Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 8:36 AM
33 online now:
dwise1, Heathen, jar, Percy (Admin), Son Goku (5 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,853 Year: 11,889/19,786 Month: 1,670/2,641 Week: 179/708 Day: 6/40 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
8283
...
86Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1201 of 1285 (857396)
07-08-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 970 by 1.61803
07-02-2019 4:41 PM


Re: chances
1.61803 writes:

It is not logical to dismiss something because you have not found evidence for it yet.

It is, however, logical to look where something should be - as described by the experts - and then dismiss something when nothing is found.
It is also logical to observe the goal-posts being moved over centuries of not finding anything.
It is also logical to dismiss illogical ideas (idea with no evidence that they may exist in the first place.)

*The evidence may be forthcoming or you have not looked everywhere or any number of things.

Very logical for things like dark matter, dark energy or any other leading research.
Of course, there's evidence that these things may exist - there are effects that we observe and yet cannot explain.

"God" does not fit this logical compartment.
"God" does not cause any effects that we observe and yet cannot explain.
This makes God an illogical idea - there is no evidence that God may exist in the first place.
Therefore, it is logical to dismiss God.

Lets agree to disagree.

Sure - I think I've explained myself beyond the doubts you're claiming I should accept.
If you don't think so, I will agree to disagree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by 1.61803, posted 07-02-2019 4:41 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1202 of 1285 (857397)
07-08-2019 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 971 by Tangle
07-02-2019 4:57 PM


Re: Keys and Bananas
Tangle writes:

The problem here is that you want to define 'know' to mean what you want it to mean. I'm not accepting your premise.

Fair enough.
I've always said that this argument is logical and rational.
If you don't want to accept being logical and rational about the definition of the word "know" - that's up to you.

And it's based merely on word play.

Again, if you want to include "irrational items" when you refer to things in the sense that "I know them" - that's up to you.
I just don't think that's in the spirit of the intention for the word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 971 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2019 4:57 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1203 of 1285 (857398)
07-08-2019 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 973 by GDR
07-02-2019 5:07 PM


Re: chances
That is a total cop-out Stile. In claiming that you know God does not exist then you are claiming to be an expert.

Nope.

I am an expert in looking-where-the-experts-tell-me-to-look.
Not an expert in where-God-should-be.

I am not proposing God exists.

Like this:

GDR: Hey Stile, there's only one special fork in the universe and it exists on that table.
Stile: *looks at table - there's no fork*
Stile: GDR, your special fork does not exist.

Same thing:

God-Experts: Hey world, God exists in the sun/clouds/weather/emotions/justice/beauty/love...
Stile: *looks in all proposed places - there's no God*
Stile: God does not exist.

When I claim that an interventionist God intervenes as a meme in human hearts you, as an expert, reject that.

Of course.
We looked at the memes in human hearts and found no God - just people being people with hearts.

Tangle asked the obvious question and you simply tried to duck it.

I'm not proposing God exists.
I'm proposing that *wherever-people-say-God-exists... He-does-not*

This does not imply that I should know where God exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by GDR, posted 07-02-2019 5:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1206 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 11:08 AM Stile has responded
 Message 1216 by GDR, posted 07-08-2019 1:46 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1204 of 1285 (857399)
07-08-2019 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 975 by 1.61803
07-02-2019 5:26 PM


1.61803 writes:

I believe it is human irrationality helps keeps us going and creative in our problem solving.

I completely agree.
I think human irrationality is a fundamental, powerful, required aspect in the growth of our knowledge as well as our mental health.

I think it just also think it's healthy to identify the contexts where it's useful, and where it's useless.

It is very useful for motivating us to do illogical things - which may, on rare occasions, provide us with evidence to begin a logical investigation.
It is not very useful for identifying the truth about reality.

If AI ever becomes a real thing then we shall see what absolute rationality will get us.

1. I already know that absolute rationality will not get us all we desire.
2. I think that if AI ever becomes a real thing it will necessarily require a certain level of irrationality (perhaps generated through some strange randomizing algorithm.)
3. I think that if irrationality is ever successfully programmed into AI, the AI will either have to be programmed (or learn) what contexts irrationality is useful in - just as we do.

Humanity will work itself right out of a job. Namely being human is costly and inefficient.
Think about it.

I think this is simple fear of the unknown and nothing to worry about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 975 by 1.61803, posted 07-02-2019 5:26 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1209 by Son Goku, posted 07-08-2019 11:37 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1205 of 1285 (857400)
07-08-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 976 by Tangle
07-02-2019 5:35 PM


Re: chances
Tangle writes:

Stile writes:

I look to the experts for that.


But *you* claim to know!

"That" was referring to where God should be.
I do not claim to know where God should be.

