Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 6:05 PM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, WookieeB (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,340 Year: 15,376/19,786 Month: 2,099/3,058 Week: 473/404 Day: 77/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8384
85
8687
...
143NextFF
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 1261 of 2138 (857932)
07-13-2019 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1245 by Dredge
07-12-2019 12:05 AM


Re: chances
No one has ever observed evolution generating complexity.

What units are you using to measure comlexity?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1245 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2019 12:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1280
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 1262 of 2138 (858016)
07-15-2019 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1186 by AZPaul3
07-08-2019 3:15 AM


Re: chances
AZPaul3 writes:

We're talking to the village idiot about his mental handicaps and schizophrenic personality. We're talking to the village idiot who hears mysterious voices in his head and thinks it's god. We're talking to the village idiot who hallucinates macabre images no one else can see and thinks he is sane.


Sorry, but your claim is illogical and unscientific and no psychiatrist would agree with you: One vision and one mysterious voice (known as a locution) over a period of several decades hardly represent symptoms of mental illness - especially when the vision very accurately foretold a future event and when the mysterious voice saved my life. On the other hand, someone who is experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices due to mental illness (schizophrenia, for example) does so on a regular basis.
Furthermore the hallucinations and voices are meaningless - they certainly don’t predict the future or save anyone’s life.

When confronted with miracles, atheists like you find themselves completely out of their depth and discombobulated, hence the irrational reactions. You can run and hide from aspects of reality that you don’t want to face up to, but your phobia strongly suggests you have no love for truth. The problem for you is, the truth eventually catches up with everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1186 by AZPaul3, posted 07-08-2019 3:15 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1265 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2019 3:48 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1280
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1263 of 2138 (858017)
07-15-2019 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1240 by Pressie
07-10-2019 9:16 AM


Re: Theology, Philosophy, and Facts vs Fiction
Depends on one's definition of "omniscient", I guess.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1240 by Pressie, posted 07-10-2019 9:16 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by Theodoric, posted 07-15-2019 9:32 AM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1280
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1264 of 2138 (858018)
07-15-2019 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1247 by AZPaul3
07-12-2019 12:12 AM


Re: chances
Yep, I had absolutely no idea what you meant by "alter boy" … lol! Anyhow, now at least you know how to spell "altar".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1247 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2019 12:12 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by AZPaul3, posted 07-15-2019 3:52 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4429
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1265 of 2138 (858022)
07-15-2019 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1262 by Dredge
07-15-2019 2:36 AM


Re: chances
One vision and one mysterious voice (known as a locution) over a period of several decades hardly represent symptoms of mental illness

Other than a priest have you ever talked to anyone about this? A real medical professional type?

Such occurrences are not unknown to the pshryncs and there may be some help for your condition. You may not have to suffer these delusions any longer with therapy.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1262 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2019 2:36 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4429
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1266 of 2138 (858023)
07-15-2019 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Dredge
07-15-2019 2:45 AM


Re: chances
My words passed straight through your head, in one ear and out the other, without hitting anything in between.

How droll.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2019 2:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6494
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 1267 of 2138 (858034)
07-15-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1263 by Dredge
07-15-2019 2:40 AM


Re: Theology, Philosophy, and Facts vs Fiction
What would your definition be?
The dictionary definition is some version of "all knowing". Pretty straight forward. Little or no room for ambiguity. So how would you define the word?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1263 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2019 2:40 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by Dredge, posted 07-19-2019 4:42 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1268 of 2138 (858093)
07-16-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Faith
07-04-2019 4:08 PM


Re: You can't know God through any physical methods
Faith writes:

That's the kind of evidence we get from the Bible and since I don't distrust the Bible as so many here do, to me this is compelling evidence.

If it is compelling to you, but not all reasonable reviews... then it is not "evidence."
Evidence is compelling to all reasonable reviews. Always.

If you don't think the world and the universe are any kind of evidence in themselves for an intelligence behind it all, seems to me there isn't any way to have any evidence at all.

The way you have evidence is by having objective criteria support your ideas.

