|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Answered in Message 2070 above. Answered in Message 2068 above."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: 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.Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not. ... But you haven't demonstrated it yet. Yes I have. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable. Interesting.Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter. There's a scientific community that would find it very interesting. But I can and I have. There is no doubt among objectives observers that I know how to bake a cake. That's not the question.There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information. Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information. The question is - Can you demonstrate-away-the-doubt that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when you attempt to bake a cake behind dark matter?The question is - Can we demonstrate-away-the-doubt that God doesn't exist behind dark matter? My answer is that these questions are irrational as there is no link between their imaginary ideas and reality.All our currently-available-information supports that a new location won't change how you bake cakes as this hasn't happened anywhere else. All our currently-available-information supports that no God will be found behind dark matter as no God has ever been found anywhere else. Your answer seems to be that we can't demonstrate away this doubt for God, but we can for cakes.
ringo writes: Stile writes: I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework. Then you should apologize for the whole thread. Why?I'm the one being consistent, clear and descriptive. You're the one remaining vague to attempt to hide within contextual ambiguity while refusing to focus on the actual questions being presented to you so you can cling to an obvious inconsistency. The absurdity of your position is on display.Your inability to address it is clear. The required correction is obvious. There isn't much more to do here.You are unable to move the discussion forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions. Radiometric dating can not be demonstrated behind dark matter (yet) either. That doesn't make it less real.
ringo writes:
Interesting. And I can demonstrate it again. It's repeatable.Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter. Stile writes:
It has nothing to do with available information. It is an undeniable event in the real world. No amount of additional information would make it not have happened.
There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information. Stile writes:
That's completely different. Something that didn't happen in the past - e.g. finding God or the Northwest Passage - can happen in the future; something that did happen in the past - e.g. baking a cake or finding the Northwest Passage - can not un-happen.
Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information. Stile writes:
This thread died once before. You dug up it's rotting corpse but you haven't been abler to Frankenstein it back to life. You're the one who's unable to move the discussion forward. There isn't much more to do here.You are unable to move the discussion forward. "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: Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions. But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet.
Radiometric dating can not be demonstrated behind dark matter (yet) either. That doesn't make it less real. I know that.But, apparently, you don't. You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter. You're the one saying our current information isn't enough to base a conclusion on our current information. It is an undeniable event in the real world. No amount of additional information would make it not have happened. Of course it would.If we found additional information that told us we were wrong - and you actually can't bake cakes - then we would be wrong, and you actually cannot bake cakes. That's what new information can do - overturn previously-held tentative conclusions of knowledge. Something that didn't happen in the past - e.g. finding God or the Northwest Passage - can happen in the future These are not the same thing.The NWP is a water-throughway, there is evidence that water-throughways can exist in undiscovered areas before anyone went searching for the NWP. There is no evidence of any Gods - ever. You're the one who's unable to move the discussion forward. I have a detailed, specific answer for every issue you raise. You're the one who keeps claiming that "knowledge-doubt" for baking cakes behind dark matter is different from "knowledge-doubt" of finding God behind dark matter without explaining why. I'm the one that says they should be treated the same - as irrational (no link to reality) ideas that should be ignored when making tentative conclusions of knowledge based on our available information (rational knowledge claims.) Why would I move the discussion forward?My position is solid and you can't seem to indicate anything actually wrong with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Michelson and Morley haven't conducted their experiment behind dark matter either. So, according to your logic, you can say you know that the luminiferous aether does exist.
ringo writes:
But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet. Repeatable does not mean in every conceivable conditions. Stile writes:
I'm saying we have to check every place we know of before we can "know" that something doesn't exist.
You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter. Stile writes:
But that's impossible. New information doesn't undo old information. The objective observations don't change. If we found additional information that told us we were wrong - and you actually can't bake cakes - then we would be wrong, and you actually cannot 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Michelson and Morley haven't conducted their experiment behind dark matter either. So, according to your logic, you can say you know that the luminiferous aether does exist. No.I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information. What is the link from imagination to reality for luminiferous aether existing behind dark matter? Without that - I stick with knowing that luminiferous aether does not exist. I don't know how you thought otherwise - this doesn't even make sense that you would suggest such a thing.
