Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 9:50 AM
34 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,007 Year: 15,043/19,786 Month: 1,766/3,058 Week: 140/404 Day: 27/113 Hour: 4/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
134135
136
137138139Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 2026 of 2081 (860571)
08-08-2019 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2024 by Stile
08-08-2019 3:02 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
The thing is... people have traditionally thought of God as "outside this framework" for thousands of years.
They don't want to admit the obvious, unavoidable conclusion when God is placed "within" the framework of "how we know things in a modern sense."
I see your point. I will argue that God by definition simply can't be "placed" anywhere. Not sure how to argue this...I simply feel it to be true. Perhaps we should attempt to define God as best as we can. Only if we can define Him can we "place Him" anywhere.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2024 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 3:02 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2028 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 4:08 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 2027 of 2081 (860572)
08-08-2019 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2025 by 1.61803
08-08-2019 3:21 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
1.61803 writes:

And what about other universes? Do you know they do not exist?

Well, we do have evidence that at least one universe can exist.
How much evidence do we have that at least one God can exist?

This is the difference.

If I told you there could be such tech, that the Matrix idea could actually be carried out given enough computing power. Could you tell me that is not the case? How would you know?

Well... "telling" me isn't really enough.
But if you could show me.. that would be plenty.

You don't even have to show me that the equipment actually works... just that there's a theory showing that the equipment should work as the theory is based on already-known-to-work things.

Once you do that - I cannot say "I know a Matrix world does not exist."

But, as long as there's no link from the imagination of a Matrix world to the reality of a Matrix world - I can say "I know a Matrix world does not exist."

If I told you that the fundamental forces that manifest this universe are planke's size strings vibrating in 11 dimensions fulminating everything that exist.

"Telling" me things is inadequate.
People tell me things all the time that have no relation to reality.

"Showing" me things actually exist in reality is adequate.
"Showing me that things might actually exist in reality based on a model that accurately-represents-reality-as-best-we-currently-understand" is even adequate.

But mention a God and everybody gets ohhh that is to far fetched. lmao.

I just need a link from imagination to reality.

I need it for the FSM before I'll stop saying "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
I need it for Santa Claus.
I need it for God.

Strange, indeed, that many will agree with me for the FSM and Santa, but not for God when the amount of rational evidence in favor of existence is worse for God than the others. (We've been irrationally searching for God for a lot longer than the others... still with nothing to show for it.)

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2025 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 3:21 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2029 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 4:18 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2028 of 2081 (860573)
08-08-2019 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2026 by Thugpreacha
08-08-2019 3:27 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Thugpreacha writes:

I will argue that God by definition simply can't be "placed" anywhere.

Well, this is just wrong.
The idea of God can be placed anywhere.

What you should be arguing is that just "placing God" anywhere - doesn't actually mean it's correct.

That is a good argument.

"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know God does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."

This is a valid, unassailable argument.
And it works for everything:

"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know Santa Claus does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know people bake cakes - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know the earth is a oblong spheroid - (roundish) - does not mean that this is correct."

Perhaps we should attempt to define God as best as we can. Only if we can define Him can we "place Him" anywhere.

I'd agree with that as well.

Really, I think people should stop worrying so much about what "our current rational understanding" is of God.
Who cares?
If you want to believe - believe.
If you don't want to believe - don't believe.

But to try and argue that 1+1 does not equal 2... or that "our current rational understanding" of God is something other than "we know God does not exist" is absurd.

It only shows how much one doesn't understand math... or how much one doesn't understand what "our current rational understanding" (aka "knowledge") means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2026 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-08-2019 3:27 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2887
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 2029 of 2081 (860576)
08-08-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2027 by Stile
08-08-2019 4:00 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
Well, we do have evidence that at least one universe can exist.
How much evidence do we have that at least one God can exist?

This is the difference.


Of all the things you have said this is the most convincing. Touche'

However scientist do not even know what 95 percent of the universe is.
Think about that. All that you think you know that there is evidence for and only 5 percent of what comprises our universe is known. That is a pretty big question mark Stile. I get what you are saying though, it does come down to whether or not belief is rational or not. And as long as there are scientist and philosophers that are on both sides there will be debate.
You can say you know that God does not exist. I will go along with Pascal.

