Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 136 of 3207 (675917)
10-17-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Stile
10-17-2012 1:04 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for God... do you think it is rational to conclude that God does not exist?
If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for sharkfin soup being on McDonald's menu... do you think it is rational to conclude that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu?
Things can be absurd, irrational, and incredible and still exist.
Lets look at the discussion on quantum tunneling from the other thread you are participating in.
Does Quantum mechanics seem rational to you?

"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 135 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 1:04 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 1:45 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 137 of 3207 (675918)
10-17-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 1:29 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
Things can be absurd, irrational, and incredible and still exist.
I agree with your idea here, but not your use of the word "irrational."
If something exists it is "rational" (by the way I am using the term in this thread... that our data set rationally stems from our observations of reality).
1.61803 writes:
Does Quantum mechanics seem rational to you?
Yes, it does. Everything I ever learnt from Quantum mechanics came from a logical analysis of real observations (data). That's basically my definition of the term "rational." Or, at least, it's how I've been trying to use the term here, anyway.
I would say that Quantum mechanics doesn't seem "normal" to me... but my sense of "what is normal" changes, and I do think that Quantum mechanics seems normal to those who spend more time with it than I do.
I think that our knowledge is about getting as close to "absolute truth" as possible. It doesn't really matter how close we are to absolute truth... what matters is being able to tell if we could be closer or not. I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 1:29 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM Stile has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 138 of 3207 (675920)
10-17-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Stile
10-17-2012 1:45 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.
Yes this is a great statement. But that is not what you are doing.
You are saying: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It is to incredible to exist. It is absurd to think it could exist. It is irrational to think it would exist.
These are the very arguments presented against the uncertainty principle and other bizarre aspects of how reality was being described. Yet here we are today fully incorporating QM into the known body of science.
How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist? And if we did not find it, would we conclude it does not exist? Turn the lights off in the LHC and go home?
The problem with God is like reality he refuses to be pinned down.

"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 137 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 1:45 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Phat, posted 10-17-2012 2:41 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 140 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 142 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:06 PM 1.61803 has replied

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


Message 139 of 3207 (675923)
10-17-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
As a believer, I seem to see that your argument is mixing emotion and expectation with logic, reason, and reality. Or am I misunderstanding you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 140 of 3207 (675924)
10-17-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
Stile writes:
I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.
Yes this is a great statement. But that is not what you are doing.
Are you sure? I think it is exactly what I am doing.
Let's take the way I see things.
1. Assume God does not exist.
-My statement that God does not exist is absolute truth.
2. Assume God exists.
-If God exists, and if there is some indication of His existance, then we will eventually find it and get closer to absolute truth. It is possible that God exists yet providing an indication of His existance is not possible (or preventable for all time?). In such a case, we will not get closer to absolute truth.
Now, let's take the way you're seeing things:
1. Assume God does not exist.
-Since we can never prove so indefinitely, we can never say so. We will never get as close to absolute truth as my method above. Perhaps we will form some sort of strong opinions... but we could never say "I know that God does not exist."
2. Assume God does exist.
-If God exists, and if there is some indication of His existance, then we will eventually find it and get closer to absolute truth. It is possible that God exists yet providing an indication of His existance is not possible (or preventable for all time?). In such a case, we will not get closer to absolute truth. (same as my method above).
So, we are equal in getting closer to absolute truth if God does exist, but my method is better at getting closer to absolute truth if God does not exist. Which method is better at getting us closer to absolute truth?
1.61803 writes:
You are saying: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It is to incredible to exist. It is absurd to think it could exist. It is irrational to think it would exist.
Is it what I'm saying? I don't think it is.
I am saying this: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It may still be possible for it to exist, but until we discover something that indicates such a possibility should be taken seriously, then such a possibility should not be considered as a rational idea. Therefore it is rational to say "I know that XYZ does not exist."
IF we were to discover a cosmic ray of *something* that is mandatory for the beginning of life on Earth, and that ray is coming from *somewhere* in space... I would take this as in indication that maybe God does exist in outerspace, and we should investigate before coming to the conclusion that He does not exist.
But we haven't found such a thing (or any other indication) yet.
How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist? And if we did not find it, would we conclude it does not exist? Turn the lights off in the LHC and go home?
What about the Higgs?
I don't know too much about it.
But, I do believe there was something rational indicating to us that it did exist, wasn't there? Wasn't the existance of the Higgs Boson the result of some theory about the universe/quantum mechanics? Did that theory have some indication that it was valid? Why did they build the LHC in the first place if there wasn't some sort of rational indication that the Higgs could be found?
Sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would be on board with.
We would, however, conclude that the Higgs does not exist if we had searched every rational indication for it's existance and we did not find it. I think there was a certain range they were expecting to find it in (because of the theory)? If it wasn't in that range... don't you think it would have been rational to conclude that it didn't exist?
Doesn't this happen in science all the time? An hypothesis is proposed, predicting certain conclusions. If the conclusions are not found after looking... isn't the hypothesis considered "falsified?" ...Which is the same as saying that the hypothesis does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 141 of 3207 (675925)
10-17-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Stile
10-17-2012 9:21 AM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Stile writes:
There is no rational indication that a McDonald's menu exists on another planet.
Nor is there any rational indication that a McDonald's menu doesn't exist on another planet. It is rational to suggest that life evolving on another planet might have some similarities to earthly life forms - e.g. warm-bloodedness, large brains, opposable thumbs, etc. Thus, it is also rational to suggest that a McDonald's menu might evolve on another planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 9:21 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:13 PM ringo has replied
 Message 147 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 3:19 PM ringo has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 142 of 3207 (675926)
10-17-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 2:22 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:
How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist?
But there was a rational reason to think that it did exist.
That is why they were looking for it.
Someone didn't just wake up one morning and say "I think there is an undiscovered 'particle' that exists.
They followed a rational reasoned argument that indicated that the Higgs existed.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 2:22 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:30 PM Panda has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 143 of 3207 (675927)
10-17-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Phat
10-17-2012 2:41 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
As a believer, I seem to see that your argument is mixing emotion and expectation with logic, reason, and reality. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Hi Phat, I am not mixing logic with belief. I am merely poking holes in Stiles argument where I can. He is of course defending his statement "I know that God does not exist."
I do see Stiles point very clearly,
It is very common for theist to move the goal post so to speak when describing what it is they believe God is. By Stile trouncing straight to meat of the problem, namely saying it is rational to dispel the existence of God based on the absence of evidence. He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is. Which I applaud btw.
My only point was that if it were that simple to claim victory everyone would agree his argument is sound.
The Gordian knot comes to mind.

