Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
36 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12805
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2266 of 2309 (862558)
09-06-2019 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2263 by ringo
09-06-2019 1:12 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

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

Perhaps if we had access to the minds of believers. Keep in mind that the group known as *we* is composed of both believers and non-believers. I expect that the conclusions would differ, despite your insistence that the definition of *know* should be universal.

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 2263 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 1:12 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 2267 of 2309 (862559)
09-06-2019 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2264 by Tangle
09-06-2019 1:34 PM


People deny science for not considering certainty
People have no knowledge at all on why they came to this World . . would that make them less scientific (or intellgent) people ..

But their blind certainty about things they have no knowledge about looks more like a belief, and that ignorance sure looks very repugnant or despicable as well . .

What about not bringing more people to this World, because it's a hundred per cent certainty that you'd be bringing more of the same.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2264 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 1:34 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2273 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 3:02 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

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


Message 2268 of 2309 (862560)
09-06-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2263 by ringo
09-06-2019 1:12 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

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

We don't have to have a link before we look for a link.
We only have to have a link before we have a rational reason to look for a link.

If the reason we look is irrational - why should it be considered in a rational analysis of knowledge?

Or if we look "just to explore, to see whatever it is we might be able to see" - again, how would this rationally indicate to us that we should expect to find God?
It doesn't.

And we haven't looked within all of the information available to us - we know of places that we haven't looked.

Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us.
Regardless of why we haven't looked there.

The fact that we have no way of looking there (yet) is not an excuse for pretending we "know" something about those places.

Of course, the fact that we rationally know nothing is there is because we have expanded our knowledge many times before, and no indication of God is ever found in any expansion of our knowledge. And there's no rational indication that God would be found anywhere at all.
Based on the rational pattern of facts - we know God does not exist in the places we haven't searched yet. Just as we do with Luminiferous Ether.

This is how we know (not A.)

We know Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
We know God does not exist.

They are both exactly the same: nothing in our available information indicates that they might exist within or beyond our available information.

We could be wrong about either, or both.
Or we could be right.

But, until we identify information showing they could exist: we know that they do not exist.

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

But looking everywhere over thousands of years does.
No God ever found.

If you disagree - just identify the one place we've looked and found God.

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.

Let's say I do the exact same experiment but with "God" supposed to be causing the difference instead of "Luminiferous Ether."
Do you have any reasonable doubt that the result will be any different?
I'm going to assume that you're honest enough to say "no - we can be extremely confident that the two results would be exactly the same."

Therefore, according to your same requirements - both God and Luminiferous Ether do not exist.

If you disagree with this example, you're free to run your own for verification.
Or at least identify something reasonable that would indicate that we would find a different result.

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

Thanks for the retraction.
Let's finally focus on the facts.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

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

According to Stile?

According to the facts.
Anyone can read the posts in this thread and see.

I'm not the one who's making a claim. You are. I'm just pointing out the errors in your claim.

And all the errors you claim to exist - are inconsistent, irrational, or appeals to popularity over objectivity.

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.

My facts:

Any and all rational analysis ever done to any information available to us has always shows that God does not exist as much as Luminiferous Ether does not exist.

If you claim to disagree, or claim errors exist - feel free to offer any fact to show how my claim is incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2263 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 1:12 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2278 by ringo, posted 09-07-2019 12:32 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2269 of 2309 (862561)
09-06-2019 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2264 by Tangle
09-06-2019 1:34 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:

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

I don't think so.
I'm not the one confusing the word with multiple meanings.

We do know many things for certain.

For absolutely-cannot-possibly-ever-be-wrong certain?
Of for certain "beyond any reasonable doubt?"

If you mean the former - you're obviously wrong.
If you mean the latter - that's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what leads to the conclusion that I know God does not exist.

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

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the same level of certainty we have for any and all things we declare as "certain."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2264 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 1:34 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2275 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 3:49 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2270 of 2309 (862562)
09-06-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2265 by Thugpreacha
09-06-2019 1:57 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:

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.

Perhaps.
But "internal confirmation" is known to have more errors accompanied with it than our best-known-method of rational analysis.

This doesn't mean rational analysis is right.
It just means what it is: that a rational analysis has proven itself to be our best-known-method (contain the smallest chance of being-wrong) of identifying the truth of reality.

Your choice if you want to use "internal confirmation" over rational analysis.
Your choice if you want to attempt to identify-something-about-reality using a method known to be more prone to error over a method known to be less prone to error.

Is it unreasonable to doubt the claim from so many people?

Not at all.
They're not being reasonable.

If we want to identify "something about reality" - wouldn't you think it would be reasonable to use our best-known-method over one that we know is more prone to being wrong?

