Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
257 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 256 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: martygraham
Post Volume: Total: 861,912 Year: 16,948/19,786 Month: 1,073/2,598 Week: 319/251 Day: 47/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2206 of 2309 (861968)
08-30-2019 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2201 by AZPaul3
08-29-2019 8:47 PM


Re: How to devise a test for the existence of an invisible living thinking creature
AZPaul3 writes:

The gospels, written well after the supposed events, have no more efficacy than Homer's accounts of Troy. Troy was a real place, but Achilles? Not so much.

Because of their history the gospels are suspect at best and cannot be counted as evidence.

But, let us grant your view. They are hearsay. The embellished recording of an oral history just like the Iliad and the flud. The darth of contemporary evidence corollary to the events is far more compelling. And they say nothing about Jesus and his miracles.

Your gospels do. But then coming back from the dead was all the rage throughout all the myths in human history. The gospels aren't anything special in that regard.

You keep giving the reasons that you discount the evidence, which simply makes the point that the Gospels are evidence or you wouldn't have anything to discount.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2201 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 8:47 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2207 by AZPaul3, posted 08-30-2019 3:03 AM GDR has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2207 of 2309 (861969)
08-30-2019 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2206 by GDR
08-30-2019 2:28 AM


Re: How to devise a test for the existence of an invisible living thinking creature
I also discount the fact of martians. Does that mean there are martians or I wouldn't have them to discount?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2206 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 2:28 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2208 by Faith, posted 08-30-2019 7:23 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2211 by GDR, posted 08-30-2019 11:37 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32950
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 2208 of 2309 (861982)
08-30-2019 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2207 by AZPaul3
08-30-2019 3:03 AM


Re: How to devise a test for the existence of an invisible living thinking creature
GDR said you were discounting the "evidence" but you've changed the subject to say you are discounting Martians rather than the evidence for Martians. IS there any evidence for Martians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2207 by AZPaul3, posted 08-30-2019 3:03 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2209 of 2309 (861983)
08-30-2019 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2183 by Faith
08-29-2019 11:24 AM


Re: God as Nonphysical, as Spirit, as Mind
Faith writes:

My point was that a mind is nonphysical and science only has means to recognize physicality.

I don't think science is as limited as you suggest.

If human mental activity produces some form of energy, electrical energy perhaps, since our minds are intimately connected to our physical brains in this physical universe, that activity might be detected, but the mind itself won't be detected.

Right. Even if we can't detect what this "nonphysical mind" is you're speaking of - we can certainly detect it's effects. Therefore, we can know that it exists.

And if God is Mind (Spirit is also nonphysical) since He doesn't need a brain for His mental activity, not being Himself physical, I don't see how there could ever be a scientific means to detect God.

The means would be the same as the means to detect the nonphysical mind - detect the effects. If there are no effects or "no effects that are not otherwise already explained," then such tests would indicate that there's no God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2183 by Faith, posted 08-29-2019 11:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2210 of 2309 (861984)
08-30-2019 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2184 by ringo
08-29-2019 11:56 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

But no, it is not irrational to look for a consensus.

Of course not - I fully agree.
It is, however, irrational to consider "a consensus" being more important than looking at the facts when doing a rational analysis.

I'm saying that if everybody you look at happens to hold their breath while you're looking, that doesn't mean nobody breathes.

And I'm saying that if vast portions of the human race look for people breathing for thousands of years - and we never, ever see anyone breathing, regardless of what controls or tests we try - then this would means that nobody breathes.

You can be fairly sure that something doesn't exist based on a lot of observations but you can be a lot more sure that something exists based on a lot less observations.

I understand this is what you've been attempting to say.
What you've been unable to do - is explain why this should be considered in a serious discussion.

All you've done is proven over and over that "positive" and "negative" conclusions are both based on "objective observations according to our current information" and they both include the same level of doubt that something different may be found "outside our current information."

If you have an actual, rational reason why they should be considered differently - please go ahead and explain it.

The reasonable conclusion would be that no cars existed in the places you looked at the time you looked. It is unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times.

Why? If we've looked for cars everywhere, for thousands of years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that one even might possibly exist in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?

Just as if we see ringo-bake-cakes, for tens-of-years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?

Exact.
Same.
Process.

There was no rational indication that the Northwest passage would be found either. Just like there was no rational indication that the Great Lakes or the Mississippi would be found along the way. Just like there was no indication that a central passage would be found. Just like there was no indication that a water passage through the Andes would be found.

We've been over this.
Of course there was.
Pre-cursors to all those things existed in one form or another prior to finding those specific items.

You can't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking. If we did that, we'd never find anything.

For first-time-finding-things (of which none of your above examples qualify, but still, you do have a point here...) - you are correct.