I claim to know that God does not exist... after looking where the experts say God should be and finding nothing.

I'm simply asking what evidence that would be and where you would expect to find it. If you can't tell me I'm going to ask how can you then know.

If there's no evidence, then the concept itself is irrational and illogical to consider as a possibility. Unless you think banana-keys are a real possibility?
If not - then neither is a non-interventionist God, for the same rational reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2019 5:35 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12566
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1206 of 1285 (857401)
07-08-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1203 by Stile
07-08-2019 10:58 AM


Re: chances
The experts whom I have read say that there is only one important place for god to "exist" or not...and that is in the human heart. Obviously we can only check our own. I propose that the reason that you have never found Him there is because you question the God described and proposed by the experts. I can quote you telling me essentially that you would have to think long and hard before accepting such a God to someone so close to your family, whom you are trying to protect. Thus, the fact that you know that God does not exist is based in part on your blocking 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 1203 by Stile, posted 07-08-2019 10:58 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1270 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 12:47 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3575
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1207 of 1285 (857402)
07-08-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 980 by ringo
07-03-2019 12:29 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:

But you're just rigging the game so you can't lose.

True.
But I didn't invent logic and rationality - I'm just "rigging" the God game by playing along those rules.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by ringo, posted 07-03-2019 12:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 11:36 AM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1208 of 1285 (857406)
07-08-2019 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1207 by Stile
07-08-2019 11:08 AM


Re: chances
Stile writes:

But I didn't invent logic and rationality - I'm just "rigging" the God game by playing along those rules.


You did invent your definition of "know". If I define "dog" as an animal with wings and feathers, I can draw conclusions from that definition that are entirely within logic and rationality - but they will have little value.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1207 by Stile, posted 07-08-2019 11:08 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1271 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 1:00 PM ringo has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1148
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1209 of 1285 (857409)
07-08-2019 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1204 by Stile
07-08-2019 11:03 AM



1. I already know that absolute rationality will not get us all we desire.
2. I think that if AI ever becomes a real thing it will necessarily require a certain level of irrationality (perhaps generated through some strange randomizing algorithm.)
3. I think that if irrationality is ever successfully programmed into AI, the AI will either have to be programmed (or learn) what contexts irrationality is useful in - just as we do.

What's irrationality here strictly.

Depending on the meaning we already know (mathematically) that it's not possible to be unbiased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1204 by Stile, posted 07-08-2019 11:03 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1272 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 1:08 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1210 of 1285 (857411)
07-08-2019 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by Thugpreacha
07-08-2019 10:26 AM


Re: Theology, Philosophy, and Facts vs Fiction
Phat writes:

The Bible makes it quite clear that not everyone will in fact know or believe.


You have been known to contradict yourself on that point though, haven't you? You're too soft hearted to see billions and billions of people roasting in Hell for eternity, so when it suits you you like to tell us that everybody will change their mind.

Phat writes:

There will always be more unbelievers than there are believers.


Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't do a census on the sheep and goats. He made no mention of which was the more numerous. Just because the road that leadeth to destruction is wider doesn't necessarily mean that it has more traffic than the straight and narrow.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 10:26 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1211 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 12:00 PM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12566
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1211 of 1285 (857414)
07-08-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1210 by ringo
07-08-2019 11:51 AM


Re: Theology, Philosophy, and Facts vs Fiction
ringo writes:

You're too soft hearted to see billions and billions of people roasting in Hell for eternity, so when it suits you you like to tell us that everybody will change their mind.

No, I see God changing His Mind. He has always given us more and more opportunities to repent even as we show ourselves (Early Israel and latter day Christians) to be rebellious by nature. People may collectively change their mind out of desperation....global war or famine, for instance...but would that even be a true conversion? More likely is the idea that God will make exceptions to His rules.

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 1210 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 11:51 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1212 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 12:07 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 1221 by Theodoric, posted 07-08-2019 2:44 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1212 of 1285 (857417)
07-08-2019 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Thugpreacha
07-08-2019 12:00 PM


Re: Theology, Philosophy, and Facts vs Fiction
Phat writes:

No, I see God changing His Mind.


It doesn't matter whether He changes His mind or not. The point is that you can't have your "few are chosen" and not have the remaining many go to Hell. If God is giving us many opportunities to repent, you have to drop your, "The Bible makes it quite clear that not everyone will in fact know or believe," ploy.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 12:00 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1217 by GDR, posted 07-08-2019 1:54 PM ringo has responded
 Message 1227 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-09-2019 3:14 PM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1213 of 1285 (857430)
07-08-2019 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1190 by Son Goku
07-08-2019 5:47 AM


Re: chances
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this to me and likely a number of others.
Son Goku writes:

Probability theory is a bit vague on what a reasoning agent is since it just assumes it as a primitive that's unexplained.
Typically it's anything that could be programmed with or understand and apply the rules of probability theory. Self driving cars would be an example or several other automata. As well as ourselves.

