Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8975 total)
32 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: baidoithuongvn
Post Volume: Total: 875,800 Year: 7,548/23,288 Month: 107/1,347 Week: 124/342 Day: 21/30 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member
Posts: 18130
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2446 of 2483 (869984)
01-10-2020 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2443 by Sarah Bellum
01-09-2020 10:03 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

I give you an answer and you ignore it, pretending that I haven't posted an answer.


You have not given an answer. You've just repeated the same mantra, "It's not logical, it's not logical, it's not logical."

I have asked you for specific logical errors. I have given examples - Appeal to Popularity, etc. Name the logical errors. That's all.

Once you have named the errors, we can discuss whether or not they are actually errors.

Sarah Bellum writes:

I'll give you another chance though, a simple yes or no question: Is the concept of a deity a rational thing?


That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a dishonest question. There is no simple yes or no answer.

A concept, in and of itself, is not rational or irrational. If it has sound reasoning behind it, it is rational. If it has no sound reasoning behind it, it is not rational. As Tangle has said, there can be sound reasoning behind the concept of deities.

You need to point out how the reasoning behind the concept of deities is not rational.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2443 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-09-2020 10:03 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2455 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 10:45 PM ringo has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2447 of 2483 (870009)
01-10-2020 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2438 by ringo
01-09-2020 10:39 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
One thing I mentioned was the personification of natural forces. Even the ancients who used the analogy of a blacksmith at a forge to imagine a supernatural entity whose hammer raised sparks that made the heat and light of a volcano must have known that the connection was more literary than literal, not a rational thing but rather a poetic thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2438 by ringo, posted 01-09-2020 10:39 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2451 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:02 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2448 of 2483 (870010)
01-10-2020 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2439 by ringo
01-09-2020 10:41 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Another thing I mentioned was the "modern" concept of a creator deity who wasn't himself created, who somehow knows and commands everything but also allows free will. There's enough logical lacunae there to fill (or empty?) the Olduvai Gorge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2439 by ringo, posted 01-09-2020 10:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2452 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:05 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2449 of 2483 (870011)
01-10-2020 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2440 by ringo
01-09-2020 10:43 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
In message 2446 you did a creditable job of ducking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2440 by ringo, posted 01-09-2020 10:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2453 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:09 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2450 of 2483 (870012)
01-10-2020 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2444 by Tangle
01-10-2020 4:04 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
But can it be supported by rational argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2444 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2020 4:04 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2459 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2020 3:26 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18130
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2451 of 2483 (870013)
01-10-2020 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2447 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:27 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

One thing I mentioned was the personification of natural forces.


That doesn't answer the question. Personification is not a logical error.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2447 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:27 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2457 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 11:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18130
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2452 of 2483 (870014)
01-10-2020 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2448 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:32 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

There's enough logical lacunae there to fill (or empty?) the Olduvai Gorge.


I'm not asking for gaps. I'm asking for errors.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2448 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:32 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2456 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 10:53 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18130
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2453 of 2483 (870015)
01-10-2020 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2449 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:33 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

In message 2446 you did a creditable job of ducking.


You asked a dishonest question and I gave an honest answer.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2449 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:33 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2458 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 11:09 PM ringo has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2454 of 2483 (870021)
01-10-2020 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2445 by ringo
01-10-2020 10:41 AM


Re: Protestant is Evil
Indeed. For example, one may rely on the advice of a friend who has a reputation of good judgment and make a wrong choice (rational, but wrong) but on the other hand one might base one's choice on a horoscope and get lucky (right, but irrational).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2445 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 10:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2461 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 10:52 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2455 of 2483 (870022)
01-10-2020 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2446 by ringo
01-10-2020 10:54 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Yes, just as sentences can be true or false one concept may be illogical while a different concept may be logical. If you're saying that there are some concepts of a deity that are rational and some that are irrational I suppose one could stretch the concept into meaninglessness (People in the 1950s were said to have worshipped Juan Peron). But that is merely dropping down the proverbial rabbit hole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2446 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2462 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 10:56 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2456 of 2483 (870023)
01-10-2020 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2452 by ringo
01-10-2020 7:05 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
I wrote "logical lacunae" to refer to gaps in logic. Logic that has gaps has flaws, does it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2452 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:05 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2463 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 10:57 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2457 of 2483 (870024)
01-10-2020 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2451 by ringo
01-10-2020 7:02 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
To say that, despite the evidence it's not solar radiation and the Coriolis effect but Poseidon who brings the great storms, is not logical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2451 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2464 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 11:08 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2458 of 2483 (870025)
01-10-2020 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2453 by ringo
01-10-2020 7:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Saying "There is no simple yes or no answer" is a fair answer.

For a start.

But not following up, simply leaving it at "there can be sound reasoning behind the concept of deities" without giving us some whys is leaving the answer incomplete (ducking).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2453 by ringo, posted 01-10-2020 7:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2465 by ringo, posted 01-11-2020 11:11 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7629
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2459 of 2483 (870030)
01-11-2020 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2450 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 6:35 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
SB writes:

But can it be supported by rational argument?

Yes of course, there's a wide body of perfectly respectable philosophical argument for the existence of a deity.

quote:
The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.

Existence of God - Wikipedia

But the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true - there are at least as many rational arguments concluding the opposite.

And of course none of the arguments support a theistic god. If, by using logic alone, you think that you can show the existence of a god, you've still got all your work ahead of you to show that it's the theistic god that YOU believe in.

And if you could do it without logic ie empirically, we'd all believe. Or more accurately, we wouldn't need to believe; it would be a fact like the existence of electricity.


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 2450 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 6:35 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2460 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 7:56 AM Tangle has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 2460 of 2483 (870048)
01-11-2020 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2459 by Tangle
01-11-2020 3:26 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
quote:
But the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true
But the point is that the arguments aren't rational, they are all pure wish-fulfillment or a vague sort of "How could all this wondrous etc. etc. etc. without a designer?" It's emotional, not logical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2459 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2020 3:26 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2466 by Tangle, posted 01-11-2020 11:54 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2467 by Faith, posted 01-13-2020 5:29 AM Sarah Bellum 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 © 2020