Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
256 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 255 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
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2281 of 2309 (862648)
09-09-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2278 by ringo
09-07-2019 12:32 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

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.

Which is an indication that the search is irrational.
There's nothing wrong with an irrational search - or searching for the sake of "just looking to see what we can see."

There's only something wrong with taking such a search, and then implying that there's a rational aspect leading us to find God (or any other non-indicated thing.)

ringo writes:

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.

The "information that we know we haven't looked there" is certainly available to us - but who cares?
The "information of whatever-is-there" is certainly not available to us - and this is what matters in searching everything "within our available information."

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).

Sure there is.
Prayer - tested and God failed.
God in the sun - tested and God failed.
God controlling weather - tested and God failed.
God creating a world-wide flood - tested and God failed.

You're just changing the test.
The test for luminiferous ether could be changed to include "maybe luminiferous ether only exists behind dark matter" too - we haven't done the luminiferous ether test behind dark matter yet - have we? Who's to say the results will be the same?

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.

Agreed.
Of course, there was a rational posited explanation for luminescent ether.
Where is the rational posited explanation for a non-universal God?

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.

Or change the definition of "God" to something that could be behind Dark Matter - with no rational reason to do so.

Thanks for proving my point, again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2278 by ringo, posted 09-07-2019 12:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2282 by ringo, posted 09-09-2019 12:11 PM Stile has responded
 Message 2289 by 1.61803, posted 09-12-2019 11:17 AM Stile has responded

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


(1)
Message 2282 of 2309 (862655)
09-09-2019 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2281 by Stile
09-09-2019 9:12 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

There's only something wrong with taking such a search, and then implying that there's a rational aspect leading us to find God (or any other non-indicated thing.)


And nobody here is doing that.

Stile writes:

The "information that we know we haven't looked there" is certainly available to us - but who cares?


I care because you're contradicting yourself. You say we've looked everywhere, according to our available information and now you're saying you don't even care if we've looked everywhere because you've already made up your mind.

Stile writes:

The "information of whatever-is-there" is certainly not available to us....


Because we haven't looked there yet. Our current information was that there was a continent of land blocking Europe from Asia. We could not say we "knew" that there was no passage through it until we looked in all of the places that we knew existed.

Stile writes:

Prayer - tested and God failed.


That's a God-answers-prayer test, not a God-exists test.

Stile writes:

God in the sun - tested and God failed.


Really? What specific test did you perform in the sun?

Stile writes:

God controlling weather - tested and God failed.


That's a God-controls-the-weather test, not a God-exists test.

Stile writes:

God creating a world-wide flood - tested and God failed.


That's a God-created-a-flood test, not a God-exists test.

Stile writes:

The test for luminiferous ether could be changed to include "maybe luminiferous ether only exists behind dark matter" too...


No. It's not the same. If luminiferous ether is required for the propagation of light, than it has to exist everywhere where light can go - i.e. here, in our back yard, where the experiment was done. But the idea of God does not require Him to be everywhere.

Stile writes:

Of course, there was a rational posited explanation for luminescent ether.
Where is the rational posited explanation for a non-universal God?


The assumption was that a luminiferous ether was "needed" for light to propagate. That assumption turns out to be wrong.

There is also an assumption that God is needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc. There has never been a Michelson-Morley-equivalent experiment to disprove that assumption.


“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 2281 by Stile, posted 09-09-2019 9:12 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2283 by Stile, posted 09-10-2019 8:48 AM ringo has responded

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


Message 2283 of 2309 (862678)
09-10-2019 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2282 by ringo
09-09-2019 12:11 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

Stile writes:

here's only something wrong with taking such a search, and then implying that there's a rational aspect leading us to find God (or any other non-indicated thing.)

And nobody here is doing that.

When you suggest that "perhaps God is behind Dark Matter" and this should cause serious doubt to adjust the rational conclusion of 'I know God does not exist' - you're doing exactly that.

You're taking an irrational search (no rational indication that the search will lead to finding God) and suggesting that it's conclusion should seriously be considered.

You say we've looked everywhere, according to our available information and now you're saying you don't even care if we've looked everywhere because you've already made up your mind.

You're wrong about this, I've been very clear and you even quoted it:

We have looked everywhere, according to our available information.
We don't care about looking everywhere beyond our available information when forming a rational conclusion based on our available information - why would we?
We do care if we, one day - perhaps, find something in our currently unavailable information that indicates God may actually exist - and upon this identification my conclusion will change immediately.