I found this story to be interesting.
“Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou.

http://www.bbc.com/...computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter

https://www.sciencealert.com/...verse-inside-a-supercomputer

Edited by 1.61803, : few links


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2027 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 4:00 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2030 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 4:36 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 2030 of 2081 (860579)
08-08-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2029 by 1.61803
08-08-2019 4:18 PM


Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean
1.61803 writes:

Of all the things you have said this is the most convincing.

Thank-you.
It's what I've meant when I've been saying things like "there's no rational reason to think God can exist in the first place."
But I've always found comparisons more... engaging. It is difficult to guess which comparison will 'click the best' for which other-person, though.

However scientist do not even know what 95 percent of the universe is.
Think about that.

I think this is an excellent argument for "in considering what we know now - those who come hundreds/thousands/millions of years after us will likely laugh at us for thinking we knew what we knew."

And I entirely agree with that.
For all things. Including "verified" history, current "validated" physics.... ALL our knowledge will likely be seen in a laughably far-from-being-accurate lens to those who will eventually learn much more and have a much-more-accurate view of things in their "available information."

And as vehemently as I'm defending "I know God does not exist." I would equally vehemently fight anyone thinking "our current knowledge will be the same 100/1000/10000xxx years from now!"

It just doesn't change that our knowledge is based on "our" available information.
And whatever conclusions we draw from our woefully limited pool.

Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou.

All the more reason we should have clear definitions in our mind for the following:

-rational (following logic)
-irrational (not following logic)
-correct (according to reality)
-our knowledge (tentative conclusions based on currently available information)

A feeling of "psychology 101" is nice - like seeing a cool magic trick.
But serious study/thought of "what we can know" requires strict definitions and understanding the limitations of such definitions.

And... I really do agree with the Einstein quote you posted... that imagination (and in turn... irrationality) is more important than what we understand (rationality.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2029 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 4:18 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7004
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 2031 of 2081 (860586)
08-08-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2023 by Thugpreacha
08-08-2019 2:45 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:

My point that I am attempting to get Stile to see is that God is not simply like any other thing that one looks for.

You can't do that with waffly preachy words

Stile will protest and ask why we should think any differently about God than about anything else we look for.

You have a bad habit of knowing the other side of the argument but not being able to answer it. Juries don't stay out for long, life goes on.

Note that he believes that he can find anything I can find without needing God to do so and that his mind can be as content as my mind except that his mind does not incorporate God while I believe that mine does.

I think that too. With the exception that I don't believe that your mind is in anyway content.

But how would we ever measure the difference?

Why would anyone even try? It's a bullshit idea. Forgive me Phat but you do not seem to be a content individual. It seems to me that religion is your consolation for poor health and a low paid job.

Getting back to victims of tragedies who seek God out of desperation and find an inner comfort:

Or just people with ordinary lives - with all that entails.

We cannot prove that they actually find God. We can show that they do receive comfort.

If there really was the loving god that you think there is, why do people need comfort? God as opium? That's the best you can do?

We don't often hear of people who seek God "with all their heart" and end up empty.

Neither you nor I know whether that's true or not. But I suspect that desperate people find their consolation in god quite easily. Faith found what she needed to find, was she right?

You could claim that you found solace elsewhere...through a secular support group perhaps...but again, how could we measure what precisely it was that the group gave you? How do we know that "God" was not part of it?

I don't need to find solace anywhere. That's the mistake you keep making time after time. Needing solace is not normal, it should be an exceptional thing, necessary in rare situations.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2023 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-08-2019 2:45 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2032 by 1.61803, posted 08-08-2019 5:07 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2887
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 2032 of 2081 (860587)
08-08-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2031 by Tangle
08-08-2019 5:02 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
I don't need to find solace anywhere.

Not even from your new PM and Brexit?? Not even a nice cuppa can provide solice for that i bet.

Edited by 1.61803, : proved to provide


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2031 by Tangle, posted 08-08-2019 5:02 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2033 of 2081 (860588)
08-08-2019 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2020 by Stile
08-08-2019 1:37 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Because you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it.
You learned later that what you've been doing all this time is not "baking a cake."


That's a pretty silly rabbit-hole to be going down. If that was true, we really couldn't know anything.

Stile writes:

What use are the words "tentative" or "...information available to us" if you demand for our knowledge to never change?


