Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 241 of 3207 (676502)
10-23-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:11 PM


Re: A good foundation
*Given up arguing with Ringo's special pleading*
...or have I?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"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 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:41 PM Panda has replied

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


Message 242 of 3207 (676507)
10-23-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Panda
10-23-2012 12:24 PM


Re: A good foundation
panda writes:
*Given up arguing with Ringo's special pleading*
If you think there's any specal pleading involved, feel free to point it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Panda, posted 10-23-2012 12:24 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Panda, posted 10-23-2012 12:48 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 243 of 3207 (676510)
10-23-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:41 PM


Re: A good foundation
Ringo writes:
If you think there's any specal pleading involved, feel free to point it out.
The third time's the charm? I doubt it.

"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 242 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 1:01 PM Panda has not replied

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


Message 244 of 3207 (676511)
10-23-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Panda
10-23-2012 12:48 PM


Re: A good foundation
Panda writes:
The third time's the charm? I doubt it.
Seriously, I don't recall special pleading ever being suggested in this thread. If it has been, link it. If not, explain yourself. Don't just run away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Panda, posted 10-23-2012 12:48 PM Panda has not replied

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


Message 245 of 3207 (676513)
10-23-2012 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:11 PM


Re: A good foundation
Ringo writes:
I have said that knowledge can be demonstrated - e.g. the knowledge of how to bake a cake. The sun coming up tomorrow can not be demonstrated before the fact and therefore is not knowledge until after the fact.
How can you demonstrate that your knowledge of how to bake a cake is correct before the fact of baking the cake in question?
Every past instance of cake baking may have ended up in a cake as every previous morning has seen the Sun rise.
But how do you know your next cake bake will result in a cake any more than you know that the Sun will rise tomorrow?
You are making a very false distinction here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 1:32 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 246 of 3207 (676514)
10-23-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Straggler
10-23-2012 1:20 PM


Re: A good foundation
Straggler writes:
How can you demonstrate that your knowledge of how to bake a cake is correct before the fact of baking the cake in question?
That's what I'm saying; you can't have knowledge (as I define it) before the fact. You can only have knowledge of a fait accompli.
I can say I believe the sun will come up tomorrow and I believe I can bake a cake. After the sun comes up I can say I know the sun came up. After I have baked a cake I can say I know how to bake a cake.
I can say that I know x did not exist in the places I looked at the time I was looking. I can not claim to "know" any more than that about the existence of x.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 1:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 1:37 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 247 of 3207 (676515)
10-23-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ringo
10-23-2012 1:32 PM


Re: A good foundation
So you can't demonstrate that you know how to bake a cake until after the fact of baking it any more I can demonstrate the rising of the Sun until after it has risen.
So your distinction is, by your own terms, a false one.
Ringo writes:
I can say I believe the sun will come up tomorrow and I believe I can bake a cake. After the sun comes up I can say I know the sun came up. After I have baked a cake I can say I know how to bake a cake.
How do you know you didn't dream either (or both) of these things?
Ringo writes:
I can say that I know x did not exist in the places I looked at the time I was looking. I can not claim to "know" any more than that about the existence of x.
Then you don't know how to bake a cake you only know how to bake the cakes you have already successfully made.
That is a fucking silly way to use the term "know"......
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 1:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by ringo, posted 03-11-2014 12:35 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 248 of 3207 (676516)
10-23-2012 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
10-23-2012 12:11 PM