I'm saying we have to check every place we know of before we can "know" that something doesn't exist. If "every place we know" is equivalent to "all of our currently available information" - then you agree with me. If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes: If you think this is accurate - then you have to be open to waiting until we check behind dark matter to see if "something that tells us ringo can't actually bake cakes" exists there.That's "something." Therefore - you don't know if you can bake a cake. Your choice.Agree with me, or you can't know if you can bake a cake. But that's impossible. New information doesn't undo old information. The objective observations don't change. "The objective observations" don't change - you're right.But new information certainly does undo old conclusions. Even the curvature of the earth, at one point we knew it was flat, then we knew it was spherical, now we know it's an oblong spheroid. The observations that led to those conclusion didn't change.You can still look at the window, and see how some people thought it was flat. You can still see pictures from space, and see how some people thought it was spheical. You can still see the observations that show an oblong-spheroid, and see how we think that's more-accurate. The observations don't go away... but the conclusion (flat, spherical, oblong-spheroid) is updated along with new information. The observation that you think you can bake a cake now won't go away.But if we find information behind dark matter that shows you're not actually baking a cake, you only think you are... then the conclusion will change. As it should. This is how knowledge has worked since we moved past the dark ages.What you're talking about - conclusions remaining static - is dark-age epistemology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
All ideas are imaginary until they are linked to reality - and that link can not be found unless you look in every reasonable place, including the dark matter.
I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information. Stile writes:
That rabbit hole is still just as silly as it was the first time you brought it up. Yes, we can possibly find something in a place we haven't looked, a place we didn't even know existed until recently. But no, we can not unfind something that we have already found, not even by looking in new places.
If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes: Stile writes:
A cake is an observation, not a conclusion. "The objective observations" don't change - you're right.But new information certainly does undo old conclusions. "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: All ideas are imaginary until they are linked to reality - and that link can not be found unless you look in every reasonable place, including the dark matter. Right.And until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary. Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information.
That rabbit hole is still just as silly as it was the first time you brought it up. Yes, we can possibly find something in a place we haven't looked, a place we didn't even know existed until recently. But no, we can not unfind something that we have already found, not even by looking in new places. And, to me, this works for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" just as well as "knowing God doesn't exist." Both things have been found - according to our available information.Both things have silly ideas to overturn them - looking in places with no link to reality to suggest that they should be overturned. I think they should be treated the same.You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so. Everything you say about one is equally valid for the other. You just say it's not, but can't explain why it's not - this is an indication that you're confused. A cake is an observation, not a conclusion. You thinking you baked a cake is a conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No. We can know that something isn't imaginary if we discover it in reality. But we can not know that it is imaginary until we're finished looking for it.
And until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary. Stile writes:
And the available information is that there are still places we haven't looked.
Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information. Stile writes:
On the contrary, I have explained it: We can observe objectively that I can bake a cake. An observation can not be un-observed. You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so. But we can not observe that something does not exist. We can surmise that something does not exist, based on our inability to find it but our confidence in that supposition depends heavily on how many places we have left to look. We should only say we "know" something when the likelihood of the supposition is extremely high.
Stile writes:
It isn't "me thinking I baked a cake". It's a consensus of all of the observers who watched me do it. You thinking you baked a cake is a conclusion."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: No. We can know that something isn't imaginary if we discover it in reality. But we can not know that it is imaginary until we're finished looking for it. And this is where you're wrong. We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information.And that's what knowledge is. Knowledge is not absolute. And the available information is that there are still places we haven't looked. Places we haven't looked that are not a part of our available information (as far as God is concerned, anyway.)Your point is? We can observe objectively that I can bake a cake. An observation can not be un-observed. Nope.We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake. That conclusion can certainly be overturned. What if we found out that you actually aren't baking cakes and you only think you were? Are you saying that such information is impossible to find out in the future?Is your knowledge of baking cakes absolute? Knowledge is not absolute. You keep trying to make it so. But that's dark-ages thinking.
But we can not observe that something does not exist. Sure we can.We look for it. If we find it - it exists. If we don't find it - then it doesn't. If we look through all our available information - then we know it doesn't exist within all of our available information. We can surmise that something does not exist, based on our inability to find it but our confidence in that supposition depends heavily on how many places we have left to look. Exactly. And when "how many places we have left to look" is equal to "none at all within our currently available information" - then we can be highly confident.This is called knowledge. This is how we know things don't exist. We should only say we "know" something when the likelihood of the supposition is extremely high. Agreed.
It isn't "me thinking I baked a cake". It's a consensus of all of the observers who watched me do it. Yes, actually, it is you thinking you baked a cake.Just like people "thought they sailed on a flat lake" thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of years ago. Then new information informed them otherwise. Just like people "thought they sailed on a spherical surface on a lake" hundreds of years ago. Then new information informed them otherwise. We've just never had new information to inform us otherwise for thinking you can bake cakes.This doesn't make such information impossible to come by - it's simply makes us confident in it. We don't prescribe reality with our observations.We can't ever know our observations are correct with reality - how would we? All we ever know is that observations tell us according to our available information. All we ever know is tentative conclusion based on our available information. You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute.But - we know that we can never have absolute knowledge of anything - because there is no "answer book" to reality to check it against. Everything we observe is interpreted - that that interpretation can always be overturned by future information. If you disagree - you're putting on a level of "absolute knowledge" (even if it's just 'absolute knowledge of an observation') neither are ever, ever possible for us.According to our available information, of course The more you cling to this "observations can't be un-observed" nonsense - the more your position is shown for the absolute-knowledge-holding you're trying to force into it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
By that logic, we "knew" that there was no Northwest Passage until we found it.