I have never made any such demand. I have been telling you that knowledge can change - in this context, from no knowledge to some knowledge. When we have no knowledge, we can not legitimately claim that we know.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2020 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 1:37 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2036 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 10:01 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2034 of 2081 (860590)
08-08-2019 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2021 by Stile
08-08-2019 1:39 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Are you saying no one has ever looked for God before and found nothing?


I'm saying that you have to look. You said, "Things that only exist in our imagination will never exist in reality: all their ends will be dead." I'm asking how you can know they don't exist in reality unless you look? How can you know that "all" of the ends will be dead before you look at all of the ends?

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2021 by Stile, posted 08-08-2019 1:39 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2037 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 10:02 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2035 of 2081 (860592)
08-08-2019 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2022 by Thugpreacha
08-08-2019 2:35 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:

You have to want/need Him.


Why? I can find mosquitoes without wanting them or needing them.

Phat writes:

In times such as these, life often no longer makes sense. it becomes irrational. Trust itself becomes irrational. Many people turn to God. Whether God actually exists or whether God is a panacea in their mind, they equate belief in God with an unwaverable trust---out of desperation.


You seem to be arguing against yourself.

Phat writes:

The idea that everyone has an equal chance(opportunity) at finding God is not scriptural.


You picked a fine time to start paying attention to the scriptures. Why don't you pay attention to what Jesus said?

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2022 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-08-2019 2:35 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2036 of 2081 (860632)
08-09-2019 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2033 by ringo
08-08-2019 5:10 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

That's a pretty silly rabbit-hole to be going down. If that was true, we really couldn't know anything.

Exactly.
Why do we not go down that rabbit-hole?
Because it's irrational - there's no link from the imagination to reality that suggests such a thing would actually be viable in the first place.

Just like God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2033 by ringo, posted 08-08-2019 5:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2038 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:41 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2037 of 2081 (860633)
08-09-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2034 by ringo
08-08-2019 5:16 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
I'm saying that you have to look.

We have looked - scoured all of our available information.

You're asking me to look outside of our available information - with no link from imagination to reality that the search even *might* produce a positive result.

That's the silly-rabbit hole we don't go down.
We don't go down it for ringo-baking-cakes.
We don't go down it for God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2034 by ringo, posted 08-08-2019 5:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2039 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:43 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2038 of 2081 (860638)
08-09-2019 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2036 by Stile
08-09-2019 10:01 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Why do we not go down that rabbit-hole?
Because it's irrational - there's no link from the imagination to reality that suggests such a thing would actually be viable in the first place.


Nope. We don't go down the rabbit-hole of "you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it" because it's a completely separate issue from what we've been discussing.

We are accepting that I can actually bake a cake. We are accepting that we have searched for God. Unless we accept that we do have a connection to reality, there is nothing to discuss.

But of course we don't know whether there is a link from imagination to reality until we look for one. We can not say the idea is irrational before we look. And we can not say that we "know" there is no link when there are still lots of places to look.


"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2036 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 10:01 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2040 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 11:49 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2039 of 2081 (860639)
08-09-2019 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2037 by Stile
08-09-2019 10:02 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

We have looked - scoured all of our available information.


No we haven't. Dark matter.

Stile writes:

You're asking me to look outside of our available information....


Nope. Dark matter.

"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns"
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2037 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 10:02 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2041 by Stile, posted 08-09-2019 11:52 AM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2040 of 2081 (860641)
08-09-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2038 by ringo
08-09-2019 11:41 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

Nope. We don't go down the rabbit-hole of "you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it" because it's a completely separate issue from what we've been discussing.

That's not the rabbit hole.

Rabbit hole for cakes: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that you actually don't know how to bake cakes?
Rabbit hole for God: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that God actually exists?

Same rabbit hole.

But of course we don't know whether there is a link from imagination to reality until we look for one.

We have looked - scoured all our available information.
Scoured all our rational projections for unavailable information.

Nothing.

Well... nothing but the above irrational rabbit holes, of course.

We can not say the idea is irrational before we look.

Sure we can.

If there's no rational link from imagination to reality that gives us a reason to look - then looking is irrational.

That's exactly how we avoid the cake rabbit hole.
That's exactly how we avoid the God rabbit hole.

Same process.
Same rabbit holes.
Same reasoning to ignore them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2038 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 11:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2042 by ringo, posted 08-09-2019 12:06 PM Stile has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
134135
136
137138139Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019