Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1336 of 3207 (858316)
07-19-2019 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Phat
07-19-2019 1:05 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
I would suggest that rocket powered grenades are irrational.
You would be wrong.
They exist, so they fit even Stile's definition.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1334 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 1:05 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1337 of 3207 (858317)
07-19-2019 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1335 by ringo
07-19-2019 1:08 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
At the time, perhaps, Greeks didn't know any better, so maybe, at the time, it might have been considered a rational explanation.
But two and a half millennia later?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1335 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 1:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1339 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 1:13 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1338 of 3207 (858318)
07-19-2019 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1333 by Phat
07-19-2019 1:04 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
I think that ringos idea of eternally existing chemicals that become what we are today is more irrational...but some people prefer that hypothetical line of thought for one reason only---we can do the maths that support it.
Rationality is not about what you prefer.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1333 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 1:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1341 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 2:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1339 of 3207 (858320)
07-19-2019 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1337 by Sarah Bellum
07-19-2019 1:11 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
At the time, perhaps, Greeks didn't know any better, so maybe, at the time, it might have been considered a rational explanation.
But two and a half millennia later?
I asked and you didn't answer: What specifically is irrational about the idea? Where is the lack of logic?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1337 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 1:11 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1342 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2019 2:08 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1343 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 2:22 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1340 of 3207 (858322)
07-19-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Stile
07-19-2019 9:13 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Do you agree that the idea that God exists in reality has no evidence to support it?
If you do not agree - please provide the evidence.
If you do agree - then the idea that God exists in reality is irrational.
Not everything in life, philosophy, or experience can be evidenced. This in and of itself shouldn't limit rationality.
Stile, to ringo writes:
But the logic isn't internally consistent... unless you'd like to explain how believing something actually exists without any evidence to suggest that it exists in the first place is actually "rational?"
Given this corollary, every single believer is irrational and you are essentially dismissing any consideration of the concept of God based solely on physical evidence. Which you are allowed to do...yet I can dismiss such a conclusion as irrational to me based on my personal experience. You of course may be rational to many.

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 1323 by Stile, posted 07-19-2019 9:13 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1396 by Stile, posted 07-22-2019 8:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1341 of 3207 (858327)
07-19-2019 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1338 by ringo
07-19-2019 1:11 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Rationality is not about what you prefer.
It also is not a means of eliminating belief from social consciousness and reality.
Wiki writes:
Rationality is the quality or state of being rational — that is, being based on or agreeable to reason.[1][2] Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy,[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science.
To determine what behavior is the most rational, one needs to make several key assumptions, and also needs a logical formulation of the problem. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in all information that is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Rationality is relative: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.
I wish you eggheaded atheists would stop trying to frame a world view which we all must adapt that eliminates modern religion. I guess I cant blame you little pests for fighting back, however.

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 1338 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 1:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1344 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 5:04 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1342 of 3207 (858328)
07-19-2019 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by ringo
07-19-2019 1:13 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
I think it’s the naked guy part.
Now if it were a naked Aphrodite or a naked Rihanna that would be a whole lot more rational.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 1:13 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1343 of 3207 (858331)
07-19-2019 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by ringo
07-19-2019 1:13 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
What's irrational about the notion of a man holding a bit of plasma with an enormous electrical current running through it? Well, for starters, it would fry him pretty good, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 1:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1345 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 5:04 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 1347 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 5:14 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1344 of 3207 (858351)
07-19-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1341 by Phat
07-19-2019 2:00 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
I wish you eggheaded atheists would stop trying to frame a world view which we all must adapt that eliminates modern religion.
Nobody's forcing you to accept a sensible worldview.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1341 by Phat, posted 07-19-2019 2:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1345 of 3207 (858353)
07-19-2019 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1343 by Sarah Bellum
07-19-2019 2:22 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Not if he's a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1343 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 2:22 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1346 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 5:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1346 of 3207 (858354)
07-19-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1345 by Faith
07-19-2019 5:04 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
But then, Zeus or Thor belong to the past, when it may (though, who knows) have been rational then, but certainly isn't now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1345 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1347 of 3207 (858356)
07-19-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1343 by Sarah Bellum
07-19-2019 2:22 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
What's irrational about the notion of a man holding a bit of plasma with an enormous electrical current running through it?
If you're going to ignore what I say, this could take a long time.
I did point out that that is your description of God. We don't have to accept the Gospel According to Sarah Bellum literally, do we?
I did point out that the Greeks might possibly have construed some technology more advanced than theirs - some technology even such as ours - as literal lightning. But it doesn't have to literally be lightning for the idea to be rational.
So let's try again: Do you have any rational reason for thinking the idea of God is irrational?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1343 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 2:22 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1348 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 5:54 PM ringo has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1348 of 3207 (858361)
07-19-2019 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1347 by ringo
07-19-2019 5:14 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
You want to stretch things so painfully that the ancients and their notions of gods throwing thunderbolts from mountaintops, inhabiting trees or rivers, firing their furnaces in volcanoes you might be able to call rational by the standards of the ancients?
Perhaps. But I started out saying that might be the case. Are you insisting that we judge the rationality of the idea of gods by those same standards today?
If so, sure, it's "rational" by those standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1347 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 5:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1349 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 6:05 PM Sarah Bellum has replied
 Message 1351 by Phat, posted 07-20-2019 7:58 AM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1349 of 3207 (858364)
07-19-2019 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1348 by Sarah Bellum
07-19-2019 5:54 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
Are you insisting that we judge the rationality of the idea of gods by those same standards today?
Does rationality have an expiry date? I would think that rational is rational, regardless of the time frame.
You and Stile both seem to be making the mistake of confusing rational with right. I say that an idea can be rational whether it has any basis in reality or not.
You and Stile are calling all fiction irrational. I say that the logic/reason/rationality are separate from the truth value of the premises.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1348 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 5:54 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1350 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-19-2019 7:39 PM ringo has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1350 of 3207 (858373)
07-19-2019 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1349 by ringo
07-19-2019 6:05 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
quote:
Europeans in the MiddleAges believed that lice were a sign of good health
Europeans actually believed that having lice is good for your health. The reason behind their beliefs was the fact that sick people rarely or never had lice.
Back in the Middle Ages people made a rational deduction. Coming to that same conclusion now would not be considered rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1349 by ringo, posted 07-19-2019 6:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1353 by ringo, posted 07-20-2019 11:39 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024