"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 139 by Phat, posted 10-17-2012 2:41 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:15 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 3:29 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 144 of 3207 (675928)
10-17-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:03 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
ringo writes:
Nor is there any rational indication that a McDonald's menu doesn't exist on another planet. It is rational to suggest that life evolving on another planet might have some similarities to earthly life forms - e.g. warm-bloodedness, large brains, opposable thumbs, etc. Thus, it is also rational to suggest that a McDonald's menu might evolve on another planet.
Which puts you in the position of saying that you do not know anything about what is (or is not) on the McD's menu.
This is philosophically fine (I suppose) but everyone will look at you with incredulity when you say that you do not know if/if not McD's sell heroine or donkeys or planets.
It also puts you in the position of not being able to say that you know anything.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:19 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 145 of 3207 (675929)
10-17-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
numbers writes:
He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is.
Can you provide a definition of knowledge that you would agree with?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:51 PM Panda has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 146 of 3207 (675930)
10-17-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Panda
10-17-2012 3:13 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Panda writes:
Which puts you in the position of saying that you do not know anything about what is (or is not) on the McD's menu.
Exactly.
Panda writes:
It also puts you in the position of not being able to say that you know anything.
I still know how to bake a cake with a pretty high level of confidence. If you tasted my cake, your confidence in my knowledge would be high too. However, I don't claim to know how to make shark fin soup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:13 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:42 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 147 of 3207 (675931)
10-17-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
10-17-2012 3:03 PM


God and Soup
It is rational to suggest that life evolving on another planet might have some similarities to earthly life forms - e.g. warm-bloodedness, large brains, opposable thumbs, etc. Thus, it is also rational to suggest that a McDonald's menu might evolve on another planet.
Okay. I accept this as being a rational indication that a McDonald's menu may be on another planet, I will now add "on Earth" to the end of my sharkfin soup example.
We know that McDonald's does exist here on Earth.
It is rational that other planets may be similar to Earth.
It is rational that a similar planet may evolve similar things in a similar manner therefore maybe they have a McDonald's too.
It's not really likely or anything... but at least it's a rational indication that the possibility might exist.
Therefore, I find it to be a valid rational idea to strike down the statement "I know that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
Glad to hear you find my reasoning to be a valid method.
So, in the same vein... what is the rational indication that God exists on another planet?
Of course, if you do not have one, then I assume you accept the rest of my method as well and the rational conclusion that "I know God does not exist."
"I know that God does not exist."
"I know that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu on Earth."
I really do not see a difference in the statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 10-17-2012 3:40 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 148 of 3207 (675932)
10-17-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by 1.61803
10-17-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
1.61803 writes:
He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is.
Isn't this what everyone does? Is there another way to claim knowledge other than by defining the term of what knowledge is?
My only point was that if it were that simple to claim victory everyone would agree his argument is sound.
I think the argument is sound. I think that it is difficult for everyone to agree because of the social and historical popularity of believing in God.
...maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 3:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by 1.61803, posted 10-17-2012 4:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 149 of 3207 (675933)
10-17-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Panda
10-17-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Absurd fallacies
Panda writes:
But there was a rational reason to think that it did exist.
That is why they were looking for it.
Hello Panda,
Prior to the construction of Super colliders' was there any way such physical evidence would of been obtained?
Is that a problem concerning the rational for the potential existence of God? That there is no way to test such a proposal so it must be null?
They followed a rational reasoned argument that indicated that the Higgs existed.
Sure and when if no positive data presented itself what would you conclude? Data that does not exist does not mean it is not forthcoming. By this logic we would still be in the dark ages blood letting vapors, or inventing phlogiston. imo

