Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 181 of 3207 (676124)
10-19-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by TrueCreation
10-19-2012 10:34 AM


Re: Remaining Rational
TrueCreation writes:
Stile writes:
It only becomes difficult and irrational if the definition for God is irrational, or the proposed indication for His existance is irrational.
I don't think that's correct. Reification of god is difficult because it is unconstrained by nature or observation.
I think this is the crux of our difference.
If I agree with your statement... that God is unconstrained by nature or observation... then I actually agree with the rest of your entire post to me and with the rest of your points. And I would also then agree that the statement "I know that God does not exist" is false.
It's just that something (anything... regardless of it being God or not) being "unconstrained by nature or observation" seems irrational to me. Which is why I then dismiss the rest of your entire argument... because if your defintion of God is irrational, then it doesn't have an effect on my rational conclusion. (Do you agree with that? ... "if" such a definition was irrational?)
So... lets focus our discussion on whether or not such a thing is rational. Do you agree that this is the correct course for our discussion?
Unconstrained by nature or observation.
Do we know of anything that is unconconstrained by nature or observation? (Other than ideas of God... He's what we're trying to figure out..).
Is there any rational indication to consider that anything could exist that is unconstrained by nature or observation?
I am currently under the impression that all things we have ever learned about and added to our factual data set are all "constrained by nature or observation".
Even strange things such as Quantum Mechanics still have probability rules that they follow and allow for us to understand them, predict them and use them for our benefit.
If it is true that all things we have ever known "to exist" are all constrained by nature or observation, then wouldn't it be irrational to suggest that anything (regardless of it being God or not) exists that is not contrained by nature or observation?
I answer "yes" to that question, and that is my flow of reasoning to claim that such a defintion of God is irrational.
But I am open to suggestion if you have another idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by TrueCreation, posted 10-19-2012 10:34 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 12:00 PM Stile has replied
 Message 184 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2012 1:28 PM Stile has replied
 Message 196 by TrueCreation, posted 10-22-2012 8:31 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 3207 (676126)
10-19-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Stile
10-19-2012 11:33 AM


Re: Remaining Rational
I don't think that the fact that the counter-claim is irrational necessitates that your claim is rational. They could still both be irrational.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : I accidentally a word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 11:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 183 of 3207 (676127)
10-19-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
10-19-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Remaining Rational
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think that the fact that the counter-claim is irrational necessitates that your claim is rational. They could still both be irrational.
I agree.
And I welcome arguments that want to discuss whether or not my argument in the way I choose to present it is rational or not. Such a discussion would either end up with enlightening me (I am wrong), or showing that they are arguing a strawman and not my actual argument, or that they are wrong.
But in reading TrueCreation's posts... he doesn't seem to form any specific details about why my argument is wrong other than that I'm not searching for God correctly... and that "correct" search seems to hinge on his definition of "God."
(But, again, I could be wrong... TrueCreation could simply tell me that's not his issue).
So that's where I attempted to lead our conversation... to his definition of God.
I certainly do agree, however, that my argument needs to stand on it's own merits. It would be a fallacy to think my argument is rationally justified just because a certain definition of God is irrational.
Even if TrueCreation does agree that this definition of God is irrational... such an idea makes no judgement on the rationality of the rest of my argument. ...but it would give us something to forward the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 184 of 3207 (676132)
10-19-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Stile
10-19-2012 11:33 AM


Re: Remaining Rational
Stile writes:
It's just that something (anything... regardless of it being God or not) being "unconstrained by nature or observation" seems irrational to me
Does the propostion that reality may consist of being a 2D hologram manifesting the universe seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea of nature existing in a flux of probabilities waves rather than actual physical objects seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea that there may be a God existing unconstrained by nature seem irrational? oh you said yes to that one.
All these things are under investigation.

