Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


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 2161 of 3207 (861864)
08-28-2019 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2160 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 11:54 AM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So they can show us these gods.
The issue here is doubt. The people who believe in God doubt your conclsion the same as you doubt theirs. You can't show them that God does not exist any more than they can show you that He does.
On the other hand, both sides can agree that I know how to bake a cake, so Stile's claim that it is equivalently doubtful is nonsense.

"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 2160 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 11:54 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2162 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 12:28 PM ringo has replied
 Message 2166 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 1:51 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2162 of 3207 (861868)
08-28-2019 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2161 by ringo
08-28-2019 12:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
to make your analogy clearer, both sides *can* agree that you can bake a cake but some folks remain skeptical. If an individual insists on objective evidence as their default standard, they will never settle for any other claims and only insist that they have never tasted your cake nor seen it. Moreover, they likely won't want to try it anyway since they have had bad experiences with bakers in general.

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 2161 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 12:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2163 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 12:38 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 2163 of 3207 (861870)
08-28-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2162 by Phat
08-28-2019 12:28 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:
If an individual insists on objective evidence as their default standard, they will never settle for any other claims and only insist that they have never tasted your cake nor seen it.
The point of the analogy is that anybody can see my cake and taste it. It is literally an object. Thus, the seeing and tasting are objective.
A lack of evidence is quite different, despite Stile's pretence that it is the same. I can show you a lack of cars in my driveway but that does not mean, as Stile insists, that cars do not exist. I can show you a lack of Bigfeet on my couch but that does not mean that Bigfoot does not exist. By it's very nature, a lack of evidence does not carry as much weight as actual evidence.
And a lack of evidence can be reversed by finding evidence. Actual evidence can not be reversed, despite Stile's attempts at time-travel.

"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 2162 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 12:28 PM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2164 of 3207 (861873)
08-28-2019 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2159 by ringo
08-28-2019 11:33 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?
Of course, because that's exactly what I'm saying.
Just as there is no reasonable doubt in "I know that God does not exist."
Remember how there's no link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that God even "might" exist beyond our currently available information?
Therefore - thinking that "something outside our currently available information" should bring more doubt on "knowing God does not exist" is unreasonable.
Just as thinking that "something outside our currently available information" should bring more doubt on "knowing ringo can bake a cake" without a link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that such a thing even "might" exist... is equally unreasonable.
Same doubt.
Same process.
The day before the Northwest Passage was discovered, we did not "know" that it did not exist with the same level of confidence that we know today that it does exist.
Of course.
And, the day before the NWP was discovered, we had rational analysis of previous information that showed us that water-throughways sometimes exist beyond our currently-available information.
Therefore - here, you're right.
Of course, with God - we have no rational analysis of previous information that shows that "any God" could exist anywhere.
Therefore - here, you're wrong.
NWP had a link from imagination-to-reality showing it might exist.
God does not.
That's a big difference.
That's why, the day before the NWP was discovered, I couldn't say "I know the NWP does not exist."
That's why, today, I can say "I know God does not exist."
As I clarified above, unless I say "absolutely", I don't mean absolutely.
Then I kindly ask that you give me the same lee-way. You're the one who keeps saying I'm talking about "absolutes" when I continually repeat that I'm not.
This is your semantic game - not mine.
But, now that you agree we're on the same level, perhaps you're willing to proceed.
There is doubt in "I know ringo can bake cakes" as much as there's doubt in "I know God does not exist."
Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that I can bake a cake. Only the insane will have any doubt.
As you just said, this is not an absolute.
Therefore, what you really mean is:
"Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that I can bake a cake beyond reasonable doubt. Only the insane will have any doubt."
-based on the fact that all objective observations within our currently available information support this statement.
And I can equally say:
"Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that God does not exist beyond reasonable doubt. Only the insane will have any doubt."
-based on the fact that all objective observations within our currently available information support this statement.
Same process.
Same conclusion.
Same level of confidence.
Same level of doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2159 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 11:33 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2165 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 1:34 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2165 of 3207 (861874)
08-28-2019 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2164 by Stile
08-28-2019 1:13 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
Just as there is no reasonable doubt in "I know that God does not exist."
So you're saying that most people are unreasonable - because most people do doubt that conclusion.
Stile writes:
Remember how there's no link from imagination-to-reality suggesting that God even "might" exist beyond our currently available information?
I remember that that's irrelevant. Obviously there's no link until we find one, so a link depends on looking and we've hardly begun to look.
Stile writes:
NWP had a link from imagination-to-reality showing it might exist.
God does not.
Not before any water passages were discovered. We've already been through that.
Stile writes:
You're the one who keeps saying I'm talking about "absolutes" when I continually repeat that I'm not.
That statement is just blatantly false. I have never said that you are talking in absolutes. I have said that you falsely accused me of talking in absolutes. You are the only one who has brought up the possibility of absolutes. If you never mention absolutes in this discussion again, you can be assured that I will not either.
Stile writes:
And I can equally say:
"Nonsense. I can demonstrate to every person on earth that God does not exist beyond reasonable doubt. Only the insane will have any doubt."
-based on the fact that all objective observations within our currently available information support this statement.
Same process.
It isn't the same process at all. You can not demonstrate a negative beyond all reasonable doubt. Our currently available information includes the fact that there are places where you haven't looked. It is quite reasonable to doubt the assumption that you will continue to not find what you're looking for.

