Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
70 online now:
Faith, GDR, ramoss, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 66 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: martygraham
Post Volume: Total: 861,917 Year: 16,953/19,786 Month: 1,078/2,598 Week: 1/323 Day: 1/51 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2251 of 2309 (862507)
09-05-2019 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2250 by AZPaul3
09-05-2019 1:42 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:

I'm pretty sure you made your own search for the gods. How did that turn out for you?


That is not relevant to what I have been saying in this thread. I'm just saying that it is not appropriate to claim we "know" (not A) when in fact we just don't know A.

“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 2250 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2019 1:42 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2253 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2019 6:23 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2252 of 2309 (862508)
09-05-2019 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2193 by AZPaul3
08-29-2019 4:07 PM


Prager University Makes A Point
Conservative YouTube Channel Prager U. sponsored by Dennis Prager is conservative and admittedly pro-apologetics leaning, but had a valid question and well-thought-out response to this whole idea of a null hypothesis.

Essentially making the argument that there were 4, rather than simply one big bang type of events in the evolution of the universe.

quote:
Science tells us that the universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science can't explain.

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 2193 by AZPaul3, posted 08-29-2019 4:07 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2254 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2019 8:22 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 2253 of 2309 (862511)
09-05-2019 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 2251 by ringo
09-05-2019 5:21 PM


Re: When specifics are required
And I'm saying the millions of null results over millennia, including your result and my result, are as relevant to the search for gods as Michelson-Morley's null result in the search for the aether.

Until there is a dramatic change in what we "know" today saying "We know there are no gods" is as valid as saying "We know there is no aether."


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2251 by ringo, posted 09-05-2019 5:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2256 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:36 AM AZPaul3 has responded

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


Message 2254 of 2309 (862513)
09-05-2019 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2252 by Thugpreacha
09-05-2019 5:48 PM


Prager University Makes No Point
Essentially making the argument that there were 4, rather than simply one big bang type of events in the evolution of the universe.

I love you, you PhatThug, but you just love those BS arguments.

4 big bangs, my ass.

This whole video is nothing but the usual arguments of personal incredulity from ignorance.

There are things we don't know, yet. The religious knee jerk response, predictable, is to invoke a god.

No new arguments, no new insights, to this piece of apologist tripe.

Move along, citizens. Nothing to see here.

Edited by AZPaul3, : subtitle


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2252 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-05-2019 5:48 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 2255 of 2309 (862537)
09-06-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2246 by ringo
09-05-2019 11:47 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

No. Our available information is that there are places where we have not looked, so no definitive conclusion has been reached.

If we haven't looked, then the information isn't available.
If there's no reason to expect that looking-somewhere-that-is-unavailable will turn up a positive result (no link from imagination to reality) - then it is unreasonable to suggest that such we "have to look there" first - just like with ringo-baking-cakes.

I only disagree with your terminology. Claiming you know (not A) when you don't know A is incorrect. You're pretty sure about (not A). You don't know.

It's your terminology that's inconsistent.

I do know (not A) about God as much as I know (not A) about cars not being there so it's safe to turn left or as much as I know (not A) about Luminiferous Ether or as much as I know (A) about ringo-baking-cakes.

You're the one using the same terminology, but with different meanings, in different situations - according to how "popularity" leans.

I'm being consistent and rational in my terminology.
You're being inconsistent and irrational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2246 by ringo, posted 09-05-2019 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2257 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 11:45 AM Stile has responded
 Message 2258 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:47 AM Stile has responded

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


Message 2256 of 2309 (862540)
09-06-2019 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2253 by AZPaul3
09-05-2019 6:23 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:

And I'm saying the millions of null results over millennia....


And yet you haven't named even one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley that would lend legitimacy to those "null" results.

“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 2253 by AZPaul3, posted 09-05-2019 6:23 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2259 by AZPaul3, posted 09-06-2019 11:57 AM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 2257 of 2309 (862541)
09-06-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2255 by Stile
09-06-2019 9:55 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

I'm being consistent and rational in my terminology.

You've spent 150 pages just buggering about with what the word 'know' means.