"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 181 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 11:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 3:14 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 185 of 3207 (676136)
10-19-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by 1.61803
10-19-2012 1:28 PM


Re: Remaining Rational
1.61803 writes:
Does the propostion that reality may consist of being a 2D hologram manifesting the universe seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea of nature existing in a flux of probabilities waves rather than actual physical objects seem rational or irrational?
Does the idea that there may be a God existing unconstrained by nature seem irrational? oh you said yes to that one.
All these things are under investigation.
You should be able to answer those questions for me.
I have defined what I mean for something to "seem rational or irrational" to me.
I have defined that it depends on whether or not there is any rational indication from the data (facts/observations) we do have leading us in that direction or not.
You seem to be equivocating on the phrase "seems irrational" as if I meant something like "feels irrational". If that were the case, then I would admit that you have a point. However, this is not the case, I have provided an objective definition for when something "seems irrational" or not to me. The difference depends on whether or not there is any rational indication leading us in the direction of that investigation. God being unconstrained by nature does not pass this test.
I think this is a difference worth noting.
I think it is a difference worth noting in the same way we note other ideas that do not pass this test. By saying that we know they do not exist.
To comment on them specifically, there are observations of nature that certainly lead us to believe that nature may exist as a bunch of probability waves and not anything actually physical itself. I agree that such a thing sounds weird as we are not used to it.
However, weirdness has nothing to do with whether or not there are facts or observations that point us in the direction of investigation for this matter.
As for the 2-D hologram idea... I do not know much about it, so I can't really comment. But if it's anything like your probability wave example (and I'm willing to bet that it is)... then science is already investigating it. And science always has a rational indication leading to their investigations. That's why it's called "science" and not "stuff I'm making up."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by 1.61803, posted 10-19-2012 1:28 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 186 of 3207 (676179)
10-20-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by New Cat's Eye
10-19-2012 10:22 AM


CS writes:
And when we look into the God of the guy who worshipped the sun, we found that God does exist. You're wrong when you say that all the checks have turned up negative.
But the Sun isn't a god.....
It's a big flaming ball of hydrogen. If anyone thought the Sun was a god they were simply wrong. Either that or they are using a definition of god that includes mindless balls of flaming hydrogen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-19-2012 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 3207 (676180)
10-20-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by TrueCreation
10-18-2012 10:25 AM


Re: Ideas and Data
Straggler writes:
It's as rational as saying that you know there isn't an undetectable unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type.
TC writes:
Not really.
Do you know that there isn't an undetectable unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type?
TC writes:
I might say that it would be more analogous to saying that there is something undetectable over your shoulder as you type, and that that thing is related to the universe, life, or people sufficient to call that thing god. However, only the latter part of that statement is required because that this thing is either undetectable and over your shoulder, are unnecessary.
If undetectable and over my shoulder are omitted we are left with something looking. My wife is looking.
As for being "related to the universe, life, or people sufficient to call that thing god" - Well you are going to have to explain what you mean by that for it to make any sense here.
TC writes:
So I could say that we know that mirrors reflect light, as this is itself observed.
Well equally we could say that gods are human inventions because this is what is observed too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by TrueCreation, posted 10-18-2012 10:25 AM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 188 of 3207 (676213)
10-20-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Stile
10-19-2012 9:22 AM


Re: God and Soup
Stile writes:
A rational indication that sharkfin soup might exist on another planet has nothing to do with any rational indication that God might exist on another planet. Unless you are trying to make a claim that God evolved as a natural being on Earth?
God could have evolved as a being which we may learn to detect by natural means - like bacteria.
Stile writes:
But it remains true that we have looked for a rational God (as defined in Message 63) in all proposed rational areas.
Sure, it's easy to define God out of existence but if we want to talk about the possibility of His existence, we have to define Him in a broad way, not a narrow way.
Stile writes:
A "God" that has nothing to do with humans, or the creation of life, or morality seems irrational to me.
Yes, I know you like flinging the word "irrational" around.
Stile writes:
It is mangling the word "God" in such a way that the being shoud just be called an "alien" instead. Isn't that what an alien is? A being that's not-from-Earth that has nothing to do with humans or the creation of life or morality?
I don't think there's any rational way to distinguish between a god and an alien.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Stile, posted 10-19-2012 9:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 10:37 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 189 of 3207 (676214)
10-20-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Straggler
10-18-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Straggler writes:
We know elephants do exist. So the chances of an elephant parade through your front room would seem considerably higher than the product of your imaginings actually existing.
At one time, we didn't know elephants existed. They were only a product of our imaginings until we found them.
Straggler writes:
Then we are back to Immaterial Unicorns and ethereal squirrels and suchlike. Because we haven't scoured the universe for these either.
No, we're not talking about anything immaterial or ethereal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2012 3:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 3:55 AM ringo has replied
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 2:42 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 190 of 3207 (676215)
10-20-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Straggler
10-18-2012 3:41 PM