Re: A good foundation
ringo writes:
I have.
Yes, you have said all these things previously. I apologize for requesting you to repeat them. It's just nice to have a concise summary sometimes and it certainly did make it easier for me to understand your position. Thank-you.
I now understand your definition for "knowings things." I just disagree with it.
I do admit that if we use your definition, then I certainly cannot say "I know that God does not exist."
I disagree with your definition because I find it unacceptable that I cannot say "I know that the sun will rise tomorrow." I think that saying such a thing is part of the general use of the idea for "knowing things" in the general population. I think people would find it silly if I told them I didn't know if the sun was going to rise tomorrow or not. I will attempt to explain this below:
I have said that knowledge can be demonstrated
I agree with this statement, but not in the way you intend. I agree that knowledge can be demonstrated, but I do not agree that it is a requirement that knowledge be immediately demonstrated in order to know something about the future.
That is, I think the sun rising can be demonstrated in the way of sitting and watching it for a few days (months, years?) and verifying that it does, indeed, rise every day (in our part of the world, anyway).
I think that the lack of the sun "not rising" on everyday-we-have-accumulated-data-for-such-a-thing is enough indication from our data set in order for us to conclude that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."
It is in the same manner that I think the lack of God "existing" in the data we have been able to accumulate after testing is enough indication in order for us to conclude that "I know God does not exist."
I think that this restriction you've placed on "knowing things" leads to a few very peculiar concepts. Such as you knowing you can bake cakes... but you do not know that you can bake a cake tomorrow. I understand that there are a bunch of absolute truth problems standing in the way (you may not have a kitchen and ingredients available, or could get hit by a bus, or might forget how...). Even if we could assure that you will have a kitchen and ingredients available that you would not get hit by a bus, you could always forget how or somehow "end up with lasagna," as Straggler has mentioned.
And yet these sorts of things (even if we do not include kitchen insurance and bus-free zones) don't seem to stop any other chef from saying they "know how to bake a cake tomorrow."
In my experience with other people these sorts of as-yet-unindicated possibilities are assummed to be irrelevant whenever anyone says they know anything.
It seems to me, that these sorts of possibilities, again, are only taken into account if there is some sort of indication from the data set that leads us to think that they are likely to occur.
If we are stranded in the desert, I would not find it strange for you to say "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow." But if we're at your house, and we just came home from the grocery store, and planned to bake tomorrow morning, I would find it very strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow."
Sure, we can think of other possibilities... maybe you're sick? Maybe we haven't paid the electric bill in some time?
But without there being some indication from our data set that these ideas (or any other cake-blocking ideas) are actually valid concerns... it would seem incredibly strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow."
I think that the way "knowing things" are genearlly understood in everyday concepts is important to defining the terms. I agree that there can be special cases, such as specifying "for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake." But I think that special cases should be reserved for special situations, not used in such a way to confuse the generally-accepted sense of the idea.
Even cakes in the past... it's possible that you dreamed all those cakes. So you cannot say "I knew how to bake a cake yesterday." You can only say "I know how to bake cakes" at the moment you are actually baking a cake. Really? This sounds extremely restrictive, and I find it unacceptable.
I have also said that "God" is a possible entity with powers that are not yet understood.
Fair enough. With this definition for "God," I simply wouldn't say anything as we're not really talking about anything. I find it confusing to discuss an unidentified idea for which there is no indication it could even possibly be valid. We could be talking about aliens... which are most certainly not God's... Gee, we could even be talking about some strange species of ape that can live in some area of the world we thought was uninhabitable for apes. Wouldn't that be "a being" (an ape) "with powers that are not yet understood" (the ability to live in an area we considered uninhabitable)? Does it makes sense to call such things "God's"? The definition seems so broad as to render it useless. In order to not add confusion, I simply find the definition from Message 63 to be more aligned with what most people think about when they hear of "God." That is:
quote:
That God is a rational concept of some entity that sits back and governs good things and helps out people who pray to Him and used to do grand miracles but hasn't felt like it since we started to monitor such things
In conclusion:
Similarly, you don`t "know" that God doesn't exist - unless you define God as something that you haven`t found yet. You believe that God doesn't exist. There's a gray area between belief and knowledge and our disagreement is over the shade of gray.
I do not think our basic disagreement is over the gray area between belief and knowledge. I think it is simply over the gray area for the definition of just "knowing things."
I prefer to keep my gray as clean as possible.
I try to do that as well. I just find that some dirtyness may be required in order to "know things" about my past, present and future based on an analysis of the data I have been able to accumulate. I find that to be acceptable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 12:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:02 PM Stile has replied
 Message 257 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2012 12:14 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 249 of 3207 (676518)
10-23-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Stile
10-23-2012 1:41 PM


Re: A good foundation
Stile writes:
I think that saying such a thing is part of the general use of the idea for "knowing things" in the general population.
That's exactly why I prefer a tighter definition. We have a tighter definition than the general population for "theory". Why not for "knowledge" too?
Stile writes:
I think that the lack of the sun "not rising" on everyday-we-have-accumulated-data-for-such-a-thing is enough indication from our data set in order for us to conclude that "I know the sun will rise tomorrow."
I would say, more precisely, that the data suggests that it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have a high level of confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Stile writes:
But if we're at your house, and we just came home from the grocery store, and planned to bake tomorrow morning, I would find it very strange if you said "I do not know if I can bake a cake tomorrow."
I'd say that I plan to bake a cake tomorrow and I have a fairly high level of confidence in my abilty to do so.
Stile writes:
I find it confusing to discuss an unidentified idea for which there is no indication it could even possibly be valid.
So you fnd it confusing to discuss God. If I was interviewing you for the job of God-finder, that wouldn't give me much confidence in your ability to do the job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 1:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 2:23 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 250 of 3207 (676520)
10-23-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by ringo
10-23-2012 2:02 PM


