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 10:55 AM
33 online now:
CosmicChimp, DrJones*, jar, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, ramoss, RAZD, Stile (8 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,012 Year: 15,048/19,786 Month: 1,771/3,058 Week: 145/404 Day: 32/113 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
134135136137
138
139Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2056 of 2082 (860830)
08-12-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2054 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

Don't be silly. We don't need to look behind the dark matter for what we've already found.

I'm not being silly - you are.

You're the one who said "the reason for looking is that we haven't checked yet."
How does this also not apply to knowing we won't find out that ringo actually can't bake cakes when we look behind dark matter?
Can you read the future?

The thing is - they are both irrational concerns.

If you can rationally point to something with the cake-idea that doesn't exist with the God-idea... then you may not be being silly.
Without that - it's you who's being silly.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

We have looked everywhere within our currently available information.

No, we know that a place exists, behind the dark matter, where we currently have no ability to look.

If we currently have no ability to look - the it isn't within our currently available information, is it?

As long as we know there is a place where we haven't looked, we can not claim to know what we'd find if we could look.

"As long as we know there is a place where we could identify that ringo actually cannot bake cakes, we cannot claim ringo knows how to bake cakes."

It's irrational.
And you know it.

Your faulty reasoning is exposed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2054 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2058 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:21 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2057 of 2082 (860831)
08-12-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2055 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:10 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

We don't have to know that something exists before we look for it.

Of course not.
But we do in order to call it rational.

If it's irrational - why do you think it should have any effect on the rational conclusions about our current state of knowledge?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2055 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2059 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:24 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2058 of 2082 (860832)
08-12-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2056 by Stile
08-12-2019 12:16 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

You're the one who said "the reason for looking is that we haven't checked yet."
How does this also not apply to knowing we won't find out that ringo actually can't bake cakes when we look behind dark matter?


We know that ringo can bake cakes. We can't un-know that by looking behind the dark matter.

Stile writes:

Can you read the future?


I can predict that in the future, Paris will have existed in the past.

Stile writes:

"As long as we know there is a place where we could identify that ringo actually cannot bake cakes, we cannot claim ringo knows how to bake cakes."


Nonsense. The claim is not that ringo can bake cakes everywhere. It's that he can bake cakes somewhere.

"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 2056 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:16 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2060 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:31 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2059 of 2082 (860833)
08-12-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2057 by Stile
08-12-2019 12:17 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

ringo writes:

We don't have to know that something exists before we look for it.


Of course not.
But we do in order to call it rational.

You yourself said that rational means logical. There is nothing in the logic that requires something to exist before we look for it. Looking for something to find out if it exists is rational.

"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 2057 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:17 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2062 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:38 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2060 of 2082 (860834)
08-12-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2058 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:21 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

We know that ringo can bake cakes. We can't un-know that by looking behind the dark matter.

Why not?
Just like (many, many) years ago we knew the earth was flat. Are you saying that new information wasn't able to let us un-know that?

I don't think you understand how knowledge works.

Nonsense. The claim is not that ringo can bake cakes everywhere. It's that he can bake cakes somewhere.

Nonsense. The claim is not that God doesn't exist everywhere. It's that He doesn't exist somewhere (all of our available information.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2058 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2061 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:36 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2061 of 2082 (860836)
08-12-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2060 by Stile
08-12-2019 12:31 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Just like (many, many) years ago we knew the earth was flat. Are you saying that new information wasn't able to let us un-know that?


That's why I reserve the word "know' for something that can be demonstrated. The flatness of the earth can not be demonstrated. Baking a cake can.

Stile writes:

The claim is not that God doesn't exist everywhere. It's that He doesn't exist somewhere (all of our available information.)


The claim is that God doesn't exist anywhere.

Edited by ringo, : No reason given.


"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 2060 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:31 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2063 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:40 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2062 of 2082 (860837)
08-12-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2059 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:24 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

You yourself said that rational means logical.

Stile calling green, flourishing trees "dead trees" is logical and rational if the context includes that Stile gets to decide such things as well.

The problem for you is that "knowledge" has a framework.
And what you're talking about is an irrational search as far as that framework is concerned.

Otherwise - we can't know that ringo can bake cakes.

Looking for something to find out if it exists is rational.

Oh? Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?

It may be rational to look for anything to see if it exists.
But it's also irrational to suggest that irrational ideas (ie - ideas only real in our imagination, with no link to reality) should have any effect on our rational, tentative knowledge conclusions based on the information available to us.

Please, continue - you're wonderful at proving my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2059 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2064 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:50 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2063 of 2082 (860838)
08-12-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2061 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:36 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

That's why I reserve the word "know' for something that can be demonstrated. The flatness of the earth can not be demonstrated. Baking a cake can.

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

The claim is that God doesn't exist anywhere.

No it isn't.
It's a tentative claim that I know God doesn't exist according to the current information available to us.

Did you forget what knowledge actually is?

Edited by Stile, : Forgot extremely important "I know" part about my claim...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2061 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2065 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:55 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2064 of 2082 (860839)
08-12-2019 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2062 by Stile
08-12-2019 12:38 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

And what you're talking about is an irrational search as far as that framework is concerned.


You keep saying that but you haven't pointed out the errors in logic.

Stile writes:

Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"


As I said, I can demonstrate that I can bake a cake - to you or to anybody else who is interested. There can be no question of it being a figment of my imagination. It's objective.