Of course, if we want to "feel good about our life choices" - then perhaps we shouldn't focus on our best reality-identification method.

Just need to identify your priority (not always easy...) - then the "reasonable choice" is obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2265 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2019 1:57 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 2271 of 2309 (862565)
09-06-2019 2:48 PM


The World needs solutions, that is not bringing more of the same
.

What about not bringing more of those who did wrong, to this World

.

People have no knowledge at all on why they came to this World . . would that make them less scientific (or intellgent) people ..

But their blind certainty about things they have no knowledge about looks more like a belief, and that ignorance sure looks very repugnant or despicable as well . .

What about not bringing more people to this World, because it's a hundred per cent certainty that you'd be bringing more of the same.

.


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


Message 2272 of 2309 (862566)
09-06-2019 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2265 by Thugpreacha
09-06-2019 1:57 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:

Many many people claim to have been "saved".

Yeh, they'll be the idiots. It's a truly stupid conceit, even your bible tells you that nobody can know that.

Granted the concept appears unreasonable and a product of the imagination...particularly given the afterward behavior of some of these people.

And yet you'll ignore it.

Is it unreasonable to doubt the claim from so many people?

No.


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 2265 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2019 1:57 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2274 by Faith, posted 09-06-2019 3:07 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 2273 of 2309 (862567)
09-06-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2267 by celestialGyoud
09-06-2019 2:14 PM


Re: People deny science for not considering certainty
cG writes:

People have no knowledge at all on why they came to this World . . would that make them less scientific (or intellgent) people

No

But their blind certainty about things they have no knowledge about looks more like a belief, and that ignorance sure looks very repugnant or despicable as well . .

Who has blind certainty?

What about not bringing more people to this World, because it's a hundred per cent certainty that you'd be bringing more of the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about.


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 2267 by celestialGyoud, posted 09-06-2019 2:14 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 2274 of 2309 (862568)
09-06-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2272 by Tangle
09-06-2019 2:56 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Phat writes:

Many many people claim to have been "saved".

Yeh, they'll be the idiots. It's a truly stupid conceit, even your bible tells you that nobody can know that.

That is not true. Being saved is the same thing as having eternal life and John gives us information for the purpose of knowing that we have eternal life:

1Jo 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2272 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 2:56 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 2275 of 2309 (862569)
09-06-2019 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2269 by Stile
09-06-2019 2:18 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

For absolutely-cannot-possibly-ever-be-wrong certain?
Of for certain "beyond any reasonable doubt?"

If you mean the former - you're obviously wrong.
If you mean the latter - that's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what leads to the conclusion that I know God does not exist.

I know for absolute certain that I'm typing stuff into this iPad. And I can prove it. More importantly so can you.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the same level of certainty we have for any and all things we declare as "certain."

You can not know about things that are outside our existing knowledge. By definition.

But I'm off this roundabout again for another 50 pages. I'll leave you to go around and around.


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 2269 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 2:18 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2276 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 4:21 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 2276 of 2309 (862570)
09-06-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2275 by Tangle
09-06-2019 3:49 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Tangle writes:

I know for absolute certain that I'm typing stuff into this iPad.

You know for absolute certain that you're not mad?
You know for absolute certain that it's impossible for you to make a mistake?
You know for absolute certain that what you think about reality is actually reality?

You'd be the first...
So far, no human is capable of such things.

And I can prove it. More importantly so can you.

We can only prove things against the information we have available to us.
As "the information available to us" is not absolute - any proof is not absolute.
For both of us.

Unless you have absolute information?

You can not know about things that are outside our existing knowledge. By definition.

Exactly.
How can you say this right after saying you know something for "absolute certain??"

If you can't know things that are outside our existing knowledge, and our existing knowledge is not absolute - how are you "absolutely positive" something outside our existing knowledge will one day identify that what we currently think we know about [insert whatever here] is wrong?

But I'm off this roundabout again for another 50 pages. I'll leave you to go around and around.

Once again - I haven't moved.
Just identifying all these nonsensical, irrational, inconsistent "buggerings" you keep insisting on.

It's all here... the text won't disappear. Anytime you'd like to start being consistent and rational, feel free to return.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2275 by Tangle, posted 09-06-2019 3:49 PM Tangle has not yet responded

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


Message 2277 of 2309 (862571)
09-06-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2260 by ringo
09-06-2019 12:01 PM


Re: When specifics are required
It's just demanding the same scientific evidence for your claim as for anything else.

Then the millions and millions of null results over many millennia are that evidence.

Null results count as scientific evidence. Just ask Albert Michelson.

your claim of "knowing" something about God is no different from Faith's.