And it looks like you're heading for another 150.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2255 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 9:55 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2261 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 12:42 PM Tangle has responded

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


(1)
Message 2258 of 2309 (862543)
09-06-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2255 by Stile
09-06-2019 9:55 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

If we haven't looked, then the information isn't available.


If we know there's a place we haven't looked, that's information too. We can't ignore that information when we make a conclusion.

Stile writes:

I do know (not A) about God as much as I know (not A) about cars not being there so it's safe to turn left or as much as I know (not A) about Luminiferous Ether or as much as I know (A) about ringo-baking-cakes.


Wrong.

In the case of cars, there is not equivalent "I do not know A", so the example is not relevant.

In the case of luminiferous ether, there are experiments to confirm (not A); there are no such experiments in the case of God.

Likewise in the case of baking cakes, the cakes are experimentally confirmed.

Stile writes:

You're the one using the same terminology, but with different meanings, in different situations...


Not at all. We "know" (not A) in the cases of luminiferous ether and cakes because of experimental evidence. We do not "know" (not A) in the case of God because there is no experimental evidence.

Stile writes:

... according to how "popularity" leans.


You're confusing popularity with objectivity.

Stile writes:

I'm being consistent and rational in my terminology.


You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

“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 2255 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 9:55 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2262 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 12:54 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2259 of 2309 (862544)
09-06-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2256 by ringo
09-06-2019 11:36 AM


Re: When specifics are required
experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley

Right there is a semantic rabbit hole I will not go down.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2256 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2260 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 12:01 PM AZPaul3 has responded

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


Message 2260 of 2309 (862546)
09-06-2019 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2259 by AZPaul3
09-06-2019 11:57 AM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:

ringo writes:

experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley


Right there is a semantic rabbit hole I will not go down.

Nothing semantic about it. It's just demanding the same scientific evidence for your claim as for anything else. Without objective empirical evidence, your claim of "knowing" something about God is no different from Faith's.

“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 2259 by AZPaul3, posted 09-06-2019 11:57 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2277 by AZPaul3, posted 09-06-2019 4:21 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2261 of 2309 (862548)
09-06-2019 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2257 by Tangle
09-06-2019 11:45 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:

You've spent 150 pages just buggering about with what the word 'know' means.

And it looks like you're heading for another 150.

I think your memory is off. Here's the last message you never replied to: Message 2114

As we left off, it was you who was buggering about with what the word 'know' means using two different definitions - one where you suggest the word "know" implied certainty, and another where you suggest the word "know" is not absolute.

Be consistent.
Which is it?

My position was, and still is, that "know" is always not absolute. There is always doubt.

And when that doubt is unreasonable - that is "there is no link from reality to imagination that such doubt should be rationally considered" - then the doubt can be ignored.

I want to ignore all unreasonable doubt.

You and ringo seem to want to consider unreasonable doubt for God, but ignore it for certain other things (like Luminiferous Ether.)
With no rational reason to do so.
Only irrational reasons - popularity, how you feel about...

Your choice if you want to be confusing and irrational - just don't expect me to accept it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2257 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 11:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2264 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 1:34 PM Stile has responded
 Message 2265 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2019 1:57 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2262 of 2309 (862550)
09-06-2019 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2258 by ringo
09-06-2019 11:47 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

If we know there's a place we haven't looked, that's information too. We can't ignore that information when we make a conclusion.

Of course we can.
You said so yourself: we don't need to consider unreasonable doubt.

This "information" you're speaking of is unreasonable doubt.
There is no link from the imagination of this idea to reality that this "place we haven't looked" even *might* show us evidence that God could exist.
Therefore, it's unreasonable and should be ignored.

Unless, of course, you want to consider all unreasonable doubt?
In which case, we no longer know that ringo can bake cakes.

Be consistent.

In the case of cars, there is not equivalent "I do not know A", so the example is not relevant.

Of course there is.
If you don't look within the information available to you, you won't know.
But if you do look - then you can know one way or the other.

Same with God - if we don't look within the information available to us, we won't know.
But if you do look - then you can know one way or the other.

We "know" (not A) in the cases of luminiferous ether and cakes because of experimental evidence. We do not "know" (not A) in the case of God because there is no experimental evidence.