Of course, if you understand my argument, this isn't a problem:
I don't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking.
I have no problem with people irrationally looking for things. Almost all irrational searches turn up fruitless - but some of them turn up incredibly new and previously-unknown discoveries.

I do, however, use "rational indicators" as a reason to say we rationally know something or not - why would I?

But your "explanation" was stupid. It relied on conspiracy theories or time travel.

Exactly. No connection between imagination and reality.
Just like your "explanation" that we might find God beyond our currently available information.
There's no connection between imagination and reality - you have nothing but popular conspiracy theories to suggest it.

The fact that I can bake a cake is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.

The fact that God does not exist is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.
All of our objective observations within our currently-available information support the fact.
There is no connection between imagination and reality to suggest that anything outside our currently-available-information will lead to anything different. Only conspiracy theories.

Granted - the conspiracy theories for God existing outside our currently-available-information are much more popular than those saying evolution is wrong or our earth is not round.
But - in the context of a rational analysis, this popularity is irrelevant and we should be looking at what the facts say.

The pattern of no God is like the pattern of no water passages. You can't consider it reliable until you're finished looking.

Before the NWP? Nope - evidence of water passages existed at that time. Therefore, not like God at all.
Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found? - Yes, you're absolutely right - but this only supports my argument and goes against yours.

Knowledge is not absolute. Knowledge is based on our currently-available-information.
"Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found" - then, obviously, based on the currently-available information - water passages did not exist. Proven wrong when evidence of water passages was found. Find evidence of God - and you'll overturn my currently-valid-according-to-our-available-information conclusion. Without that - my conclusion stands:

I know that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2184 by ringo, posted 08-29-2019 11:56 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2214 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 12:09 PM Stile has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4961
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2211 of 2309 (861991)
08-30-2019 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2207 by AZPaul3
08-30-2019 3:03 AM


Re: How to devise a test for the existence of an invisible living thinking creature
AZPaul3 writes:

I also discount the fact of martians. Does that mean there are martians or I wouldn't have them to discount?

I can't do better than Faith's reply.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2207 by AZPaul3, posted 08-30-2019 3:03 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 2212 of 2309 (861992)
08-30-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2188 by Thugpreacha
08-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:

It is reasonable *if* Who and What you are looking for has been defined as existing in all places and at all times.


You're kinda arguing against yourself here. I'm saying you don't "know" something doesn't exist until you've looked in every reasonable place that it might be. If what you say is right, we should only have to look in one place to confirm that an omnipresent God does not exist. In the case of an omnipresent God, Stile is right - He isn't sitting on my couch so He can't possibly exist.

But I've been giving a little more leeway to the concept of God. If He is not omnipresent, then we have to cover all the bases.

Of course, there is still the problem of detectability. If we do not have the apparatus to detect Him - like we do not have the apparatus to examine dark matter - then we have to say that "according to our available information" we can not know whether or not He exists.

We can surmise that dark matter exists based on how it affects the rest of the universe - and you and many others surmise that God exists based on how He affects the rest of the universe. Same thing, equally rational.


“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2188 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2213 of 2309 (861993)
08-30-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2189 by AZPaul3
08-29-2019 1:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:

In this instance "in progress" means a whole slew of null results. Can't find it here, look there. Can't find it this way, try that way.

So far it's null results all the way down.


Northwest Passage. It was all null results until it wasn't. The search was "in progress" as long as there were places that had not been searched. It was premature to say, "We know there is no Northwest Passage," until every reasonable possibility had been tested.

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2189 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 1:33 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2214 of 2309 (861994)
08-30-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2210 by Stile
08-30-2019 9:06 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

It is, however, irrational to consider "a consensus" being more important than looking at the facts when doing a rational analysis.


"The facts" depend on consensus. If the observation can not be confirmed - i.e. if there is no consensus about the authenticity of the observation - it is not a fact.

Stile writes:

And I'm saying that if vast portions of the human race look for people breathing for thousands of years - and we never, ever see anyone breathing, regardless of what controls or tests we try - then this would means that nobody breathes.


That's a useless "what if". The fact is that the vast majority of the human race have seen people breathing (have "discovered God" in one way or another). It's a small minority who have failed to see anybody breathing (failed to discover god in any way). Failure does not nullify success.

Stile writes:

Pre-cursors to all those things existed in one form or another prior to finding those specific items.


Obviously wrong. For everything that we have discovered, there was a first time. It was wrong to say we knew fire didn't exist before we ever encountered fire. It was wrong to say we knew water passages didn't exist before we encountered water passages.

Stile writes:

The fact that God does not exist is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.