We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information. Stile writes:
You keep getting that wrong. Everybody involved agrees that it is a cake.
We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake. Stile writes:
But the dark matter is within our currently available information.
. And when "how many places we have left to look" is equal to "none at all within our currently available information" - then we can be highly confident. Stile writes:
Not at all. Don't you understand the difference between absolute and objective? You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute."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: Stile writes: We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information. By that logic, we "knew" that there was no Northwest Passage until we found it. That's not true.There is a link from imagination to reality for the NWP before we found it. Again: The NWP is a water-throughway.We knew water-throughways existed before searching for the NWP. We knew water-throughways can be found in undiscovered areas. Therefore - I would not have been able to say "I know the NWP does not exist" before searching for the NWP. The difference is: We have no information to suggest that any gods exist.We have no information to suggest that any god might exist in undiscovered areas. Therefore - I know that God does not exist.
You keep getting that wrong. Everybody involved agrees that it is a cake. Agreement doesn't change anything.Knowledge is not absolute. You (and no amount of popularity) prescribes reality. Only reality prescribes reality. All our knowledge claims (even "I know ringo can bake a cake") are based on tentative conclusions from our available information. You're thinking of knowledge in absolute terms - that's Dark Ages thinking, and has been thoroughly debunked.
But the dark matter is within our currently available information. We're talking about searching behind dark matter.If that's within our currently available information - then we know God does not exist because we've checked there and still have no evidence of God. If we haven't checked there yet - then it's not part of our available information. Stay with the context, ringo. Stop trying to create confusion by swapping contexts on the fly.
Not at all. Don't you understand the difference between absolute and objective? Of course.And objective observations don't allow you (or any amount of popular opinion) make an absolute claim about reality. The observation remains (when ringo puts these ingredients together and puts them in the oven, this thing is produced at a later time.)Any conclusion is tentative. ("This thing is a cake - therefore ringo can bake cakes.") Do you know the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
There was a link from imagination to God too - thunder and lightning, life itself.
There is a link from imagination to reality for the NWP before we found it. Stile writes:
Sure we do. We have an alternative explanation for thunder and lightning but the alternative explanation for life is still pretty tenuous. You're trying to make a big difference where there might not even be a small one.
We have no information to suggest that any gods exist. Stile writes:
But you've changed your story. Originally you said we've searched everywhere. Then, when I pointed out that we've only searched a fraction of the universe, you switched to, "We don't have to search at all."
We have no information to suggest that any god might exist in undiscovered areas. Stile writes:
Yes it does. It's the difference between subjective and objective.
Agreement doesn't change anything. Stile writes:
Our available information includes the fact that there are places we haven't looked. It's foolish to try to predict what might or might not exist in places we haven't looked.
If we haven't checked there yet - then it's not part of our available information. Stile writes:
And I haven't.
And objective observations don't allow you (or any amount of popular opinion) make an absolute claim about reality. Stile writes:
If you had said that you tentatively conclude that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any conclusion is tentative."Come all of you cowboys and don't ever run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns" -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Ringo writes: If you had said that you tentatively conclude that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yup, it's the certainty in the absence of evidence that is unscientific - and irrational.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: There was a link from imagination to God too - thunder and lightning, life itself. That's not a link. That's an irrational idea.What is the link? I can show you how water through-ways existed before the NWP.I can show you how previously-undiscovered areas, when searched, sometimes show us water-throughways. Those are links to reality for the NWP. Are you saying you can show me how thunder and lightning connect to God in reality?If not - you have no link. You're trying to make a big difference where there might not even be a small one. Link to reality vs. no link to reality is not a small difference.
But you've changed your story. Originally you said we've searched everywhere. Then, when I pointed out that we've only searched a fraction of the universe, you switched to, "We don't have to search at all." I didn't change my story. You're confusing context again. I said we've searched everywhere "within our current information."I also said we don't have to search at all "for irrational idea with no link to reality." Our available information includes the fact that there are places we haven't looked. True.This doesn't change the fact that if we can't look there - it's not available. It's foolish to try to predict what might or might not exist in places we haven't looked. Of course it isn't.It's rational - as long as we follow information based on our current information. This may have been the most foolish think anyone has ever said.
If you had said that you tentatively conclude that God does not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All knowledge is tentative - simply because it's not absolute. Again, this was stated in the very first message of this thread: quote: I'm the one saying knowledge is not absolute.You're the one saying your claim of knowing how to bake a cake can never be overturned by future information. You're the one making an absolute knowledge claim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024