But without a rational link that God may actually exist - something more than "well, I can imagine God existing!" - without anything more than that, the current rational conclusion remains that I know that God does not exist.

That's a God-answers-prayer test, not a God-exists test.

If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the previous test(s) for Luminiferous Ether mean nothing as well.
Thanks for proving my point - that God is the same as Luminiferous Ether.

And we can know that both do not exist.

Really? What specific test did you perform in the sun?

Observations.
No God.

You don't think we actually have to "go" somewhere in order to observe it, do you?

People thought God was in the Sun.
But observations show that the Sun is nothing more than burning gases. No Gods.

If luminiferous ether is required for the propagation of light, than it has to exist everywhere where light can go - i.e. here, in our back yard, where the experiment was done. But the idea of God does not require Him to be everywhere.

If God answer prayers, or controls weather, or is in the Sun, or created a past flood - then God has to exist wherever those things happen.
But God doesn't do any of those things.

If we don't change the definition of God - then the tests stand.
If we don't change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - then the test stands.

If we change the definition of God - then the tests are irrelevant.
If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the the previous tests are irrelevant.

If there's no rational reason to suggest this new definition of God (or Luminiferous Ether) exists in the first place - then the new definition doesn't lend serious consideration to God actually existing. Especially if the "change in definition" is specifically to something we cannot currently test - like being "behind Dark Matter."

Being "behind Dark Matter" isn't the bad thing here - the bad thing is "not having a rational reason to suggest that... (something may exist behind Dark Matter.)"
It's quite possible to have a rational reason to suggest that something may exist behind Dark Matter.
We just don't have such a thing for God.

With no rational reason - obviously it shouldn't be considered in a rational analysis of our current knowledge.

The assumption was that a luminiferous ether was "needed" for light to propagate. That assumption turns out to be wrong.

The assumption was that a God was "needed" to answer prayers. That assumption turns out to be wrong.
The definition for luminiferous ether was never updated.
The definition for God was. Irrationally so.

There is also an assumption that God is needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc. There has never been a Michelson-Morley-equivalent experiment to disprove that assumption.

But there are facts.
All our observations show us that God is not needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc.
We have no observations that indicate that God even might be needed to create life, or keep evil at bay, etc.

Which means - we only have irrational reasons: "I can imagine God creating life, keeping evil at bay, etc!"
And, of course, irrational ideas should be trash-binned when doing a rational analysis of our current knowledge.

Based on all our currently available information and facts:
I know that God does not exist.

Since all our knoweldge is based on our "currently available information and facts," such terminology can be truncated and assumed as it is with every other usage of the word "know:"

I know that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2282 by ringo, posted 09-09-2019 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2284 by ringo, posted 09-10-2019 11:52 AM Stile has responded

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


Message 2284 of 2309 (862685)
09-10-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2283 by Stile
09-10-2019 8:48 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

You're taking an irrational search (no rational indication that the search will lead to finding God) and suggesting that it's conclusion should seriously be considered.


You have it backwards. It is not irrational to search everywhere that we know exists.

Stile writes:

We have looked everywhere, according to our available information.


You're wrong about that. We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there.

Stile writes:

We don't care about looking everywhere beyond our available information when forming a rational conclusion based on our available information - why would we?


It isn't beyond our available information. It's beyond our present ability to search there. Similarly, we knew that there were places we had not yet searched for the Northwest Passage; it would have been foolish to claim we "knew" the Northwest Passage did not exist before we had the capacity to search those places.

Stile writes:

If we change the definition of Luminiferous Ether - the previous test(s) for Luminiferous Ether mean nothing as well.


We're not changing the definition of God. We're recognizing that God is not defined as narrowly as luminiferous ether. That's why we can't draw simplistic conclusions about God.

Stile writes:

ringo writes:

What specific test did you perform in the sun?


Observations.
No God.

I've looked for elephants on my couch and didn't find any. That doesn't mean elephants don't exist.

Stile writes:

If God answer prayers, or controls weather, or is in the Sun, or created a past flood - then God has to exist wherever those things happen.


Non sequitur.

Stile writes:

If we don't change the definition of God - then the tests stand.


We're not changing the definition of God. We're saying that your definition is inadequate. You're trying to define God out of existence.

“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 2283 by Stile, posted 09-10-2019 8:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2285 by Stile, posted 09-11-2019 12:37 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2285 of 2309 (862722)
09-11-2019 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2284 by ringo
09-10-2019 11:52 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

You have it backwards. It is not irrational to search everywhere that we know exists.

