
You're contradicting yourself.
Stile writes:
I'm getting a positive observation of "not God" everywhere we're able to check.
There is no such thing as a positive non-observation.
Stile writes:
All the various things people have attributed to God.
All of them tested, all of them conclude: no God.
Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.
Stile writes:
You just changed the definition after.
I haven't changed any definition. You're the one who is tailoring the definition to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2303 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 3:45 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2305 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 4:15 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2306 of 3207 (863026)
09-18-2019 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2305 by Stile
09-18-2019 4:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
It's how we know we can turn left because "no cars are coming" and therefore it's safe.
That's not a positive observation. It's a negative observation and if it was reliable there would be no accidents.
Stile writes:
ringo writes:
Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.
I don't know. Maybe one of them did.
If you don't know whether or not the tests were objective, you can't claim to "know" that the conclusion was objective.
Stile writes:
I'm doing a rational analysis - based on facts.
Not a rigorous scientific test.
So you admit that no actual tests have been done and nothing has actually been observed. It's all just an ivory tower fantasy.
Stile writes:
I agree that the tests for God likely do not come to scientific par with the tests for Luminiferous Ether - but who cares?
No one's requiring scientific testing.
If you're not requiring scientific testing, you can't equate your fantasy with me baking a cake because that has been scientifically tested.
Stile writes:
I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.
And that's invalid - because cakes and luminiferous ether have been scientifically tested.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2305 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 4:15 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2310 by Stile, posted 10-03-2019 2:37 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2308 of 3207 (863052)
09-19-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2307 by AlexCaledin
09-19-2019 4:22 AM


AlexCaledin writes:
Come to the Queen's palace in London and say to the guard, "Let me scientifically test your Queen".
The Queen is probably one of the most scientifically-tested people in the world.
They don't let every bozo off the street walk into CERN and play with the large hadron Collider either.

Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2307 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-19-2019 4:22 AM AlexCaledin has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2311 of 3207 (863962)
10-03-2019 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2310 by Stile
10-03-2019 2:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
The rest of us do it quite safely, and quite often.
But not to the point where you can say you know that cars do not exist. You're only looking in one very limited place.
Stile writes:
I've shown you all the rational tests that have been done.
Looking for God, pretty much everywhere, and never finding Him.
But you haven't - not one single, solitary test that would pass scientific muster. You haven't even specified what "detection of God" would look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2310 by Stile, posted 10-03-2019 2:37 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2312 by Phat, posted 10-03-2019 6:30 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2314 of 3207 (869156)
12-24-2019 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2313 by Phat
12-24-2019 11:42 AM


Re: The Rationality Of Irrationality
Phat writes:
Do Christianity and Marxism Have Anything In Common?
You keep assuming I'm a Marxist. I'm not.
You're more of a Marxist than I am with your predictions of class struggles in the future.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2313 by Phat, posted 12-24-2019 11:42 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2320 of 3207 (869420)
12-30-2019 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2319 by Faith
12-30-2019 10:47 AM


Re: The peril of proof texts.
Faith writes:
So that we we'll never know if the supernatural is real since the Bible is one of the few documents that reveal it to us.
If that was true, it should be a clue to you: If only one guy saw a unicorn, he might well be mistaken.
But of course it isn't true. Every religion has its own documents that "reveal the supernatural".

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2319 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 10:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2321 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:05 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2327 of 3207 (869432)
12-30-2019 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2321 by Faith
12-30-2019 11:05 AM


Re: The peril of proof texts.
Faith writes:
Actually they don't, they may assert it but they don't reveal it.
Exactly like the Bible. People like you assert that it's unique but you hvae no revelation.
Faith writes:
But the Bible specifically describes events in terms of the supernatural AND it reports multiple witnesses of such events besides claiming to be written by direct witnesses.
Just like every other "holy" book. The Qur'an is a notable example.
Faith writes:
I don't care if you want to believe other accounts of the supernatural....
It has nothing to do with what I believe or what you believe. The fact is that the Bible is not unique.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2321 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2341 of 3207 (869487)
12-31-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2334 by Sarah Bellum
12-30-2019 2:04 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Reluctant? I've discussed it for longer than I'd really care to! But anyway, to continue...
The question I asked im Message 1953 was, "What are the LOGICAL errors in the idea of God?" You still haven't answered that question.
Sarah Bellum writes:
The concept of a god is a human invention, not a real thing, a personification of volcanoes or the ocean (Vulcan or Neptune) or of good and evil (Jesus and Beelzebub).
I agree that the details are made up. But why is the idea of gods illogical?
What
are
the
logical
errors?

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2334 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 2:04 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2342 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-31-2019 11:37 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2343 of 3207 (869490)
12-31-2019 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2342 by Sarah Bellum
12-31-2019 11:37 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
But there's a difference between rational and irrational.
Still waiting. What's illogical about the idea of gods? be specific.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2342 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-31-2019 11:37 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2345 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-31-2019 1:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2367 of 3207 (869545)
01-01-2020 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2345 by Sarah Bellum
12-31-2019 1:08 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Maybe your concept of "irrational" or "illogical" isn't fully thought out?
If your concept of illogical was fully thought out, you should be able to give some examples of logical errors in the concept of gods. Appeal to popularity? Ad hominem? What are the errors?
Sarah Bellum writes:
For instance, we both know that horses are real and unicorns are fanciful (however many people may believe in them, or even write descriptions of their physiology and powers).
There's a difference between not real and not logical. We had no reason to think that platypuses were real until we discoveted that they are. But there was never anything illogical about platypuses.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2345 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-31-2019 1:08 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2368 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-01-2020 12:13 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024