Indeed it is. And it is wrong to say you know the earth is flat until you've been outside your own backyard. You need to do the test before you "know" the result. The non-existence of God is a hypothesis, not knowledge, until the results of the testing are in.

Stile writes:

Before the NWP? Nope - evidence of water passages existed at that time.


Stop it. There was a time when there was no knowledge of water passages.

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
? Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2210 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 9:06 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2215 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:06 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2215 of 2309 (861999)
08-30-2019 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2214 by ringo
08-30-2019 12:09 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

"The facts" depend on consensus. If the observation can not be confirmed - i.e. if there is no consensus about the authenticity of the observation - it is not a fact.

That's the rational analysis I'm describing - yes - rational analysis should be a consensus based on facts.
You keep bringing up "consensus" that is not based on facts (billions of people concluding that God exists) and acting as if it should be seriously considered because it's a large consensus.

There's a difference.

The fact is that the vast majority of the human race have seen people breathing (have "discovered God" in one way or another).

No one has a rational observation that can be used as a basis to provide consensus to conclude they have "discovered God."

All you have is a consensus not-at-all-based-on-objective-observations-or-facts. Which is irrelevant to a rational analysis.

It's a small minority who have failed to see anybody breathing (failed to discover god in any way). Failure does not nullify success.

100% of all people who have done a rational analysis based on objective observations all agree to the consensus of not finding God according to those objective observations.
This "small minority" you mention is irrelevant to a rational analysis.
The group I mention - the one relevant to a rational analysis - is also billions strong.

For everything that we have discovered, there was a first time. It was wrong to say we knew fire didn't exist before we ever encountered fire.

Yes - wrong about reality.
But no - not wrong about "being valid to say according to a rational analysis of their currently-available information at the time."

Since knowledge is "a rational analysis according to currently available information..." take a wild guess as to which one is relevant.

Feel free to explain why it's wrong to say "I know fire doesn't exist according to our currently available information" when you have never encountered fire.
This aught to be fun...

You're implying a level of absoluteness to "knowledge" again that doesn't exist.
Do you think knowledge is absolute? If so - we can go back to that discussion where you run around in circles for a few days before admitting that it's not.
If not - stop this argument, because it depends on knowledge being considered as an absolute.

Stop it. There was a time when there was no knowledge of water passages.

And I addressed that - which you conveniently forgot to quote. It was the very next line.
Stop being disingenuous, ringo.
Your tactics are unraveling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2214 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 12:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2216 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 1:15 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2216 of 2309 (862002)
08-30-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2215 by Stile
08-30-2019 1:06 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

You keep bringing up "consensus" that is not based on facts (billions of people concluding that God exists)....


You claim it is not based on facts.

Stile writes:

No one has a rational observation that can be used as a basis to provide consensus to conclude they have "discovered God."


That is your claim.

Stile writes:

100% of all people who have done a rational analysis based on objective observations all agree to the consensus of not finding God according to those objective observations.


That's the "No True Rational Analysis" fallacy.

Stile writes:

Feel free to explain why it's wrong to say "I know fire doesn't exist according to our currently available information" when you have never encountered fire.


Not knowing is not the same as knowing. You keep equivocating "I do not know A" with "I know (not A)". Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2215 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:06 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2217 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:38 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2217 of 2309 (862005)
08-30-2019 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2216 by ringo
08-30-2019 1:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

You claim it is not based on facts.

That's right - I claim that those who say "I know God exists" are not doing so based on facts.
And the second someone presents a fact that contradicts my claim - I will change my argument.
Just like any other rational argument against irrational claims of consensus.

We usually see a few thousand cranks with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. We just ignore them because they never present any facts.
For God's existence... we see a few billion people with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. I just ignore them because they never present any facts.

Either one - show any fact (rational objective observation) that actually supports them - and I'll change my position.
Anything else - is more driven by emotion than rationality.

Not knowing is not the same as knowing. You keep equivocating "I do not know A" with "I know (not A)". Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.

Heh.. that's funny. Now you're blaming me for what you're doing?
You're the one equivocating my claim of "I know (not A)" with a claim of "I do not know A."
There are thousands of years of human history of people searching for God. The rational, based-on-objective-observations conclusion of that search is "God does not exist."
I know (not A.) Because the search has happened.
Not I do not know A. Because the search hasn't happened.

If the search hasn't happened for God - then it hasn't happened for anything as we've searched for God more than any other single idea in the history of mankind. If this search is still ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion, then the search for everything else must also still be ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion - and now you can't say "I know ringo can bake a cake" anymore.

You don't get to take your error and just call it mine.
You're the one who keeps appealing to popularity instead of facts for a rational analysis.
You're the one who keeps implying knowledge-must-be-absolute when you've already agreed over and over and over that it's not.
You're the one being vague, inconsistent, irrational and confused.