You telling me you don't discern an absolute "know" from a tentative "know"?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2260 by ringo, posted 09-06-2019 12:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2279 by ringo, posted 09-07-2019 12:45 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2278 of 2309 (862594)
09-07-2019 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2268 by Stile
09-06-2019 2:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

We don't have to have a link before we look for a link.
We only have to have a link before we have a rational reason to look for a link.


We don't always know before we look whether or not there is a "rational link". We don't just sit in an ivory tower listing all of the "rational links" before we look for something.

Stile writes:

Or if we look "just to explore, to see whatever it is we might be able to see" - again, how would this rationally indicate to us that we should expect to find God?


We found a lot of things that way. We didn't dream up a "rational link" to elephants before we found them.

Stile writes:

Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us.


Again - false. If we know the place is there, that is information that is currently available to us. We can not say we "know" something is not there before we look there.

Stile writes:

Based on the rational pattern of facts - we know God does not exist in the places we haven't searched yet. Just as we do with Luminiferous Ether.


No, it is not the same. We have a positive test for luminiferous either; the speed of light should be different "with the flow" and "across the flow". If the speed is the same, we can conclude (not luminiferous ether). There is no corresponding concrete test for God from which we could conclude (not God).

Furthermore, the luminescent ether was expected to be everywhere, if it existed. That is not a universal expectation for God, so failure to find Him in one place is not necessarily evidence for non-existence.

Stile writes:

Let's say I do the exact same experiment but with "God" supposed to be causing the difference instead of "Luminiferous Ether."


That's a ridiculous comparision. You can't do the same test for two different things. You might as well try to use an interferometer to find the Northwest Passage or use a thermometer to measure your height.

“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 2268 by Stile, posted 09-06-2019 2:15 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2281 by Stile, posted 09-09-2019 9:12 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 2279 of 2309 (862595)
09-07-2019 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2277 by AZPaul3
09-06-2019 4:21 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AZPaul3 writes:

Then the millions and millions of null results over many millennia are that evidence.

Null results count as scientific evidence. Just ask Albert Michelson.


I asked for one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morely and you provided none. I doubt whether either Albert Michelson or Edward Morley would accept the wishy-washy "tests" that you cite as equivalent to their work.

AZPaul3 writes:

You telling me you don't discern an absolute "know" from a tentative "know"?


I'm telling you that I can discern an objective "know". The fact that I can bake a cake is an objective "know". I can demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt.

The idea that God does not exist is not remotely similar. It can not be demonstrated objectively.

Failure to demonstrate existence is not evidence of non-existence. 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 2277 by AZPaul3, posted 09-06-2019 4:21 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32922
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2280 of 2309 (862635)
09-08-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1837 by AZPaul3
08-06-2019 3:46 AM


Re: Protestant punishment of heretics?
You called me "ignorant" of Protestant persecutions on a par with the Catholic Inquisition, you cite a book on the subject which I'd never heard of. It's a piece of Catholic Apologetics of course. Most of the historians quoted are Roman Catholics, and I had to look up a bunch of them to find that out. One -- Stoddard -- was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism.

I wrote to a Reformed site for information about this book and they did not answer me. I looked at Amazon to see if they sell it and what reviews there might be of it, found none. I could continue searching such sites I suppose but instead I read some of the first chapter myself. It's all quotes about how "intolerant" the Protestant Reformers were of Catholicism. Oh dear, they were "intolerant" of the ANTICHRIST? That is what they determined the papacy to be you know. And it's all nothing more than brief quotes to that effect with no references to historical instances of such intolerance so that one might get some idea of what they have in mind. Then there's Comte who baldly declares the RCC to be the legimate early Church despite the Reformation's work that exposed it as the heir of the Roman pagan religions and Antichrist. abe: Comte also calls the Protestants the "aggressors" against the RCC which is some kind of joke. Various Roman Catholics were protesting the corruptions of the RCC and after much study began to realize that there is nothing Christian at all about the RCC, that the whole thing is a pagan Antichrist superstition. This is apparently what Comte calls "aggression?" Right, the way the courts are the aggressors against criminals. Wow.

At least as far as I've read there is nothing to suggest anything on the level of the Inquisition with its tortures and murders.

In England there were many Catholic plots against the monarchy so that Elizabeth I and King James and others had to have a regiment of bodyguards. Such plotters were often beheaded. Is that "intolerance?" Well, the RCC thinks so, although it is in reality justice against treasonous plotters. Pope John Paul was allowed to go to England and treat such traitors as "martyrs." He should have been banded from the country.

I may try to read more of that Antichrist-defending book, but don't know how far I'll get. You really should prove your accusation by quoting some part of it that actually proves anything by Protestants on the level of the Inquisition.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1837 by AZPaul3, posted 08-06-2019 3:46 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019