Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,377 Year: 18,413/19,786 Month: 833/1,705 Week: 85/518 Day: 11/74 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2296 of 2312 (862901)
09-16-2019 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2289 by 1.61803
09-12-2019 11:17 AM


Re: When specifics are required
1.61803 writes:

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

In a sense, yes.
And in another, no.

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.

I am not limiting myself to a "scientific" conclusion.
Science has a very rigorous level attached to it.
I am, however, limiting myself to a "rational" conclusion that is still attached to factual tests and evidence. Just not up to the level of rigour that comes with "science."
I have been calling this "rational" method our currently "best-known-method-for-knowing-things," since it is.

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.

I agree.
My point is to remain consistent.

If ringo wants to talk about religious/philosophical concept of God's existence... then why talk about cakes and North West Passages in a rational way and refuse to consider the religious/philosophical arguments as applied to those more mundane items?
If ringo wants to talk about cakes and the North West Passage in a rational way... then why not also talk about God's existence in a rational way?

If we're going to be consistent:

Either the religous/philosophical arguments apply to everything (cakes, NWP's and God) - and we don't "know" if any of them exist or not (as we can always philosophically identify some idea that would cause our current rationally-based conclusion to be incorrect.)

Or the rational arguments apply to everything (cakes, NWP's and God) - and we know that cakes exist, we know that the NWP exists and we know that God does not exist.

I've even left the door open to say both - but just explicitly specify which one you're using and when.

What I've been arguing against.... is flip-flopping between the usage of these two things, and using that confusion to come to a conclusion that we cannot say, rationally, that we know God does not exist.

I am perfectly fine with (and I've offered this myself) the explanation of "cakes and NWPs are popularly discussed in a rational sense while God is popularly discussed in a philosophical sense... and my conclusion is only valid when ignoring this argument-of-popularity with God and choosing (rightly or wrongly - personal opinion here) to discuss God's existence in a rational sense."

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.

Perhaps in science - but I'm not even sure about that (I'm not a scientist - so I don't claim to understand all the nuances within "science.")
However, in a rational analysis - we are definitely able to make positive observations about things not existing just as much as we can make positive observations of things existing. Such as identifying "no cars are coming" so it's safe to turn left. Or identifying that keys don't exist on tables. Or identifying that there are no facts anywhere, across human history, that would suggest the possibility of God existing somewhere.

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

I'm saying my description is correct in a rational sense according to our best-known-method-for-knowing-things.
ringo seems to pick parts of my discussion and say they are not rational, or applicable to our best-known-method-for-knowing-things.

If ringo is arguing that my statements do not apply to "irrational knowledge-methods" or "knowledge methods that are other than our best-known-methods-for-knowing-things." Then ringo is doing a terrible job explaining such a thing - as I would have no argument. It is not my intent to apply this idea to such things. It wouldn't even make sense to attempt such an endeavor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2289 by 1.61803, posted 09-12-2019 11:17 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2297 of 2312 (862903)
09-16-2019 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2295 by ringo
09-16-2019 11:55 AM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

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

And what is the observation that leads us to believe that God might be found there?

Again, the pattern of observations for God being found in places we didn't look before is that, once we look - God is not found.
So - what is your rational reason to overturn that current pattern?

If you don't have one, then the rational conclusion that "I know God does not exist" stands - until you can produce a rational reason to suggest it contains more error than is already-assumed by any conclusion of any rational analysis.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

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

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

Yes, we have been there and we have done that.
You dismissing them for no reason is irrevlant.

Unless you have an objective, consistent method for testing things that describes why these God tests are not included and others are - you're out of (rational) luck.

ringo writes:

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.

Exactly!
Almost there!
You're just forgetting the one step above this - until we have a rational reason to even try and have a "God test" in the first place - we can say we know God does not exist as there's nothing to link the imagination of God to reality.

Just as we do for Santa, and Chimeras and Luminiferous Ether and any other only-in-imagination philosophical idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2295 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 11:55 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2298 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 12:57 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2298 of 2312 (862904)
09-16-2019 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2297 by Stile
09-16-2019 12:33 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

And what is the observation that leads us to believe that God might be found there?