I'm the one being detailed and specific.

But you're free to try and continue - the pattern so far shows that you'll only strengthen my argument further. So, please, continue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2216 by ringo, posted 08-30-2019 1:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2218 by ringo, posted 08-31-2019 12:24 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2218 of 2309 (862077)
08-31-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2217 by Stile
08-30-2019 1:38 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

I claim that those who say "I know God exists" are not doing so based on facts.


And your claim that you "know" God does not exist is based on lack of facts.

Stile writes:

You're the one equivocating my claim of "I know (not A)" with a claim of "I do not know A."


I'm saying you don't know A. You're saying you know (not A).

Stile writes:

I know (not A.) Because the search has happened.


But the search is not finished. You're saying you know the Northwest Passage does not exist the day before it's discovered. You're saying you know your keys don't exist when you've only looked on the kitchen table.

Stile writes:

Not I do not know A. Because the search hasn't happened.


You do not know one way or the other - A or (not A) - until the search is finished. The search for God has begun but is not finished.

Stile writes:

If this search is still ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion...


As long as the search is ongoing, there is no "current conclusion". There is no "knowledge" one way or the other. There is only speculation.

Stil writes:

...then the search for everything else must also still be ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion...


No. The search for the Northwest Passage is not ongoing. It was finished when we found the Northwest Passage.

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2217 by Stile, posted 08-30-2019 1:38 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2219 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 3:03 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2219 of 2309 (862280)
09-03-2019 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2218 by ringo
08-31-2019 12:24 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

And your claim that you "know" God does not exist is based on lack of facts.

It is based on objective observations from our current information.
Just as "I know ringo can bake a cake" is based on objective observations from our current information.

If "I know God does not exist" has a "lack of facts" - from whatever is outside our "current information"....
Then so does "I know ringo can bake a cake" - because it, too, has an equal amount of lack-of-facts beyond our "current information."

Be consistent.

I'm saying you don't know A. You're saying you know (not A).

Exactly.
And we can know (not A) about things.
That's how we know we can turn left - there are no cars coming.
That's how we know God does not exist - there are no Gods in any of our available information. All of it.

But the search is not finished.

Oh? What objective information within our current information shows God exists? That's right - none.
The search is finished - within our current information.

Of course - if you want to go beyond our current information, that's unreasonable - we don't do this for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" either.

Either take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods and cakes - in which case we can't know either (or anything at all, for that matter.)
Or consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for Gods and cakes - which is rational and consistent.

Most people consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for cakes - because it's rational and practical.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.

Most people take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods - but this is irrational, it's only done out of reasons of popularity, culture, tradition or personal desire. All of which are irrational when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.

It's your choice.
Either accept you're being irrational and inconsistent to side with popularity.
Or be consistent - and accept my argument.

No. The search for the Northwest Passage is not ongoing. It was finished when we found the Northwest Passage.

It's only over if you limit the search to "our currently available information."
If the search goes beyond our currently available information - then the search is still ongoing. We could identify something that tells us that we actually have not found the NWP - we only thought we did.

So - which is it?

Do you want to be consistent and apply a rational analysis the same way for all things - and agree with me?
Or do you want to be inconsistent for reasons of "popularity" - and therefore be irrational when considering a rational analysis for "I know that God does not exist?"

Your call.

You can no longer hide by being vague about what you're referring to.
You flip-flop between "within our current information" and "extending beyond our current information" when talking about cakes/NWPs or God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2218 by ringo, posted 08-31-2019 12:24 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2220 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-03-2019 4:19 PM Stile has responded
 Message 2224 by ringo, posted 09-03-2019 11:19 PM Stile has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12813
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2220 of 2309 (862285)
09-03-2019 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2219 by Stile
09-03-2019 3:03 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

Most people take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods - but this is irrational, it's only done out of reasons of popularity, culture, tradition or personal desire. All of which are irrational when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.

It's your choice.
Either accept you're being irrational and inconsistent to side with popularity.
Or be consistent - and accept my argument.

Are you basically rejecting an argument from popularity as akin to dismissing the idea that some of *us* have found God within our available information(within our own subjectivity) or are you declaring that all believers are mistaken in their claim that God exists? There are just some things we *know* (or even believe) that can't simply be trotted out as objective facts for others to examine. If it were so, everyone would have the same belief based on the objectivity of the community at large. As I think about it, it's odd (and a bit brilliant) that you presented this argument. You took an atheist position(based on the fact that atheists are a clear minority) and made it the default position...thus eliminating the majority position as being valid in any way.

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 2219 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 3:03 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2221 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 4:39 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019