|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
Who is "us"? The idea of a deity may seem irrational to some of "us" but not to all of "us".
You've already conceded that, logically, the idea of a deity is irrational by our standards... Sarah Bellum writes:
What's irrational about that idea? Our justice system does nothing but handle offenses not committed against itself. It acts on behalf of society, so why is it irrational for a god to do the same thing?
... a more "advanced" notion of someone who could forgive offenses not committed against him personally, or anything else. Sarah Bellum writes:
The question is: Was their thinking logical? If you want to show that their thinking was irrational, you need to point out the specific problems with their logic. Why do you continually refuse to do that?
Your only claim of rationality is for some people in the past who may (we'll say they did for the sake of argument, rather than that they took it as an article of faith) have had a line of reasoning that they considered logical that they thought led them to the concept of a deity. Sarah Bellum writes:
I didn't. Considering this disagreement, how could you say rationality is inherent in the concept of a deity? I said that the concept is not inherently irrational. Edited by ringo, : No reason given. Edited by ringo, : No reason given.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
A nice subject / thread You created here, but it still might be lost, the discussion might be going into perdition once more, because the Opening Post is using a very bad translation for EL (ELYON).
Well, I didn't create it - and nothing I have said in it has anything to do with translation. We're talking about a general concept of God, not necessarily even the Biblical one.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Sarah Bellum writes:
As I pointed out, that's how our justice system works. It's always a disinterested (objective) third person who decides. That's the rational way to settle disputes. If someone punches you in the face and then a third person says, "I forgive you" that makes no sense.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
There may or may not be forgiveness involved. (Ever hear of a suspended sentence?) No, the third person does not forgive. The third person judges, arbitrates, sets the penalty, levies the fine. You're grasping at straws. Why don't you just answer my question? What specifically is it that makes the idea of God irrational? What is the problem with the logic?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
So you think it's okay to talk about massive holes?
ringo writes:
You are free to think whatever you like. The most common adjective among the population is "massive" but I don't think it should be used at EvC to apply to holes. Stile writes:
So you intend to be unscientific. We already have Faith to do that.
ringo writes:
That's exactly the intent here - as defined by the definition in the very first post. You're using a colloquial definition to try to overrule a scientific definition. That's especially objectionable. Stile writes:
It's just a circle. We don't need you to explain it in detail. This entire argument is based around a simple analogy: "If I can say I know The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist,then I can say I know God does not exist." This argument simply explains, in detail, each step in the process of that analogy.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
The problem is that a hole is, by definition, a volume from which the mass has been removed. It has been de-massed. It is un-massive.
In general, I see no reason why not - when a hole is extensively larger than normal circumstances of whatever-context it is. Stile writes:
You are being rational and reasonable, just like the idea of god can be rational and reasonable. You are also being irrelevant.
I intend to be rational and reasonable.You can call that whatever you'd like. Stile writes:
Yes, 1450+ posts later, people are still showinh you how you're wrong. We have the same problem with Faith. Your implications of rational and reasonable being useless...I didn't think I needed to either.And yet... 1450+ posts later... we're still here. All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
Well, of course, if some people find an elephant, you're wrong to say that elephants don't exist.
Oh, I answered that I while back, I think. Your response was to say that because some people find a rationale, nobody can say it's inherently irrational. Sarah Bellum writes:
No. For the umpteenth time, reasoning and logic can not be erased by knowledge. The conclusions based on the reasoning and logic can be overturned but that does not make the reasoning and logic invalid. Logic 101.
The old notions of a thunder god and such were shown to be irrational as our increasing knowledge showed the natural origins of lightning, volcanoes, comets, storms, etc. Sarah Bellum writes:
An idea does not have to be falsifiable to be rational. ... not falsifiable.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It means (properly) "having mass". Electrons are massive but not large.
The word "massive" does not mean "with lots of mass." Stile writes:
No. It doesn't. That's a misuse, particularly in a scientific context.
The word "massive" simply means "very large." Stile writes:
Or, "I can not prove a negative."
It forces one to never be able to say "I know that doesn't exist." Stile writes:
I've lived 67 years without ever needing that ability. I would not call that a "practical life function".
It removes the ability to say "I know a man I can't see isn't standing behind me right now and is going to kill me immediately." Stile writes:
You really don't understand what "rational" means, do you?
Your method in showing "how I'm wrong" includes an irrational clinging to a definition of the word "know"... Stile writes:
The people who disagree with you in this thread are alive. ... that not a single person alive adheres to in a practical sense.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
The "popular" definition is illiterate.
It only mean "having mass" in one specific definition. Stile writes:
EvC is a scientific context.
It is a misuse in a scientific context. Stile writes:
No you're not. You're pretending to "know" something when you haven't done nearly enough research. Your confidence level is inflated far beyond what you can possibly justify.
I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm trying to know it with as much confidence as we know anything else. Stile writes:
Then why do you keep bringing up evidence? You should know that logic/reason does not depend on evidence. ringo writes:
Yes, I do. You really don't understand what "rational" means, do you?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
What does that have to do with anything I have said? Just because one person might believe in unicorns does not mean unicorns exist.1. The existence of unicorns has nothing to do with whether or not the idea of unicorns is rational. 2. Belief in unicorns might be irrational but that does not make the idea of unicorns irrational. Sarah Bellum writes:
You still refuse to show what is irrational about the reasoning. We draw different conclusions today because we have different information to work with - i.e. different premises. But our reasoning process isn't necessaruly "more rational". Would you reason the same way nowadays? Of course not. Such reasoning is irrational. What is it exactly in the reasoning process of the past that you think was irrational?
Sarah Bellum writes:
We're not talking about belief in a idea. We're talking about the idea itself and the reasoning behind it. Believing in something that is not falsifiable is a perfect example of something taken on faith, rather than by reason.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
Then why don't you show us where the logic is flawed?
It is not rational by our standards, however, because we know where the logic is flawed. Sarah Bellum writes:
You're still confusing the reasoning with the premises. I don't believe in Hephaestus because the premises are false - or to put it another way, we have better premises today.
If you can't see where the logic is flawed, then . . . why don't you worship Hephaestus? Sarah Bellum writes:
No. No. No. You're still dwelling on the premises. Look at the reasoning only and show us how their reasoning from their premises to their conclusion is wrong.
Now you may say the various pieces are "rational" in the sense that there is such a thing as a blacksmith, a forge, sparks, smoke and so on. Sarah Bellum writes:
This is what I keep asking you: How did they put the pieces together illogically? Be specific. But if you put those "rational" pieces together illogically you can no longer make a claim that your reasoning is rational.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Exactly. The idea is not inherently irrational. The idea of the Christian God, transcendent of humanity yet anthropomorphized through Jesus Christ, can be argued both ways---as rational and as irrational.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't think that's true. Rationality is objective. The rationale behind an idea should be clear to everybody, whether they accept/believe the idea or not. Accepting an idea is based on the premises behind the idea, not on the reasoning. the belief becomes rational if one accepts it. Of course, it is still possible to be irrational about any part of the process.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
It doesn't matter. We're talking about the reasoning, not the premises. Whether the premises are right or wrong does not affect the reasoning. You can have good reasoning from good premises or bad premises.
But there's nothing wrong with their premises, is there? Sarah Bellum writes:
That's what I've been trying to pry out of you. If you think there was something wrong with their reasoning, what the hell was it? What's wrong, the logic or the premises?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes:
I'm not talking about the premises at all. I'm talking about the reasoning. The premise brought up often by atheists and agnostics is...All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024