"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 142 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 3:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 10-17-2012 4:58 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 3207 (675934)
10-17-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Stile
10-17-2012 12:44 PM


This is exactly what I'm saying.
Not exactly, there's another point in there: That what they're calling "God" is, in fact, the Sun. For them (and for us with their usage), God does exist. It be like some eastern asian guy referring to cheeseburgers as "shark-fin soup". He'd be right that McDonalds does have shark-fin soup (cheeseburgers) on its menu. The point is that you haven't distinguished between them being wrong about God existing, and you being wrong about what you think they're referring to as "God".
Now, you're right that just because there could be a guy that refers to cheesburgers as shark-fin soup doesn't mean that you can't know that its not on the menu. But what I'm saying it that when you claim to have looked into all the gods and found them to be wrong, that you haven't actually covered that with your statement because the word "God" doesn't really tell us much about what the person who's using it actually means by it.
You wouldn't say that you've gone and found that none of the usages of "shark-fin soup" means something that isn't on the McDonald's menu. Give me a little leeway here though; "shark-fin soup" is a much more specific and discete concept than "God" so the analogy is pretty stretched... maybe too far. Here we go: Does McDonalds have "freedom fries" on their menu? It doesn't say that phrase anywhere on it but we know that some rednecks refer to french fries as that. You wouldn't say that you know that McDonalds doesn't have freedom fries on its menu. Does that make sense?
Its not that I'm doubting your usage of "know", its that "God" isn't defined well enough to make such a blanket statement about.
The reason they would laugh me off as a buffoon is because their data set indicates that God is that actual sun.
Granted, they have the luxury of not knowing about things like confirmation bias, and the difference between live and inanimate objects, and that the sun is actually an inanimate object.
But, that's not the point. The point is that from their data set it is rational to conclude that God exists in/as the sun (given "their" definition of God).
But God does exist when its referring to the Sun.
But we don't have their data set, do we?
We have ours.
Further, you have yours and I have mine.
We do know about confirmation bias. We do know about inanimate objects. We do know that God has been proposed, searched for, and not found many, many, many times.
But there's also people who have found God...
...this forces us to rationally conclude "we know that God does not exist."
Speak for yourself
Maybe there's something like confirmation bias about our data set that completely undermines it in such a way that pretty much everything we "know" isn't really something that is true.
But the mere possibility of this does not stop anyone from saying that they "know things" now.
Maybe there's something we'll learn in the future that will completely undermine the rational analysis of what we do have that concludes "we know that God does not exist."
But the mere possibility of this does not stop us from saying such things now.
I get that. I don't have a problem with you not reserving the usage of the word "know" because of some possible undiscovered thing that might prove you wrong.
My point is that being "right" or "wrong" doesn't really matter... that has to do with absolute truth, which we're unable to ever really determine anyway.
I do have a bit of a problem with saying that people know things that aren't true. I wouldn't say that people knew the Earth was flat. They were 'convinced', or 'believed it'. That's what I was saying earlier about it not being "established". Things that are established are known and there's still the possiblity that it'll be proven wrong in the future, but that's different from coming to a conclusion based on incomplete evidence - which is what you're doing with God.
My point is that knowledge should be a rational endeavor. Therefore, statements of that knowledge should be held to that same rational standard. Knowledge is about getting as close as we can to absolutely true. In laymens terms... you can only "know" that which you've been exposed to.
But you've only been exposed to what people have imagined about God. You haven't ever really tested God, itself. That limits what you can know about God, at least in the sense of establishing anything. You can become convinced, or believe it, but I don't think "know" is the best word there. I accept the usage when we're talking about specific and discrete Gods, and I don't really have that much of a problem with the phrase in general, its just that there's room for improvement and its not actually telling us that much.
With God:
I have not been exposed to God. Therefore, I do not know God.
I have been exposed to a search for God. I have searched everywhere God has ever been rationally claimed or proposed to be. I have searched even for the effects of God everywhere they have been rationally claimed to be. Therefore, I know God does not exist.
Nobody has an issue with my statement of sharkfin soup.
It is important... IF McDonald's put sharkfin soup on their menu, I'm sure there would be quite a clamour from a significant portion of the population. However, no one seems to be worried about it. It seems acceptable to say "I know that shark-fin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" even though McDonald's could decide to add it to the menu tomorrow.
I really don't see the difference between the two examples in coming to the concluding statements.
God is not a specific and discrete thing like sharkfin soup is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 10-17-2012 12:44 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 8:52 AM New Cat's Eye 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