|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
We know that ringo can bake cakes. We can't un-know that by looking behind the dark matter.
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? Stile writes:
I can predict that in the future, Paris will have existed in the past.
Can you read the future? Stile writes:
Nonsense. The claim is not that ringo can bake cakes everywhere. It's that he can bake cakes somewhere. "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.""Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
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. ringo writes:
Of course not. We don't have to know that something exists before we look for it.But we do in order to call it rational. "Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile 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.
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? Stile writes:
The claim is that God doesn't exist anywhere. The claim is not that God doesn't exist everywhere. It's that He doesn't exist somewhere (all of our available information.) 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You keep saying that but you haven't pointed out the errors in logic.
And what you're talking about is an irrational search as far as that framework is concerned. Stile writes:
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. Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?""Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
What has been demonstrated can not be un-demonstrated. Your conspiracy theory will not work.
But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter. Stile writes:
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.
ringo writes:
No it isn't. The claim is that God doesn't exist anywhere.It's a tentative claim that I know God doesn't exist according to the current information available to us. Stile writes:
Forget? No. I reject your made-up definition of knowledge. Did you forget what knowledge actually is?"Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: You keep saying that but you haven't pointed out the errors in logic. Here it is again:
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
What error in logic are you pointing out?
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." Stile writes:
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. But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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: 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: And the last few times I specifically reminded you about it:
quote: 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: Bolded this time to stand out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Answered in Message 2068 above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.
But you haven't demonstrated it yet. Stile writes:
But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake.
I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt. Stile writes:
Then you should apologize for the whole thread. I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024