Like the way this post is evidence that Stile posts at EvC.
No one can reasonably argue with it.

...but He's Spirit and there are no physical means of seeing Him.

If this is true, then God is equivalent to any imagined idea.
And hence there is no evidence to suggest that He exists in reality.

It is unreasonable to allow a non-evidenced idea affect the level of doubt placed in something we can "know."

Therefore - I still know that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1278 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-16-2019 3:45 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1269 of 2138 (858094)
07-16-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Thugpreacha
07-05-2019 4:47 AM


Re: AZ GDR and ringo.
Thugpreacha writes:

I had evidence. It was simply subjective. I alone experienced it. Experience can never be objective.

You did not have evidence.
Evidence can never be subjective.

You seem to be confusing "evidence" with the idea that "something-convinced-me-that-it-is-true."
They are not the same thing.

What you had was "something that convinced Phat."
Which is fine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-05-2019 4:47 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1270 of 2138 (858095)
07-16-2019 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1206 by Thugpreacha
07-08-2019 11:08 AM


Re: chances
Thugpreacha writes:

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.

How so?

If God actually does exist "in our hearts" - then shouldn't there be a significantly-sized group of people who find God in their heart and therefore act nicer/better/more-Godly than others?

This can, and has, been checked.

There is no such significantly-sized group of people.
There are also equally-insignificantly-sized groups of people that are nicer/better/more-Godly than others and do not find God "in their hearts."

The check is complete - the evidence is that there is no God in our hearts.

It may (irrationally) be wrong - but this, again, will be identified with evidence if true.

Until then - You've only added to the conclusion that I know that God does not exist.

I propose that the reason that you have never found Him there is because you question the God described and proposed by the experts.

That's nice.
I propose that the reason I never found Him is because He doesn't exist.

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.

God doesn't want me to protect my family?
This doesn't seem like a God anyone should try to "unblock."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1206 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-08-2019 11:08 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1271 of 2138 (858096)
07-16-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1208 by ringo
07-08-2019 11:36 AM


Re: chances
ringo writes:

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.

True.

You did invent your definition of "know".

Not true.

I did explain it, but I didn't invent it.
"Know" has 2 big main meanings in common language.

1. "Know" - the idea that one has checked and verified against evidence to ensure that the conclusion is as-correct-as-possible.
-this is as I've described the word "know."

2. "Know" - the idea that one has an opinion on a matter. Equivalent to saying "I think..."

I did not invent the first definition for the word.
But I did explain it, again here:

quote:
  • How do we "know" things?
    We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
    We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

  • How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
    Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
    This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

    Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
    This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

  • But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
    We don't.
    But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
    I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
    *"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.
  • If you think this definition "has little value" - that's up to you, or you can explain why you think such a thing.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1208 by ringo, posted 07-08-2019 11:36 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1274 by ringo, posted 07-16-2019 1:23 PM Stile has responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3789
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 1272 of 2138 (858097)
    07-16-2019 1:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 1209 by Son Goku
    07-08-2019 11:37 AM


    Son Goku writes:

    Stile writes:

    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.

    This thread is about knowing God does not exist.
    Therefore, the context of the word "irrationality" is in knowing-things.

    Specifically: Something is "irrational" if you claim it to be true without any evidence to support the claim in the first place

    Synonyms:
    Irrational/unreasonable

    I wasn't intending to get too deep into an AI discussion in this thread.

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

    I think I understand what you mean here - and I agree.
    My defense would be: Does it matter if one is unbiased if they are correct?

    Example: Stile claims: EvC mainly uses a black-and-blue color scheme.
    -I may very well be biased
    -but - who cares? - it's also objectively correct regardless of anyone's bias.

    Can this be applied to "programming irrationality into AI?"
    -I don't know
    -maybe, maybe not
    -lots of things can be programmed
    -some things cannot be programmed
    -many things I didn't think could be programmed, have been programmed
    -programming's abilities grow as we grow in our needs/requirements/understanding

    Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1209 by Son Goku, posted 07-08-2019 11:37 AM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3789
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 1273 of 2138 (858098)
    07-16-2019 1:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 1216 by GDR
    07-08-2019 1:46 PM


    Re: chances
    GDR writes:

    I have told you where to look. It is in the hearts of minds of human creatures.