No one ever said it was.
Search everywhere and anywhere - I support such things.

But if we've historically searched everywhere we can, and it creates a pattern that God does not exist everywhere we've been able to search, and there's no rational reason to suggest that God might actually exist in places we haven't yet searched...

Then it's unreasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in the places we haven't yet searched.

Anything more than imagination - and you have a point.
But, as long as it's nothing more than simple imagination, and the current facts suggest a pattern that God will not be found... you're being unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

You're trying to define God out of existence.

Not really.
I'm just seeing what happens when we put the idea of God through a rational analysis of our knowledge.
The result is objective: I know that God does not exist.

Added after edit:

I thought I'd clarify this: I am not prescribing reality - that's not what knowledge does.
God either exists or He does not.
Luminiferious Ether exists or it does not.
Winged horses with 5 horns exist, or they do not.

No amount of our knowledge - or saying we know one way or other other - will ever change the above facts.

However, based on a rational analysis of our knowledge:

I know that God does not exist.
I know that Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
I know that Winged horses with 5 horns do not exist.

Because they all have the same reasoning:
All our current information leaves a pattern that when we search for them in places we can search - we find that they do not exist there.
There is nothing more than "imagination" to suggest that they will ever be found in additional places we search.
Therefore - it is unreasonable to suggest that we "might one day find them" based upon nothing more than imagination.

But whether they absolutely exist or not?
Can't reasonably say that about anything at all.
Which is why our knowledge isn't based on absolutes.

Edited by Stile, : Additional ending thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2284 by ringo, posted 09-10-2019 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2286 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 3:40 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2286 of 2309 (862728)
09-11-2019 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2285 by Stile
09-11-2019 12:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

But if we've historically searched everywhere we can, and it creates a pattern that God does not exist everywhere we've been able to search, and there's no rational reason to suggest that God might actually exist in places we haven't yet searched...

Then it's unreasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in the places we haven't yet searched.


No it isn't. It's unreasonable to stop looking.

Stile writes:

Anything more than imagination - and you have a point.


Nothing is more than imagination until it is.

Stile writes:

I know that God does not exist.
I know that Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
I know that Winged horses with 5 horns do not exist.

Because they all have the same reasoning...


And you knowing that the Northwest Passage didn't exist had the same reasoning. But the reasoning was wrong.

“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 2285 by Stile, posted 09-11-2019 12:37 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2287 by Stile, posted 09-11-2019 4:20 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 2287 of 2309 (862729)
09-11-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2286 by ringo
09-11-2019 3:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

Stile writes:

But if we've historically searched everywhere we can, and it creates a pattern that God does not exist everywhere we've been able to search, and there's no rational reason to suggest that God might actually exist in places we haven't yet searched...

Then it's unreasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in the places we haven't yet searched.

No it isn't.

Of course it's unreasonable - otherwise it leads to not know that ringo can bake cakes.

If you think it's reasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in places we haven't yet searched...
Why isn't it also reasonable to suggest that ringo might not actually be able to bake cakes just because some people can imagine discovering that ringo's never been able to bake cakes in places we haven't yet searched?

Ringo baking cakes is only valid according to the information we have available to us - we've tested for ringo being able to bake cakes everywhere we can, and the test is positive, there is nothing (other than imagination) that would indicate ringo actually can't bake cakes and we're wrong.

God not existing is only valid according to the information we have available to us - we've tested for "God not existing" everywhere we can, and the test is positive, there is nothing (other than imagination) that would indicate God actually exists and we're wrong.

ringo writes:

It's unreasonable to stop looking.

No one is suggesting you should stop looking.
I'm only suggesting that it's unreasonable to use the fact that "people can imagine something" to cast doubt on what a rational analysis of our current information tells us.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

Anything more than imagination - and you have a point.

Nothing is more than imagination until it is.

Exactly.
And most things (an infinite number of "most things") will always just be imagination.

Why use imagination to cast doubt on God, but not on ringo-baking-cakes?

And you knowing that the Northwest Passage didn't exist had the same reasoning. But the reasoning was wrong.

Wrong again - you're attemping confusion again.

The NWP was more than imagination while it was being searched for.
You, again, mean to say "water-throughways" - which shows the point I'm making. It had the same reasoning, the reasoning was correct, the "current conlucsion of the time" was wrong.