Re: A good foundation
ringo writes:
That's exactly why I prefer a tighter definition. We have a tighter definition than the general population for "theory". Why not for "knowledge" too?
Well, you can if you'd like.
I thought it would be nice if we just used the terms that are already in use.
I would say, more precisely, that the data suggests that it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have a high level of confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.
...
I'd say that I plan to bake a cake tomorrow and I have a fairly high level of confidence in my abilty to do so.
And I would say that I understand you, however I would wonder why you speak so strangely and just don't say that "you know" such things like everybody else does.
So you fnd it confusing to discuss God. If I was interviewing you for the job of God-finder, that wouldn't give me much confidence in your ability to do the job.
Not exactly.
I only find it confusing to discuss God with you. As this definition of "God" that you've proposed is simply confusing.
But I would agree that if you were interviewing for God-finders... the pool of "atheists" may not be the best place to start. Might be a good place to finish after something concrete's turned up... but I don't think they'ed have the same passion as a theist in the beginning.
This is why I also emphasize that irrational ideas should be pursued by those with the passion to do so. It's pretty likely that it'll come up with nothing... so they won't be wasting anyone elses time. However, if something objective does indeed turn up, then I fully endorse further investigation.
I do not think "irrationallity" is all that negative a thing. I just think that it has it's place, and it's good for us to be able to identify that place and keep it there.
I irrationally choose weird stuff off food menus sometimes. Like things I've tried before and didn't like (sometimes tried many times and didn't like it every time, even). Just in "the hopes" of something being different. It's not rational, but it's fun (for me). And it has the possibility of opening my data set into areas that are rational and interesting (and maybe even yummy!). Although such a concept in it's entirety is rational... it doesn't change the fact that the initial step... the idea of trying something in hopes of it tasting better after I've already tried it many times in the past and always disliked it... that's irrational and remains so.
But really, if you like your definitions better, and think they serve you better... then by all means continue.
I just like my definitions better, and I think they serve me better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:39 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 251 of 3207 (676522)
10-23-2012 2:38 PM


This has degenerated in pointless, linguistic twaddle.
Splitting hairs over stupid points of definitinal trivia is possibly the only thing in this place that really pisses me off. It debiltates honest discussion, wastes days of everyone's time, derails whole threads, creates artificially hardened positions and avoid the real issues.
"I don't know that the sun will come up tomorrow" ffs, then we don't know anything at all and never can. Pfffnrrr.......
/rant.

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

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


Message 252 of 3207 (676523)
10-23-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Stile
10-23-2012 2:23 PM


Re: A good foundation
Stile writes:
And I would say that I understand you, however I would wonder why you speak so strangely and just don't say that "you know" such things like everybody else does.
For the same reason that I don't say evolution is "just a theory" like everybody else does - because it's a watered-down version of what the term should mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 2:23 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 5:42 PM ringo has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 3207 (676524)
10-23-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Stile
10-23-2012 11:45 AM