Re: The Northwest Passage
Straggler writes:
Now it might be that the next time we investigate somebody's concept of god that we actually find a god at the end of the rainbow (or wherever). This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".
That's not a very sensible standard of "knowledge".
Doubt is not knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.
Possibilities lead to knoledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2012 3:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2012 2:49 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 191 of 3207 (676248)
10-21-2012 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by ringo
10-20-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:
At one time, we didn't know elephants existed. They were only a product of our imaginings until we found them.
Those that had evidence of elephants knew they existed. Those that had no evidence didn't imagine them.
People imagine non-existent animals that have properties they dream of, horses with wings, dragons, sea monsters, unicorns (I don't know why.)
We know that man imagined gods to explain things that weren't explicable at the time. That's why there are so many disgarded gods.
It's fun to imagine super poweful things to 'explain' things we don't have answers to yet - but it's not rational.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 10-20-2012 2:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by ringo, posted 10-21-2012 4:01 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 197 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2012 10:54 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 192 of 3207 (676301)
10-21-2012 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tangle
10-21-2012 3:55 AM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:
rngo writes:
At one time, we didn't know elephants existed. They were only a product of our imaginings until we found them.
Those that had evidence of elephants knew they existed. Those that had no evidence didn't imagine them.
Consider bacteria then. There was no evidence that they existed until somebody hypothesized that they existed and figured out where to look for the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 3:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 5:49 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 193 of 3207 (676316)
10-21-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by ringo
10-21-2012 4:01 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Ringo writes:
Consider bacteria then. There was no evidence that they existed until somebody hypothesized that they existed and figured out where to look for the evidence.
I've no idea whether they hypothesised about a bacteria then went looking for them or not - it seems unlikely as bacteria were found a couple of hundred years before they put 2 and 2 together about desease. It's more likely it was like most other things we know - like the elephant - they just found it because they were curious.
But it's a strained analogy anyway.
The thing is, a god as described by the religious - in the Christian flavour for example, one that intervenes in our world, answering prayers and so - would leave evidence. We don't see any, so I take that as evidence of absence.
The other type of god - the one that is supposed to have created all this stuff we see around us but takes no interest in us and is holed up outside time and space, there is no evidence for either, but it's fair to say that not finding evidence for that kind of god is to be expected. So there not being any evidence describes nothing one way or the other.
We seem to want to make this far harder than it actually is.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by ringo, posted 10-21-2012 4:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 10-21-2012 6:02 PM Tangle has replied

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


(1)
Message 194 of 3207 (676318)
10-21-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tangle
10-21-2012 5:49 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
Tangle writes:
It's more likely it was like most other things we know - like the elephant - they just found it because they were curious.
That's what I've been saying; you have to be curious. If you hope there aren't any snakes in your garden, you might succeed in not finding any.
Tangle writes:
The other type of god - the one that is supposed to have created all this stuff we see around us but takes no interest in us and is holed up outside time and space, there is no evidence for either, but it's fair to say that not finding evidence for that kind of god is to be expected. So there not being any evidence describes nothing one way or the other.
As I said in another post, it's easy to define God out of existence - but if you do, you're not honestly producing "knowledge". You're just reinforcing ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 5:49 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 10-21-2012 6:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 195 of 3207 (676321)
10-21-2012 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by ringo
10-21-2012 6:02 PM


Re: Snakes may be in the pudding
ringo writes:
That's what I've been saying; you have to be curious. If you hope there aren't any snakes in your garden, you might succeed in not finding any.
There ARE snakes in my garden. Plenty of evidence. But I'm pretty sure that you understand the simple point I'm making, so I won't labour it any further.
As I said in another post, it's easy to define God out of existence - but if you do, you're not honestly producing "knowledge". You're just reinforcing ignorance.
All that we've heard so far is is an attempt to define a god INTO existence without evidence. Just because it's not possible to totally exclude the existence of a god does not magically make one exist.
But neither does it mean it doesn't - that's all, nothing more.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ringo, posted 10-21-2012 6:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 10-22-2012 2:04 PM Tangle 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