That's how our system of knowledge works - not by "always having to be 100% correct" but by adjusting when new information comes to light.

It's a strength of the system, not a fault.
It's why we're no longer in the Dark Ages. Imagination is no longer enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2286 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 3:40 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 4:37 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2288 of 2309 (862730)
09-11-2019 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2287 by Stile
09-11-2019 4:20 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

Of course it's unreasonable - otherwise it leads to not know that ringo can bake cakes.


We've been through that. Your time-travelling conspiracy theory is worthless. It throws all possibility of objectivity out the window.

Stile writes:

If you think it's reasonable to suggest that God might exist just because some people can imagine God existing in places we haven't yet searched...


It's just as reasonable as imagining a Northwest Passage existing in places we haven't yet searched.

Stile writes:

...we've tested for "God not existing" everywhere we can....


I've asked you for examples of real tests that have been done, equivalent to the Michelson-Morley experiment. You haven't been able to cite a single one.

Stile writes:

I'm only suggesting that it's unreasonable to use the fact that "people can imagine something" to cast doubt on what a rational analysis of our current information tells us.


And I'm saying that you don't have a "rational analysis", since you haven't done any actual tests and you haven't even done a cursory look-around in all of the places available.

Stile writes:

Why use imagination to cast doubt on God, but not on ringo-baking-cakes?


We've been through that. What has happened can not un-happen. What has not happened can possibly happen.

Stile writes:

The NWP was more than imagination while it was being searched for.


We've been through that. Before the specific Northwest Passge, there was a time when no water-throughways were known - i.e a time when all water-throughways were only imagination. That's where we always start.

“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 2287 by Stile, posted 09-11-2019 4:20 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2290 by Stile, posted 09-13-2019 2:41 PM ringo has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2905
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2289 of 2309 (862752)
09-12-2019 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2281 by Stile
09-09-2019 9:12 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

Or change the definition of "God" to something that could be behind Dark Matter - with no rational reason to do so.

Thanks for proving my point, again.

I get the impression that Ringo and you are possibly talking about two completely different things.

God does not exist scientifically. In other words, in science something is said to exist if observations match predictions. In terms of God science has nothing to offer since there is no way to even begin to test something that by definition defies being scrutinized using the scientific method. Why because as you have pointed out God does not exist , (scientifically). It is a moot point.

God is a religious/philosophical concept and in that framework does exist.
And as Ringo has pointed out there can be no proofs for the existence or non existence of a thing, only evidence that can be either evaluated or not. And since there is no physical evidence to evaluate, scientist do not have anything to make predictions on let alone the ability to test them. So you are both right and both wrong. And round and around this apparent paradox we go.
Just my opinion.

https://medium.com/...rove-the-existence-of-god-b6fefdc52588


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2281 by Stile, posted 09-09-2019 9:12 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2296 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 11:55 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

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


Message 2290 of 2309 (862816)
09-13-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2288 by ringo
09-11-2019 4:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

We've been through that. Your time-travelling conspiracy theory is worthless. It throws all possibility of objectivity out the window.

Exactly. It has as much "rational analysis" support for it as does the idea that we could find God behind dark matter - absolutely none at all.

This idea you have that imagination-about-God should be given more rational weight than imagination-about-cakes is the problem.

I've asked you for examples of real tests that have been done, equivalent to the Michelson-Morley experiment. You haven't been able to cite a single one.

I gave you plenty of examples.
"Citing" isn't a requirement.
I'm doing a rational analysis - not scientific tests. I'm not looking for that level of rigor.
If you can even rationally suggest that it's more than imagination that God could be found behind Dark matter - I'll change my position.

For the same reason, the "tests" on God do not have to be "cited" as long as they were done and rational.
I'm saying that all tests ever done for God have all come out to show that God does not exist.

If you don't think so, you can show:

1. We have never tested for God before - ever (in which case I claim you are absurd.)
or
2. Some test has been done and the rational results show that God very well could exist (not necessarily "does" - even "could.")

And I'm saying that you don't have a "rational analysis", since you haven't done any actual tests and you haven't even done a cursory look-around in all of the places available.