"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 2164 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 1:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2168 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 2:35 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2166 of 3207 (861875)
08-28-2019 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 2161 by ringo
08-28-2019 12:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
You can't show them that God does not exist any more than they can show you that He does.
So now you’re saying there have *not* been any successful searches and Stile’s null result still stands.
Bummer. We were ready to fire up the MRIs and the CATscans.
The issue here is doubt.
My issue here was your statement to Stile:
quote:
Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably.
...which is not correct since Stile's result has been repeated by me and many billions of others.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2161 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 12:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2167 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 2167 of 3207 (861878)
08-28-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2166 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 1:51 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:
So now you’re saying there have *not* been any successful searches and Stile’s null result still stands.
I said the opposite - that you can not convince people who have "found God" that they have not.
AZPaul3 writes:
...which is not correct since Stile's result has been repeated by me and many billions of others.
I said it can not be repeated reliably, since other billions have not confirmed Stile's results - i.e. his results are in doubt.

"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 2166 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 1:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2171 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2168 of 3207 (861882)
08-28-2019 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2165 by ringo
08-28-2019 1:34 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
So you're saying that most people are unreasonable - because most people do doubt that conclusion.
Exactly, yes.
If your only reason is "because most other people do."
This is "unreasonable" when doing a rational analysis.
You do understand that considering popularity during a rational analysis is unreasonable - yes?
Obviously there's no link until we find one, so a link depends on looking and we've hardly begun to look.
Then why do you keep bringing up the NWP example - where the link was already present?
Why not provide an example where the link is not already present? Why the strawman?
Not before any water passages were discovered. We've already been through that.
Yes, we have.
And, before any water passages were discovered, we could say "I know that water passages do not exist."
And it would be unreasonable to say otherwise. Why wouldn't it be?
That statement is just blatantly false. I have never said that you are talking in absolutes. I have said that you falsely accused me of talking in absolutes. You are the only one who has brought up the possibility of absolutes. If you never mention absolutes in this discussion again, you can be assured that I will not either.
The quotes I showed earlier prove that you're absolutely confused as to what occurred previously in the thread.
You can not demonstrate a negative beyond all reasonable doubt.
Of course you can.
Everyone does it all the time.
Otherwise, no one would ever turn left.
If you can't demonstrate that no car is coming beyond all reasonable doubt, and you decide to turn left - you're a terrible driver and should be yanked off the roads and have your license removed.
We demonstrate negatives beyond all reasonable doubt constantly.
Sometimes we're wrong - that's why we stub our toes.
Have you ever stubbed your toe? Then that's proof that you, too, constantly demonstrate negatives to yourself.
Our currently available information includes the fact that there are places where you haven't looked.
Very true, I agree.
There is rational indication that a water-throughway could be found there.
There is rational indication that ringo-can-bake-cakes there.
But... there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
This is the difference you keep avoiding.
It is quite reasonable to doubt the assumption that you will continue to not find what you're looking for.
No, actually, it's not.
It's reasonable to follow patterns.
The pattern for water-throughways is that sometimes they exist when we expand our information.
The pattern for ringo-baking-cakes is that he usually can when we expand our information.
The patter for God-existing is that he never does when we expand our information.
It's reasonable to follow the pattern.
It is unreasonable to go against the pattern without some rational link from imagination to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2165 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 1:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2169 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:56 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 2169 of 3207 (861883)
08-28-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2168 by Stile
08-28-2019 2:35 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:
You do understand that considering popularity during a rational analysis is unreasonable - yes?
I understand that Napoleon thinks he's the only reasonable one in the asylum. But reality is based on a concensus of what is real. Reason is not isolated.
Stile writes:
Then why do you keep bringing up the NWP example - where the link was already present?
We've been through that already. There was a time when no link was present, when no water passages were known. At that time, people did not claim to "know" that water passages did not exist.
Stile writes:
Of course you can.
Everyone does it all the time.
Appeal to popularity. If everybody jumps off a cliff, that doesn't make it a good idea.
Stile writes:
If you can't demonstrate that no car is coming beyond all reasonable doubt, and you decide to turn left - you're a terrible driver and should be yanked off the roads and have your license removed.
That does not in any way resemble what we've been talking about. Your claim is not equivalent to not seeing any cars that might interfere with you turning left. Your claim is that because you don't see any cars in one place, that no cars exist in any place.
Stile writes:
But... there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
Why not? What is the rational roadblock to finding God? Sarah refused to answer that question and I don't recall you answering it either.
Stile writes:
It is unreasonable to go against the pattern without some rational link from imagination to reality.
It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you have looked everywhere for anomalies.