What about other cellular life forms, such as animals, insects or I suppose even plants. They all respond to their environment? In one sense at least they are all programmed.

Son GDR writes:

Also what would be left if there no "reasoning agent" in the universe?

Son Goku writes:

You can't apply quantum theory. It wouldn't mean there is nothing, just that the theory is written from the perspective of an observing agent. If there is no agent the theory can't be applied.
It's like Gambling theory. No gambler and it can't really be applied. It's unlike General Relativity which describes the world independent of any agent's presence.

Now in many cases where there is no agent one can still apply the theory by imagining a fictional agent. For example I can still apply QM to a gas cloud in space because I can "imagine" what a little robot doing observations on the cloud might see, even if there is no robot there.

However in cases where there can't be a classical agent the theory cannot be applied. An example would be the early universe. I had a friend who was advised off doing a PhD applying quantum theory to the early universe because the theory simply breaks down there because there can't be agents.


When the early universe is examined do the laws of mathematics still apply with no reasoning agent as a part of anything? Wouldn’t that throw into question all the accounts of the early universe. (Please don’t take this to be a theological question.) Or, do the mathematics exist whether there is a universe or not?

At what point do science and philosophy start to overlap?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1190 by Son Goku, posted 07-08-2019 5:47 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1219 by Son Goku, posted 07-08-2019 2:38 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1214 of 1285 (857435)
07-08-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1192 by Son Goku
07-08-2019 6:07 AM


Re: God
Son Goku writes:

This is anticipated to a degree in my post. Once one engages in saying things like selected parts of the books if read correctly describe a "deeper" being only glimpsed partially through the texts the argument becomes much more difficult. The way you are talking about the texts isn't even how their authors or original followers viewed them, as we can see in the case of the Tanakh with early Rabbinical commentaries. Going even earlier Yahweh was probably a wind god in the Canaanite pantheon.
Historically he seems to have been a wind god for Canaanites in general, before becoming the national god of one subgroup of Canaanites after the Bronze Age collapse. It's a varying mix of those two concepts one sees in the Old Testament.

To say all of this is actually a veiled reference to an entity completely unlike this requires a remove from the texts and historical evidence to a more philosophical argument.

What I'm saying is that the beings directly presented in the texts are not real.

No doubt philosophy and theology overlap to a considerable degree. I suggest that all people form a philosophical belief system about the nature of the way things should be. I think that for most of us we come to the conclusion that the Golden Rule is the ideal and then we try to live up to it, or come to the conclusion that we just don't care. I think that this is evidenced as the Golden Rule can be found in all major religions, and in many secular institutions in one form or another.

So IMHO, philosophically the Golden Rule is a universal truth of how this world should ideally function. As a basic theist I see this as a God meme , or the still small voice of God, that we all have, regardless of whatever we believe about the existence of a deity.

I go further in my beliefs and beyond the purely philosophical view. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. I have read and listened to numerous debates and I find no other reason for the rise of the early church than the position that the resurrection was historical. The argument against seems solely based on the idea that it can't happen,. I take the view that life itself is so improbable that I don't find the resurrection to be all that difficult to accept.

My whole theological understanding of how to read the Scriptures is based on those 2 basic beliefs. (God is good and He resurrected Jesus.) Christian scholars and theologians, Paul being pretty much the first, have for 2000 years worked at making sense of all of this and what it tells us about God and our lives. There aren't absolutes and I'm sure nobody has it all correct. In the end it is a faith.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by Son Goku, posted 07-08-2019 6:07 AM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4910
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1215 of 1285 (857438)
07-08-2019 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1194 by Thugpreacha
07-08-2019 9:04 AM


Re: chances
Thugapreacha writes:

God In Mathematics The article talks about the philosophical (and theological) beliefs of Vern Poythress.

I read through this article and took this quote from the preamble.

quote:
The outcome is not random, not chaotic: it’s just unknown. For Poythress, the Calvinist, the outcome is known by God and even determined by Him. It’s not chance to Him, it’s plan. With our limited knowledge, however, it looks like chance. If we knew enough, we’d know the outcome of the toss and we’d know it with 100% certainty.

Personally I disagree with this. I agree with John Plokinghorne who essentially says that God doesn't know the future as such. He doesn't know for example what I will have for luch next Friday. The future isn't there to be known. That is actually consistent with the Scriptures and it is consistent with an open universe. If God has absolute knowledge of the future then it is fixed and free will goes out the window.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 9:04 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7980
81
8283
...
86Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019