Rational analysis - see message 1 of this thread.
Tests: If God exists in the sun, there would be "something" in the sun other that causes a difference that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists in our hearts, there would be "something" in our hearts that causes a difference that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists in the space around us, there would be "something" in the space around us that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Tests: If God exists anywhere at all in any part of the information we're aware of, there would be "something" in our information that can only be attributable to God. Nothing found.
Irrational possibility: We can imagine God existing outside our current information (perhaps Behind Dark Matter) and we just haven't yet found Him.
-but this is ignored, because it's nothing more than imagination

Please compare to Luminiferous Ether tests:
Tests: If Luminiferous Ether exists in the space around us, there would be "something" in the space around us that can only be attributable to Luminiferous Either. Nothing found.
Tests: If Luminiferous Ether exists anywhere at all in any part of the information we're aware of, there would be "something" in our information that can only be attributable to Luminiferous Ether. Nothing found.
Irrational possiblity: We can imagine Luminiferous Ether existing outside our current information (perhaps Behind Dark Matter) and we just haven't yet found it.
-but this is ignored, because it's nothing more than imagination

Again - you seem fine ignoring irrational imagination for Luminiferous Ether or ringo-baking-cakes. But you cling to it with no rational reason for God - and suggest that this should affect a rational analysis of our knowledge?

Absurd.

We've been through that. What has happened can not un-happen. What has not happened can possibly happen.

We did go through it.
You still haven't said why you favour imagination for God, but lend no weight for imagination about ringo-baking-cakes.
Other than, of course, your proposal of the popularity behind the imagination for God.

We've been through that. Before the specific Northwest Passge, there was a time when no water-throughways were known - i.e a time when all water-throughways were only imagination. That's where we always start.

Yes, and when we're there - the rational analysis says such things do not exist.
How can it say otherwise?
What information can possibly point to a rational reason to say something "might" exist when there's no information about it yet at all?

Wait... you don't think our claims of knowledge are absolute, do you?
Do you remember that our claims of knowledge do not prescribe reality?
Are you aware that our currently-best-method of identifying reality (rational analysis) is not 100% accurate? It does contain error! It simply contains less error than the other methods.

When we follow it, of course.
If you insist on letting imagination cloud your judgement of God's existence, but not for cakes or Luminiferous Ether... then you are not using our "best-known-method" you're actually using a method closer linked to that used during the Dark Ages.

It's up to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2288 by ringo, posted 09-11-2019 4:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2291 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-13-2019 5:02 PM Stile has responded
 Message 2292 by ringo, posted 09-13-2019 5:14 PM Stile has responded

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


Message 2291 of 2309 (862824)
09-13-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2290 by Stile
09-13-2019 2:41 PM


Re: When specifics are required
This idea you have that imagination-about-God should be given more rational weight than imagination-about-cakes is the problem.
I would make an argument that it is part of the reason you cannot nor ever will find Him. You essentially place no higher of value on God than you do on a hypothetical cake. The greatest commandment was and is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength. ringo is basically arguing that you are only used your mind and have not looked hard enough. You respond essentially by saying "why should I?" I can understand your arguments using rationality and the mind. I can't understand nor determine how hard you search with your heart, intuition, and desire.

It seems to me that you have basically laid out a case for why you dont really need Him.


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 2290 by Stile, posted 09-13-2019 2:41 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2294 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 10:59 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

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


Message 2292 of 2309 (862827)
09-13-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2290 by Stile
09-13-2019 2:41 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

It has as much "rational analysis" support for it as does the idea that we could find God behind dark matter....


No it doesn't. Looking in a place we haven't looked yet is entirely different from unseeing what we have already observed.

Stile writes:

"Citing" isn't a requirement.
I'm doing a rational analysis - not scientific tests. I'm not looking for that level of rigor.


When you're comparing your "analysis" to real science like Michelson-Morley, citing real examples most certainly is a requirement.

Stile writes:

If you don't think so, you can show:

1. We have never tested for God before - ever....


We certainly have not tested for God before. If we had, you should be able to give some proper examples.

Stile writes:

... a difference that can only be attributable to God.


Give some examples.

“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 2290 by Stile, posted 09-13-2019 2:41 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2293 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 10:37 AM ringo has responded

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


Message 2293 of 2309 (862896)
09-16-2019 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2292 by ringo
09-13-2019 5:14 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

No it doesn't. Looking in a place we haven't looked yet is entirely different from unseeing what we have already observed.

The same applies to both.

We have already observed (according to everything we can) that ringo can bake cakes.
We have already observed (according to everything we can) that God does not exist.

We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for ringo-baking-cakes, maybe we'll find something that tells us that we were wrong, and previous observations of ringo-baking-cakes were mis-interpreted and no longer apply. Ringo actually cannot bake cakes, and never did for any historical time we thought he could.