Of course we have experimental evidence that God does not exist.
Hypothesis: If God exists, we would have identified something within our available information that indicates that God might exist.
Experiment: Look at all our available information and see if God exists or not.
Conclusion over the last few thousand years: No one has ever identified anything within our available information that indicates God might exist.
Therefore - I know that God does not exist.

Replace "God" with "Luminiferous Ether" and it's the exact same experiment and result.

This isn't hard...

You're confusing popularity with objectivity.

No. Objectivity is based on facts - and it so happens that many people will agree, because of the facts.
Popularity is based on popularity - regardless of the facts.

You base your decision on popularity.
I base it on facts.
You can't argue with the facts - the facts say God does not exist.

You can only argue with popularity - which is why the only reason you've ever provided is "well - lots of people say they found God!"
Good for them.
Objectivity deals in facts.
And the facts disagree with all of them.
There are no facts showing that God can be found anywhere.

You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

According to ringo?
Who is inconsistent, irrational and appeals to popularity over objectivity?

You're free to claim anything you'd like.
I'm more interested in what you can objectively show - according to the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2258 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2263 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 1:12 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2263 of 2309 (862553)
09-06-2019 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2262 by Stile
09-06-2019 12:54 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

You said so yourself: we don't need to consider unreasonable doubt.


It isn't unreasonable doubt.

Stile writes:

There is no link from the imagination of this idea to reality that this "place we haven't looked" even *might* show us evidence that God could exist.


That's an unreasonable requirement. If we had to have a link before we look for a link, we'd never find anything.

Stile writes:

Same with God - if we don't look within the information available to us, we won't know.


And we haven't looked within all of the information available to us - we know of places that we haven't looked. The fact that we have no way of looking there (yet) is not an excuse for pretending we "know" something about those places.

Stile writes:

Experiment: Look at all our available information and see if God exists or not.


Looking out the window and not seeing God does not qualify as an experiment.

Stile writes:

Replace "God" with "Luminiferous Ether" and it's the exact same experiment and result.


Nonsense. The Michelson-Morley experiment had two distinct possible outcomes - either the speed of light was different parallel to the "ether wind" and perpendicular to it or it was the same. There is no equivalent test for God or not-God that will yield one of two distinctly different results like that.

Stile writes:

Objectivity is based on facts - and it so happens that many people will agree, because of the facts.
Popularity is based on popularity - regardless of the facts.


And nothing I have said has anything to do with popularity.

Stile writes:

Who is inconsistent, irrational and appeals to popularity over objectivity?


According to Stile?

Stile writes:

You're free to claim anything you'd like.
I'm more interested in what you can objectively show - according to the facts.


I'm not the one who's making a claim. You are. I'm just pointing out the errors in your claim. If you had any facts, you could show them but all you're doing is claiming to "know" (not A) when you really just don't know A.

“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 2262 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 12:54 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2266 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2019 2:00 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2268 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 2:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7068
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 2264 of 2309 (862554)
09-06-2019 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2261 by Stile
09-06-2019 12:42 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

My position was, and still is, that "know" is always not absolute. There is always doubt.

Yeh, I know what your position is. It's a pedantic, nit-picking, silly and wrong point.

We do know many things for certain. When we don't know things for certain we say we don't know and/or can't know, but we are often able to form temporary probabilistic conclusions about them based on what we do know.

Your certainty about things that we have no knowledge of is not scientific.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2261 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 12:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2267 by celestialGyoud, posted 09-06-2019 2:14 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 2269 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 2:18 PM Tangle has responded

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


Message 2265 of 2309 (862557)
09-06-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2261 by Stile
09-06-2019 12:42 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

My position was, and still is, that "know" is always not absolute. There is always doubt.

And when that doubt is unreasonable - that is "there is no link from reality to imagination that such doubt should be rationally considered" - then the doubt can be ignored.

I want to ignore all unreasonable doubt.

Many many people claim to have been "saved". Granted the concept appears unreasonable and a product of the imagination...particularly given the afterward behavior of some of these people.
Perhaps, however, being saved is an internal confirmation linking imagination to reality. Is it unreasonable to doubt the claim from so many people?

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 2261 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 12:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2270 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 2:26 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 2272 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 2:56 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