"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 2168 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 2:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2170 by Stile, posted 08-28-2019 3:39 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2170 of 3207 (861886)
08-28-2019 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2169 by ringo
08-28-2019 2:56 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:
There was a time when no link was present, when no water passages were known. At that time, people did not claim to "know" that water passages did not exist.
Who cares if they actually did or didn't? Again - popularity is irrational when considering a rational analysis of current knowledge.
We're wondering if it's valid to say it or not.
And it would be valid.
Appeal to popularity. If everybody jumps off a cliff, that doesn't make it a good idea.
Uh - no.
It was a fact that all people demonstrate negatives.
When all people do it - it also happens to be popular. It's not using the popularity as a reason to say it can be done, it "can be done" obviously - because everyone does it all the time.
You're basically saying "You can't say 'everyone-breathes' to show me that breathing can be done - that's an appeal to popularity!"
No, ringo, that's not how it works. Now you're just wrong about how you're being wrong.
That does not in any way resemble what we've been talking about. Your claim is not equivalent to not seeing any cars that might interfere with you turning left.
It is equivalent to demonstrating a negative - which is what you said we can't do.
Your claim is that because you don't see any cars in one place, that no cars exist in any place.
Again with the strawman...
If that was my claim - you would be right.
However, my claim is actually "because we never see any cars, ever - that no cars exist in any place."
How is that unreasonable?
ringo writes:
Stile writes:
But... there is no rational indication that God would be found there.
Why not? What is the rational roadblock to finding God? Sarah refused to answer that question and I don't recall you answering it either.
You never asked me.
Why not? - Because no one is able to identify one. As soon as one's identified - I'll change my position.
Rational roadblock? - I don't think there is one. But this is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that there is no rational indication that God would be found there. What makes you think this is important?
It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you have looked everywhere for anomalies.
But you don't even believe this.
I've explained many times how "anomalies" can exist for knowing ringo-can-bake-cakes. Yet you find it quite reasonable to assume that pattern of ringo-can-bake-cakes is universal before you've looked everywhere for anomalies.
The same kind of anomalies (the ones with no link from imagination-to-reality) are present for knowing God does not exist. Yet you now find it unreasonable to assume that the pattern is universal before you've looked everywhere for anomalies.
You're being inconsistent again.
You're applying a sense of "absolute-ness" to one, but not the other.
You're doing it because "billions of people" agree that you should do it.
But these billions of people are wrong - it is not rational to be inconsistent, it is not rational to appeal to authority when doing a rational analysis.
If there was something rational they were doing - you wouldn't have to appeal to their popularity - you could just point out the rational-thing.
The fact that you haven't done is is... very telling.
Really, though - what's actually unreasonable, is to think we need to "look everywhere (beyond our available information)" before creating a valid pattern.
It's extremely reasonable to create a pattern based upon all of our available information.
It's also logical, rational, and how we know all things we claim to know.
It's how we know ringo can bake cakes.
It's how we know cars are not there so we can turn left.
It's how we know God does not exist.
All the same.
All the same "universalish-ness" (according to our available information)
All the same "looking everywhere-ness" (according to our available information)
All the same doubt.
All the same process.
All the same valid conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2169 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2184 by ringo, posted 08-29-2019 11:56 AM Stile has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2171 of 3207 (861890)
08-28-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2167 by ringo
08-28-2019 2:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
have not confirmed Stile's results
So they found gods!
Great. Let's see one.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2167 by ringo, posted 08-28-2019 2:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2172 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 6:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 2185 by ringo, posted 08-29-2019 11:58 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2172 of 3207 (861891)
08-28-2019 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2171 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 5:14 PM


Re: When specifics are required
One error which is made is that you assume that humanity collectively "sees" something or nah. Some of them found gods. Others didnt.

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 2171 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 5:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2173 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 6:40 PM Phat has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2173 of 3207 (861894)
08-28-2019 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2172 by Phat
08-28-2019 6:04 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Some of them found gods. Others didnt.
So no real physically embodied gods.
All in people's heads, emotions, acculturation.
Just the kind of supposed evidence of reality that science rejects.
Stile's null result still stands. So does his conclusion.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2172 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 6:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2174 by Faith, posted 08-28-2019 8:38 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 2175 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 9:49 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2174 of 3207 (861898)
08-28-2019 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2173 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 6:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
I wonder what you'd do if you actually saw a "god," as some people I've talked to told me they did (sorry I'm lumping too many different kinds of supernatural experiences together here) -- but called them "angels" or "demons," which is what the Bible says they are anyway. Would you deny it I wonder? Check yourself into a hospital?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2173 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2176 by Phat, posted 08-28-2019 9:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2177 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 11:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2175 of 3207 (861899)
08-28-2019 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2173 by AZPaul3
08-28-2019 6:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
I would argue that an appeal to popularity is either a strong indication of delusion (which you would likely argue) or of evidence of some compelling reason for the shared consensus.
If intelligence itself is any benchmark, this 11-year-old genius son of an Orthodox Priest(which you will argue indoctrinated his son) has a rather clever argument:
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

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 2173 by AZPaul3, posted 08-28-2019 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2180 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 2:42 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024