We've been through that. The search for God is at the same stage as the search for the Northwest Passage before any passages were known. It is premature to say we "know" that no passages exist.

Stile writes:

Unless you have an objective, consistent method for testing things that describes why these God tests are not included ....


We've been through that. They are not included because they are not tests for God. They are tests for specific things that God is supposed to have done.

Stile writes:

...until we have a rational reason to even try and have a "God test" in the first place....


We've been through that. The rational reason is that we can't find anything if we don't look.

“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 2297 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 12:33 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2299 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 1:40 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2299 of 2312 (862907)
09-16-2019 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2298 by ringo
09-16-2019 12:57 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

We've been through that. The search for God is at the same stage as the search for the Northwest Passage before any passages were known. It is premature to say we "know" that no passages exist.

We have been through this - if, at that stage, you are unable to say "I know that water passages do not exist."
Then, at this current stage, you also can't say "I know ringo can bake cakes."

Because both are only doubted by the possibility of future information overturning currently-known information.
And there's nothing but imagination to suggest that such future information will actually ever be found.

We've been through that. They are not included because they are not tests for God. They are tests for specific things that God is supposed to have done.

We have been through this - they were tests for God. And God wasn't found. And then the definition of God was irrationally changed so that they are only things God is supposed to have done.
Just like Luminiferous Ether. Some people have irrationally changed the definition such that the Michelson-Morely experiment does not apply - they still (irrationally) think Luminiferous Ether may exist.

Yet you and I disregard these irrational ideas for Luminiferous Ether - because there's no link from their imagination to reality that suggests their new definition actually exists.
I also disregard these irrational ideas for God for the same reason.
You seem to accept them for God - being inconsistent - for what reason?

We've been through that. The rational reason is that we can't find anything if we don't look.

We have been through this. This doesn't change the fact that based on our current rational information - I know that God does not exist.
I am in full support of you (or anyone interested) to do irrational searches - searches based on only your imagination that thinks God might exist - or searches for the sake of "searching" just to see what you'll find.

Doesn't change the current facts or their current rational, objective, unavoidable conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2298 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 12:57 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2300 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 4:31 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2300 of 2312 (862909)
09-16-2019 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2299 by Stile
09-16-2019 1:40 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

We have been through this - if, at that stage, you are unable to say "I know that water passages do not exist."
Then, at this current stage, you also can't say "I know ringo can bake cakes."


Nonsense. What we have observed we can say we know. It would take a reliable counter-observation to nullify the knowledge. But what we have not observed we can not say we have knowledge. We have only lack of knowledge. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

Stile writes:

they were tests for God


No they were not. The events that were attributed to God were not found. That has no bearing on the existence of God.

“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 2299 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 1:40 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2301 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 4:44 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2301 of 2312 (862910)
09-16-2019 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2300 by ringo
09-16-2019 4:31 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

Nonsense. What we have observed we can say we know.

And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes.
...everything we know of confirms these two things.
...it is possible that something that we don't-yet-know-of can overturn them.

It would take a reliable counter-observation to nullify the knowledge. But what we have not observed we can not say we have knowledge.

Correct.
Good thing this has nothing to do with God's existence!

We have observed God not existing.
Everywhere and anywhere we've ever looked.
If you don't agree - just say where we've observed God existing.

We have only lack of knowledge. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

We don't have a lack of knowledge, we have positive, objective, factual observations that God does not exist.
As much as we do for knowing cars aren't there so we can turn left.
As much as we do for knowing ringo can bake cakes.
...all the information we're currently able to identify says such things are so.

No they were not. The events that were attributed to God were not found. That has no bearing on the existence of God.

Yes, they were.
All you're repeating is the currently-changed-to-definition such that the previous tests are no longer applicable.
Others equally do the same thing in order to convince themselves that there's a "reasonable chance" that Luminiferous Ether still exists.

Both are wrong.

Neither are "absolutely wrong" - our knowledge claims don't prescribe reality.
Maybe God exists and our current observations are wrong.
Maybe Luminiferous Ether exists and our current observations are wrong.