    Yes, you have.
    And we've looked there.
    There is no evidence of God.

    However, just as you can't see a thought you don't see God in the way that you describe.

    But we an see the effect of thoughts.
    Like me thinking of typing and submitting this post - the effect is that you can see this post.
    You cannot see my thought.
    But you can certainly see it's effects.

    How do we "see God?" or "see the effects of God?"

    How about looking at how widespread is the belief in the "Golden Rule".

    Okay.

    There He is in the hearts and minds of all of us with that rule planted on our hearts whether we follow it or not.

    He is?
    How?
    All the evidence shows is that people develop rules to live in social groups.
    Some of those rules are so basic that they are required for social grouping.

    Even rats follow "the Golden Rule" within their social circles:
    Do Rats Feel Empathy?

    quote:
    A new study finds rats prefer helping others over eating sweets.

    Exactly as defined by "treat others as you want to be treated."


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1216 by GDR, posted 07-08-2019 1:46 PM GDR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1281 by GDR, posted 07-16-2019 4:19 PM Stile has responded

        
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17168
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 1274 of 2138 (858099)
    07-16-2019 1:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 1271 by Stile
    07-16-2019 1:00 PM


    Re: chances
    Stile writes:

    If you think this definition "has little value" - that's up to you, or you can explain why you think such a thing.


    I didn't say that the definition has little value. I said that conclusions you have drawn from it have little value.

    "As-correct-as-possible" is subjective - i.e. you can choose any convenient stopping point. Essentially, you're doing the same thing as Faith does: You're deciding arbitrarily that you've looked enough. That's "enough" to form an opinion but it isn't necessarily enough to "know".


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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1271 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 1:00 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1275 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 1:38 PM ringo has responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3789
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 1275 of 2138 (858101)
    07-16-2019 1:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 1274 by ringo
    07-16-2019 1:23 PM


    Re: chances
    ringo writes:

    "As-correct-as-possible" is subjective - i.e. you can choose any convenient stopping point. Essentially, you're doing the same thing as Faith does: You're deciding arbitrarily that you've looked enough. That's "enough" to form an opinion but it isn't necessarily enough to "know".

    I did decide that "enough" was enough - yes.

    But only in comparison to other things where we've found "enough" to be enough.

    Again:

    Searching and finding nothing for Sharkfin Soup on McDonald's menu?
    -searched for 5 minutes, found nothing
    -conclusion: "I know that Sharkfin Soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."

    Searching and finding nothing for Santa Claus?
    -searched for decades? a few hundred of years?
    -conclusion: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."

    Searching and finding nothing for God?
    -searched for hundreds of years? a few thousand years?
    -conclusion: "I know that God does not exist."

    We have, in fact, searched for God's existence a great deal more and a great deal longer than the vast majority of other non-evidenced concepts we all seem just fine with saying we know they do not exist.

    Applying the same criteria to God in a reasonable and rational manner - we end up that "enough" has been enough.

    You are free to think otherwise.
    You are also free to explain how thinking otherwise should be considered reasonable or rational (...if you can think of anything?)

    But this conclusion has as much value as knowing:
    -Sharkfin Soup does not exist on McDonald's menu
    -Santa Claus does not exist
    -my keys are not bananas
    -my chair is not a crab
    -any other "irrational" idea

    (where "irrational" is: an idea that is proposed to exist with no evidence to support the idea in the first place.)

    If you think there's no value in being able to consistently and reasonably ignore irrational ideas... that's up to you.
    But go ahead and enjoy your banana-keys and crab-chairs.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1274 by ringo, posted 07-16-2019 1:23 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1276 by ringo, posted 07-16-2019 1:51 PM Stile has responded

        
    RewPrev1
    ...
    8384
    85
    8687
    ...
    143NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019