Originally posted by divegeesterYes, they most certainly can be denied. I know a number of people who refuse to take a position on the question of whether or not God exists. Duchess does so earlier in this thread and (incorrectly) calls it agnosticism. She also, correctly, calls her position atheism.
However while the classifications may stand up to the scrutiny of logical segmentation, the cognitive processes involved with acceptance or rejection of a premise cannot be denied.
Your claim that everyone comes to a conclusion for every premise they are presented with is simply false. If I was asked whether or not there was ever life on Mars, my response would be 'I do not know'. I have neither accepted nor rejected the proposition that there was once life on Mars. And yes, the proposition has been presented to me and yes, I have given it much thought. You could present me with tons of evidence either for or against the proposition, but until I decide that the evidence is conclusive, I will remain undecided.
03 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudge... secular|spiritual question: what and/or who or whom is the ultimate authority within the universe... ?
You really and truly need a course in basic logic and reasoning.
There are an infinite number of answers to that question that do not "affirm the proposition" that god exists.
Including claiming that god does exist.
Simply saying it does not make it true.
And as all atheists are different and the only thing we hold in common is a lack of belief ...[text shortened]... n gods?" [y/n] is to fatally
[and in your case deliberately] misunderstand what an atheist is.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Jun 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd yet you still ask questions to which you already know the answer.
... secular|spiritual question: what and/or who or whom is the ultimate authority within the universe... ?
There IS no 'ultimate authority' within or without the universe.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSays the ultimate authority on ultimate authorities within and without the universe, who once again claims to have absolute knowledge. 😀
And yet you still ask questions to which you already know the answer.
There IS no 'ultimate authority' within or without the universe.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSays the guy who keeps repeating the patently false claim that one must have absolute knowledge to know certain things. I have demonstrated to you already that that claim is obviously false yet you keep repeating it like a broken record. Why?
Says the ultimate authority on ultimate authorities within and without the universe, who once again claims to have absolute knowledge. 😀
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou know I am talking about making absolute negations and not just about knowing certain things.
Says the guy who keeps repeating the patently false claim that one must have absolute knowledge to know certain things. I have demonstrated to you already that that claim is obviously false yet you keep repeating it like a broken record. Why?
The last time we discussed this you didn't respond to me so let me repeat it:
If you make a claim that there is NO gold in China, (just like the claim that you know for a fact that there is NO ultimate authority in the universe) what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. However absolute knowledge is not required to know there IS gold in China. All you have to do is find one spec of gold in China and then you know there IS gold in China.
So would you care to explain to me how you can know for a fact that there is NO gold in China without having absolute knowledge about China? Or how googlefudge can know for a fact that there is NO ultimate authority in the universe without having absolute knowledge about the universe.
Go ahead and give your Bayesian probability theory a go. (Show me the math) I am all ears.
03 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkActually you have used the claim for more than just absolute negations. But I have demonstrated in the past that even for absolute negations, it is an obviously false claim and it is trivial to demonstrated it.
You know I am talking about making absolute negations and not just about knowing certain things.
The last time we discussed this you didn't respond to me so let me repeat it:
If you make a claim that there is NO gold in China, (just like the claim that you know for a fact that there is NO ultimate authority in the universe) what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge.
Obviously not! If you, for example did not know that there was a fly on Pluto, it would not, in any way affect your ability to know whether or not there was gold in China.
I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China.
But that is not absolute knowledge. That is just knowledge about a specific aspect of China. You may theoretically be able to know that, yet not know the name of a single Chinese person, or how to speak Chinese. Clearly not absolute knowledge.
Or how googlefudge can know for a fact that there is NO ultimate authority in the universe without having absolute knowledge about the universe. Go ahead and give your Bayesian probability theory a go. (Show me the math) I am all ears.
I know for a fact that there are no invisible pink unicorns in the universe. Can you guess how I know this?
Do you not know it?
03 Jun 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is just knowledge about a specific aspect of China. You may theoretically be able to know that, yet not know the name of a single Chinese person, or how to speak Chinese. Clearly not absolute knowledge.
Actually you have used the claim for more than just absolute negations. But I have demonstrated in the past that even for absolute negations, it is an obviously false claim and it is trivial to demonstrated it.
[b]The last time we discussed this you didn't respond to me so let me repeat it:
If you make a claim that there is NO gold in China, (just ...[text shortened]... no invisible pink unicorns in the universe. Can you guess how I know this?
Do you not know it?
You know what I meant. I was referring to China as a piece of land with borders around it. You need to have ABSOLUTE knowledge about every single thing within the borders which could possibly have gold in it. Obviously knowing every persons name and speaking Chinese is not classified as a something that could have gold in it.
I know for a fact that there are no invisible pink unicorns in the universe. Can you guess how I know this?
No you don't. With the limited knowledge that you have about invisible pink unicorns, you BELIEVE that no invisible pink unicorns exist. You can't KNOW for a fact that they don't. I don't know whether or not they exist because I don't claim to have absolute knowledge about the universe like you just did.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkClearly not! I took you at your word. It appears you do not mean absolute knowledge at all.
You know what I meant.
I was referring to China as a piece of land with borders around it. You need to have ABSOLUTE knowledge about every single thing within the borders which could possibly have gold in it.
What does the ABSOLUTE qualifier here signify? Would you not simply need knowledge of every single thing within its borders that could possibly have gold in it? Why call it 'ABSOLUTE knowledge', not just 'knowledge'?
Obviously knowing every persons name and speaking Chinese is not classified as a something that could have gold in it.
So, to know that God does not exist, I don't need to worry about knowledge of places that could not have a God in it? So when you say ABSOLUTE knowledge, you just mean 'relevant knowledge'?
No you don't. With the limited knowledge that you have about invisible pink unicorns, you BELIEVE that no invisible pink unicorns exist.
No, I know they cannot exist, because if they were invisible, they couldn't also be pink.
You can't KNOW for a fact that they don't.
Yes, I can.
I don't know whether or not they exist because I don't claim to have absolute knowledge about the universe like you just did.
What if I said 'I know for a fact that there is no Ostrich in my fridge'. Would that require 'ABSOLUTE knowledge'?