Re: Rational Swans
quote:
What I'm talking about is that proposing the idea for such a God is not based on any information we have on hand (our "data set"). In this way, I find the proposal of the idea to be irrational (and therefore justifiably discarded as irrelevant).
This has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with ignorance. Ignorance is not knowlede. You can justify disbelief in god, but you cannot demonstrate that non-existence is knowable. Your line of reasoning--pretending we can make truth claims about things for which we have no evidence, let alone demonstrable understanding for what evidence would look like--is precisely what science shows us is absurd. This is the type of reasoning that propels theology.
quote:
We have never encountered anything that is unconstrained by nature or observation.
We have encountered an infinite number of things which are unconstrained by observation--this is the nature of scientific progress as a conquest against ignorance. This doesn't mean it is unconstrainable by observation, although that doesn't mean everything in the universe is constrainable. The origins of the universe may turn out to be unconstrainable by observation, in addition to objects like black holes. On the other hand, we have not demonstrated, and might not be able to demonstrate, that anything we observe is not constrained by nature.
quote:
I have not heard of any direct link from the data we have that would indicate God being unconstrained by nature or observation is a possibility.
Pretty much every locus of ignorance is an opportunity for explanation via god, indicating possibility of some sort of divine agency. Moreover, I might be misunderstanding you, but the usual definition for god makes it, by definition, unconstrained by nature, so I'm not really certain what you are suggesting.
quote:
I'm not trying to say that this makes God irrational. I'm trying to say that the proposal of this idea is irrational because there is no indication from the data we do have to lead us towards this idea.
This is approximately what I am saying, although somewhat improperly stated, and your statement bears no relation to your original claim. One may propose the idea that god exists. An initial problem is that I have no idea what epistemic value is itself assumed by this proposal--does it refer to evidence, demonstration, plausibility, feasibility, utility, apodictic certainty, etc.? It is sufficiently clear that we are under no obligation by reason of evidence to accept the conjecture that god exists, and this absence of evidence reasonably justifies disbelief. What is irrational is your original claim that the statement "god does not exist" is knowable. The fact that evidence uniquely implicating god happens to be absent, is irrelevant.
quote:
Let say we live in an area where only white swans exist. We study the swans, we understand the evolution of the swans. But all the ones we study and understand are always white.
I'm saying that given this scenario, it is irrational to propose the idea that "maybe black swans exist."
<...>
I'm saying that given this scenario, it is rational to say "I know that all swans are white and that black swans do not exist."
<...>
I don't understand how you cannot see the absurdity of maintaining your position in the wake of an example like this. It is not remotely irrational to propose that "maybe black swans exist" unless you have unstated premises such as "A necessary characteristic of Swan-ness is being the color white" or that the premise that "we understand the evolution of swans" is equivalent to saying that "we understand the evolution of swans sufficient to claim that there can be no black swans". Your supposedly rational statement that "I know that all swans are white and that black swans do not exist" is absurd. Science would be incompetent drunkards if it were valid. I think that this shows precisely how epistemologically bankrupt your original claim is.
quote:
This is how I'm trying to use the terms. If we take this same usage and apply it consistently to the proposed idea of God being unconstrained by nature or observation... then I must find such a thing irrational because there is no indication of such an idea from our data set.
You are completely missing the logical implications of a proposal that something exists that is unconstrained by nature or observation--it means that whether or not your dataset implicates something is totally irrelevant. It cannot be used. This goes back to my argument that "no one can demonstrate that an observation necessarily follows from the hypothesis that god exists". In this case your swan example is even more useless because we can constrain knowledge about white swans sufficient to say something about the plausibility of black and blue swans. No such thing can be done with god, and a more appropriate analogy might be that possibility of a simulated universe (i.e., living in a matrix).
quote:
If I were to accept that such an idea of God was rational, and valid... then I could no longer say that "I know plaid swans do not exist."
I find such a defintion to be unusable and not to align with the way I think of "knowing things" in everyday life.
I do not think that the logical circumstances that allow you to say you have knowledge of something is respectable. It is irrational to apply it to black swans and it is infinitely more irrational to apply it to god. I could accept your claim to "know god does not exist" in the same manner that I could claim that "I know we do not live in a simulated universe", but I would stop in my tracks and recognize that this is flaccid pseudoknowledge, and that no such thing is necessarily knowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Stile, posted 10-23-2012 11:45 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Straggler, posted 10-23-2012 5:36 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 282 by Stile, posted 10-26-2012 12:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


(1)
Message 254 of 3207 (676555)
10-23-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by TrueCreation
10-23-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Rational Swans
I want to pick up on this idea of yours that non-existence is somehow unknowable.
TC writes:
You can justify disbelief in god, but you cannot demonstrate that non-existence is knowable.
I put it to you that there is an immaterial unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type.
Do you know that I have just invented this proposition? If so - How do you know this? What are the chances that I did invent this but that by some miracle of co-incidence it also happens to be true?
Whilst we can't claim certainty I think it perfectly reasonable (and rational) to say that this immaterial unicorn almost certainly does not exist and is nothing more than a product of human imagination.
Given that nothing is absolutely certain it seems silly to restrict the term "know" to such certainty. So - Again - It is perfectly reasonable and rational to conclude that we know said immaterial unicorn does not exist.
"Knowledge" has the proviso of being tentative and potentially fallible. But beyond that where is the problem in the non-existence of aforementioned immaterial unicorn being known?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by TrueCreation, posted 10-23-2012 2:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by TrueCreation, posted 10-24-2012 4:08 AM Straggler has replied

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


(2)
Message 255 of 3207 (676556)
10-23-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ringo
10-23-2012 2:39 PM


Re: A good foundation
So you aren't using the term "know" in the way that it is used you are instead using it in a way that you think it should be used.....
Why should the term "know" be used in the way you suggest?
What is wrong with an epistemological stance that recognises the role of tentativity and fallibilism in knowledge and knowledge acquisition?
Yours is a silly absolutist stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by ringo, posted 10-23-2012 2:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 10-24-2012 3:37 PM Straggler 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