Both are, though, "wrong according to our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge."
Our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge says such irrational ideas can be discarded and do not cast doubt on the current conclusion.

That's how we're able to know Luminiferous Ether does not exist - no matter how many people "may believe" that it still has a chance.
That's how we're able to know ringo-can-bake-cakes - no matter how many people "may believe" it's actually incorrect.
That's how we're able to know God does not exist - no matter how many people "may believe" He actually does.

Rational analysis.
You're still simply not being consistent.
I can continue to point out your inconsistencies over and over as long as you wish - you're mixing "rational analysis" and "philisophical wishes" together as you see fit.
That's just fine for ringo.
That cannot be called a "rational analysis."

You're not judging things consistently according to our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge.

Your choice to do that, but the inconsistencies are objective and easy to identify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2300 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 4:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2302 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 5:36 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2302 of 2312 (862911)
09-16-2019 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2301 by Stile
09-16-2019 4:44 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes.


Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.

Stile writes:

We have observed God not existing.


Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A).

Stile writes:

We don't have a lack of knowledge, we have positive, objective, factual observations that God does not exist.


Using what test? A flood that didn't happen has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Stile writes:

All you're repeating is the currently-changed-to-definition such that the previous tests are no longer applicable.


There never has been a definition of God that is adequate for testing His 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 2301 by Stile, posted 09-16-2019 4:44 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2303 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 3:45 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2303 of 2312 (863021)
09-18-2019 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2302 by ringo
09-16-2019 5:36 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.

True, but irrelevant.
I'm not "not observing God."
I'm getting a positive observation of "not God" everywhere we're able to check.

Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A).

Exactly.

Using what test? A flood that didn't happen has nothing to do with the existence of God.

All the various things people have attributed to God.
All of them tested, all of them conclude: no God.

There never has been a definition of God that is adequate for testing His existence.

Yes, there was.
Plenty.
You just changed the definition after.

I'm sure the people who've changed the definition of Luminiferous Ether will also say "There never has been a definition of Luminiferous ether that is adequate for testing it's existence."

If you can say "Luminiferous Ether does not exist" - then you can also say "God does not exist."
More tests/searches for God have occurred, for a longer portion of our history, than those done for Luminiferous Ether.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2302 by ringo, posted 09-16-2019 5:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2304 by ringo, posted 09-18-2019 3:56 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2304 of 2312 (863022)
09-18-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Stile
09-18-2019 3:45 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

ringo writes:

Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.


True, but irrelevant.

It is relevant because you said it is "as much as":
quote:
And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes. Message 2301
You're contradicting yourself.

Stile writes:

I'm getting a positive observation of "not God" everywhere we're able to check.


There is no such thing as a positive non-observation.

Stile writes:

All the various things people have attributed to God.
All of them tested, all of them conclude: no God.


Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.

Stile writes:

You just changed the definition after.


I haven't changed any definition. You're the one who is tailoring the definition to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

“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 2303 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 3:45 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2305 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 4:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2305 of 2312 (863025)
09-18-2019 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2304 by ringo
09-18-2019 3:56 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

Not observing something is not "as much as" observing something.

Stile writes:

True, but irrelevant.

It is relevant because you said it is "as much as":

Stile writes:

And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes.

You're contradicting yourself.

Not at all.

You said so yourself "Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A)."

I said "we have observed that God does not exist..."
I did not say "we have not observed God..."

I am "observing (not A)."
I am not "not observing."

Because I am not "not observing..."
Your original statement is true, but irrelevant... because I'm not doing what is true in your statement.

There is no such thing as a positive non-observation.

Of course there is.
It's what we call "observing (not A)."
It's how we know we can turn left because "no cars are coming" and therefore it's safe.
It's how we know there are no keys on the table if we look, and there are no keys.

"Not observing" would be turning left without looking.
Or claiming keys are not on the table without checking first.

I am "observing (not A)."
Looking for God everywhere and anywhere in all of our available information and getting a positive conclusion of "observing (no God)."

Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.

I don't know. Maybe one of them did.
But who cares?
I'm doing a rational analysis - based on facts.
Not a rigorous scientific test.

And the rational analysis tests of looking for God and never, ever finding Him, is enough to put the "tests for God" on par with the "tests for Luminiferous Ether" in the sense of rational analysis.

I agree that the tests for God likely do not come to scientific par with the tests for Luminiferous Ether - but who cares?
No one's requiring scientific testing.
Only rational analysis.

I haven't changed any definition. You're the one who is tailoring the definition to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

Nope. Never happened.

You're the one flip-flopping about on what's "doubt" or "no doubt" or when knowledge is "absolute" or not or when "only imagination" is good enough to sway a rational analysis.
You do one thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether... and then you do another for God. For no rational reason.

I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2304 by ringo, posted 09-18-2019 3:56 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2306 by ringo, posted 09-18-2019 4:26 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2306 of 2312 (863026)
09-18-2019 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2305 by Stile
09-18-2019 4:15 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

It's how we know we can turn left because "no cars are coming" and therefore it's safe.


That's not a positive observation. It's a negative observation and if it was reliable there would be no accidents.

Stile writes:

ringo writes:

Non of them objectively tested using the scientific method.


I don't know. Maybe one of them did.

If you don't know whether or not the tests were objective, you can't claim to "know" that the conclusion was objective.

Stile writes:

I'm doing a rational analysis - based on facts.
Not a rigorous scientific test.


So you admit that no actual tests have been done and nothing has actually been observed. It's all just an ivory tower fantasy.

Stile writes:

I agree that the tests for God likely do not come to scientific par with the tests for Luminiferous Ether - but who cares?
No one's requiring scientific testing.


If you're not requiring scientific testing, you can't equate your fantasy with me baking a cake because that has been scientifically tested.

Stile writes:

I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.


And that's invalid - because cakes and luminiferous ether have been scientifically 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 2305 by Stile, posted 09-18-2019 4:15 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2310 by Stile, posted 10-03-2019 2:37 PM ringo has responded

  
AlexCaledin
Member
Posts: 57
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 2307 of 2312 (863044)
09-19-2019 4:22 AM


Come to the Queen's palace in London and say to the guard, "Let me scientifically test your Queen". Then perhaps they make you understand something.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2308 by ringo, posted 09-19-2019 11:52 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded
 Message 2309 by 1.61803, posted 09-19-2019 5:35 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17395
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2308 of 2312 (863052)
09-19-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2307 by AlexCaledin
09-19-2019 4:22 AM


AlexCaledin writes:

Come to the Queen's palace in London and say to the guard, "Let me scientifically test your Queen".


The Queen is probably one of the most scientifically-tested people in the world.

They don't let every bozo off the street walk into CERN and play with the large hadron Collider either.


“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 2307 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-19-2019 4:22 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2916
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


(3)
Message 2309 of 2312 (863082)
09-19-2019 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2307 by AlexCaledin
09-19-2019 4:22 AM



"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 2307 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-19-2019 4:22 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2310 of 2312 (863945)
10-03-2019 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2306 by ringo
09-18-2019 4:26 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

That's not a positive observation. It's a negative observation and if it was reliable there would be no accidents.

If you cannot positively identify that no cars are coming before you turn left - you should never drive.
The rest of us do it quite safely, and quite often.

So you admit that no actual tests have been done and nothing has actually been observed. It's all just an ivory tower fantasy.

Why would you say that?
I've shown you all the rational tests that have been done.

Looking for God, pretty much everywhere, and never finding Him.

Positive observations of God's non-existence.

ringo writes:

Stile writes:

I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.

And that's invalid - because cakes and luminiferous ether have been scientifically tested.

The "same thing" I do for cakes, and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God is: rational testing according to our best-known-way of knowing things.
Scientific testing is not required, although scientific testing also incorporates this way of knowing things.

Your red herring is still irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2306 by ringo, posted 09-18-2019 4:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2311 by ringo, posted 10-03-2019 4:35 PM Stile 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