"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 2062 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:38 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2066 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:03 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2065 of 2082 (860840)
08-12-2019 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2063 by Stile
08-12-2019 12:40 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.


What has been demonstrated can not be un-demonstrated. Your conspiracy theory will not work.

Stile writes:

ringo writes:

The claim is that God doesn't exist anywhere.


No it isn't.
It's a tentative claim that I know God doesn't exist according to the current information available to us.

You're being dishonest. You've said, "I know that God does not exist," hundreds of times in this thread. You only put the qualifiers in when somebody scores on your goal.

Stile writes:

Did you forget what knowledge actually is?


Forget? No. I reject your made-up definition of knowledge.

"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 2063 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 12:40 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2068 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2066 of 2082 (860842)
08-12-2019 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2064 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:50 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

You keep saying that but you haven't pointed out the errors in logic.

Here it is again:

quote:
Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?

My answer to the final question is "no."

If your answer to the final question is "yes" - then you have your error in logic (allowing an irrational idea to effect a rational knowledge claim.)
If your answer to the final question is also "no" - then we agree.

As I said, I can demonstrate that I can bake a cake - to you or to anybody else who is interested. There can be no question of it being a figment of my imagination. It's objective.

We've done this already:

quote:
But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

You are claiming that because I am unable to demonstrate that we won't find God behind dark matter - then I cannot say "I know that God does not exist."
You're wrong about God for the same reason you're right about cakes.

It's the same logic.
Both items are about proving a negative.
Can't use it on cakes without using it on God, too. If you want to be rational about it, anyway.

Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2064 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:50 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2067 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 1:14 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2067 of 2082 (860843)
08-12-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2066 by Stile
08-12-2019 1:03 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Stile writes:

Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?

My answer to the final question is "no."


What error in logic are you pointing out?

Stile writes:

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.


Your claim that we can un-know something is irrational. Making changes in our knowledge base is not equivalent to undoing something that has been done.

"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 2066 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:03 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2069 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3764
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2068 of 2082 (860846)
08-12-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2065 by ringo
08-12-2019 12:55 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ringo writes:

What has been demonstrated can not be un-demonstrated. Your conspiracy theory will not work.

But you haven't demonstrated it yet. Again:

quote:
But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

Have you demonstrated such a thing?
If not - how can you claim that you know how to bake cakes?

You're the one saying you need to demonstrate such a thing for God, but not for cakes.
I'm the one saying such a thing can be dismissed as irrational for both.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.

Your claim that we can un-know something is irrational. Making changes in our knowledge base is not equivalent to undoing something that has been done.

I'm not claiming we can un-know something in this context. I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt.
You can't demonstrate the doubt away for you knowing how to bake cakes.
And in the exact same way - you can't demonstrate the doubt away for knowing God doesn't exist.

So - if you accept that this inability to demonstrate away the doubt means we cannot know God doesn't exist.
Then you must also accept that the same inability to demonstrate away the doubt means we cannot know ringo can bake cakes.

Your position is shown to be absurd.

You're being dishonest. You've said, "I know that God does not exist," hundreds of times in this thread. You only put the qualifiers in when somebody scores on your goal.

Here it is again, from the first opening message:

quote:
  • But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
    We don't.
    But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things. Message 1
  • And the last few times I specifically reminded you about it:

    quote:
    All knowledge is tentative.
    All knowledge is based on the information available to us.
    Therefore, we can leave these out as they are redundant Message 1880

    Here's the argument in a nutshell again:

    -all knowledge is tentative
    -all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us
    -things we know not to exist do not have a link from imagination to reality
    -within the information available to us, we do not have a link from the imagination of God to reality
    -Therefore, based on the information we have available to us the tentative conclusion is that "I know God does not exist."
    -Because all knowledge is tentative, and all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us: we can remove this text as it is redundant. Message 1893

    And, since all knowledge is 'based on the information available to us' - we don't have to say that because it's redundant Message 1979

    Since all knowledge is "according to the information available to us" we can drop that part Message 1980


    I'm not worried about scoring goals.
    I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework.

    Forget? No. I reject your made-up definition of knowledge.

    Again - you're free to suggest your own.
    So far - you can't even know that you can bake a cake.

    ringo writes:

    Stile writes:

    Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
    Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?

    My answer to the final question is "no."

    What error in logic are you pointing out?

    Again, from the same text your quote came from:

    quote:
    If your answer to the final question is "yes" - then you have your error in logic (allowing an irrational idea to effect a rational knowledge claim.)

    Bolded this time to stand out.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2065 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 12:55 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2070 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 5:12 PM Stile has responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3764
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.8


    Message 2069 of 2082 (860847)
    08-12-2019 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 2067 by ringo
    08-12-2019 1:14 PM


    Re: No evidence = irrational
    Answered in Message 2068 above.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2067 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 1:14 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2071 by ringo, posted 08-12-2019 5:16 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

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


    Message 2070 of 2082 (860861)
    08-12-2019 5:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 2068 by Stile
    08-12-2019 1:29 PM


    Re: No evidence = irrational
    Stile writes:

    But you haven't demonstrated it yet.


    Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.

    Stile writes:

    I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt.


    But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake.

    Stile writes:

    I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework.


    Then you should apologize for the whole thread.

    "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 2068 by Stile, posted 08-12-2019 1:29 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2072 by Stile, posted 08-13-2019 8:37 AM ringo has responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    134135136137
    138
    139Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019