We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for God existing, maybe we'll find something that tells us that we were wrong, and previous observations of God-not-existing were mis-interpreted and no longer apply. God actually does exist, for always did for any historical time we thought he could.

You're just cherry picking.
Be consistent.

ringo writes:

We certainly have not tested for God before. If we had, you should be able to give some proper examples.

Sun. Prayer. Our hearts. Miracles. The flood.
Again - just because you don't accept them, and you accept the Luminiferous Either test does not make a difference unless you explain why you accept some and not others. In a coherent, objectively-applicable, rational way.

Remember - the Luminiferous Ether test was within our capabilities of testing.
If you're trying to say that God is not within our capabilities of testing - because (according to our current facts) God only exists as an imaginary construct with no link to reality - you fall into being irrational again. Such an idea is irrelevant to a current rational analysis of our knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2292 by ringo, posted 09-13-2019 5:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2295 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 11:55 AM Stile has responded

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


Message 2294 of 2309 (862897)
09-16-2019 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2291 by Thugpreacha
09-13-2019 5:02 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:

You essentially place no higher of value on God than you do on a hypothetical cake.

In all senses of the word "value?" Absolutely not. In fact, I place more value on God than cakes.
Of course, the sense of the word "value" when used in the context of a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge - then you're right - I treat all items with equal value for considering such an aspect. I would also say that if you increase the value of one over another - then you're not doing a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge.

The greatest commandment was and is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength.

If this forces you to be unable to do a rational analysis of our current facts and knowledge - so be it.
But be honest about it.
Don't say you're doing both, when you can't.

I can understand your arguments using rationality and the mind. I can't understand nor determine how hard you search with your heart, intuition, and desire.

Perhaps you only need to understand the difference.

I'm not saying the mind is better than the heart.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite a few times already - that I think irrational searches and ideas can be much more powerful than rational ones. And they are required for human advancement.

But can you separate the two?

Are you able to identify when a "mind" search is being done - and restrict yourself to a "mind" conclusion?
Are you able to identify when a "heart" search is being done - and restrict yourself to a "heart" conclusion?

Are you able to identify when/where they should be applied?

Like using a mind conclusion to know when you can turn left at an intersection.
And using a heart conclusion to know when you are ready to have kids.

It doesn't mean one is greater than the other.
Turning left safely can protect your kids.
Having kids may mean you need to drive places.

But mixing them up in the wrong ways can be devastating.
If you turn left "when you're ready" instead of when it's safe - you can destroy your entire family.
If you have kids when your mind says all facts are safe instead of when your heart says you're ready - you may never have kids.

Separate and identify in order to have a family and keep them safe.
Confuse and mix at your own (and those around you!) peril.

This thread happens to be focused on the mind-conclusion, and what the mind-conclusion says about God's existence.
This doesn't mean it's correct or "more important" than the heart conclusion - just separate and the current context doesn't include the heart conclusion.

From the first post in this thread, even:

quote:
And I think that my basis is rational.

...

Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.


This should identify to you that I'm discussing a mind-conclusion and not a heart-conclusion.

If you want to make a heart-conclusion about God's existence, and deem that as more important - not only do I accept that, I applaud and support you for it.
I'm just clarifying that you can't take a heart-conclusion and say it corrects what the mind-conclusion side says.

You can ignore the mind-conclusion - but it would be deceitful to say the mind-conclusion is something-other-than-it-is just because you heart-conclusion is different.

It seems to me that you have basically laid out a case for why you don't really need Him.

It seems to me that you are unable to separate two different contexts without mixing them together.
I hope for your sake and the sake of those around you that you are actually able to do this when turning left.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-13-2019 5:02 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

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


Message 2295 of 2309 (862900)
09-16-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2293 by Stile
09-16-2019 10:37 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

We have already observed (according to everything we can) that God does not exist.


No we have not. There are places that we're pretty sure exist where we haven't looked.

Stile writes:

We haven't looked behind Dark Matter for ringo-baking-cakes....


We don't need to. Once we find something, we can say we know it exists.

Stile writes:

Sun. Prayer. Our hearts. Miracles. The flood.


Been there. Done that. Not tests for the existence of God.

Stile writes:

Remember - the Luminiferous Ether test was within our capabilities of testing.


So, until we have a God test within our capabilities of testing, we can't say we "know" the result of a non-existent test.

“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 2293 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 10:37 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2297 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 12:33 PM ringo has 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