Did Epicurus disprove God?

[Willamena]

This is entirely untrue. I could ask you "What do you know about the chemical make-up of platypus venom?". Now, I may have just clued you in to the fact that it may or may not exist, but if you then go spouting off details as to its actual chemical make-up, you're pulling those details out of your proverbial butt.

Right. But to say that 'it's ludicrous to say anything about God' is pulled out of the same proverbial butt. Whatever it is that makes it "ludicrous," that bit of knowledge about God is implied in what you said.

In that particular instance, it is NOT ludicrous to say that you know something about platypus venom, because it has been proven to exist. However, if I then ask you "What do you know about the chemical make-up of giraffe venom?" If you then start going about talking about any details of this particular topic, then you ARE being ludicrous, because the substance has NOT been proven to exist.

I think you would agree that it IS ludicrous to go saying you know any details surrounding "giraffe venom", which has not even been proven to exist.

At any rate, you people know what I mean and you're just trying to sound "smart". Key word: "trying".

So the bit of knowledge that "God hasn't been proven to exist" is knowledge about God that is implied in what you said, making what you said, according to you, ludicrous.

Pedantry, for the win!

 

[idav]

I think you would agree that it IS ludicrous to go saying you know any details surrounding "giraffe venom", which has not even been proven to exist.

I'm kinda in agreement with you but I often hear people say that god is unknowable but how could one know this?

 

[Orias]

I specifically referenced the fact that I am not assuming the existence of a thing called "God". Knowledge of people is entirely relevant to the discussion, in my opinion. If you don't know why then I can't even begin to tell you.

When you speak of God, you speak of His existence, simply because you are invoking it into conversation and a literal sense of communication.

Since my own observation and knowledge of people has showed me language has a great barrier, especially when trying to communicate metaphorical and ontological references.

This is ridiculous. Try this on for size:

"I know nothing about giraffe venom".

Please tell me how I am claiming knowledge of "giraffe venom" by making the above statement. I know that I know nothing about giraffe venom. I sincerely do know this with all my being. I'll even say it again - "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GIRAFFE VENOM". You're calling me out just because I know one thing about it - that is, that I don't know anything about it?? Huh??? That's your big argument??? What???????

Think of it like this - picture yourself as a mechanic, and a friend comes to you and says "Hey man, I've been having trouble with my car, and I don't know anything about car engines, think you could take a look?", and your response is: "Wrong! You KNOW that you don't know anything about car engines, and that's at least ONE thing!" and then I picture you standing there grinning like an idiot, awaiting your friend's reaction to your "genius".

Again you people knew to what I was referring... DETAILS. Like where something called God resides. Where it makes its bed. Where it goes to breakfast in the morning. If it eats breakfast at all. If it even eats. Etc. etc. etc. You KNEW what I meant, and still you tried to tear me apart. This site is so ridiculous sometimes. You all assume you're having some profound intelligent discourse on these topics when you're really just... nevermind. Just go run around in some more circles and pretend you know what you're doing.

This entire situation is just asinine and cannot even compare to your statement of, "I know that I know nothing of God". Realize what you are doing, claiming to have knowledge of not having knowledge of God.

If you want to try and compare "God" to a car mechanic, then be my guest, but don't expect the best of reviews since the two encompass two completely different realities and situations. It's not practical at all.

When you say, "I know" you are claiming knowledge, it would of been better off for you to say, "I don't know", or "I don't have knowledge of", instead of making this entirely useless spiel on words.

If you want to get a point across without trouble, consider how you try to communicate it, instead of explaining things in a way that only you understand it.

"I know that I know nothing of God", is like saying "Nothing exists", the two statements can mean two entirely different things simply because of the ways its worded.

"Nothing exists" suggests that nothing does in fact exist, but most people use this statement to try and suggest that "nothing doesn't exist", or "nothing exists factually".

And you said you have enough "knowledge" of people to know and directly communicate what your talking about

 

[Benhamine]

What about them?

If your going to try and make a point, then you have to be a little more vocal on what your trying to get at.

I figured it made sense. Unicorns don't exist yet we have a label for them. Having a label for something doesn't mean existence.

-Benhamine

 

[Masourga]

Right. But to say that 'it's ludicrous to say anything about God' is pulled out of the same proverbial butt. Whatever it is that makes it "ludicrous," that bit of knowledge about God is implied in what you said.


So the bit of knowledge that "God hasn't been proven to exist" is knowledge about God that is implied in what you said, making what you said, according to you, ludicrous.

Pedantry, for the win!

You said it... I completely agree with you... you're adherence to and exploitation of the "rules" is bordering on fanatical. The only thing I don't understand is the whole "win" portion of your statement. I must have missed that part when it happened.

 

[Masourga]

This entire situation is just asinine and cannot even compare to your statement of, "I know that I know nothing of God". Realize what you are doing, claiming to have knowledge of not having knowledge of God.

I just clarified myself in my prior post on this topic. I meant details... knowing DETAILS about God. Of course - you ignored that part, apparently. And again - you knew this... but you had to be a smart-Alec and spin off on some tangential CRAP about how you see wrong in what I said. Go smarty!

If you want to try and compare "God" to a car mechanic, then be my guest, but don't expect the best of reviews since the two encompass two completely different realities and situations. It's not practical at all.

For God's sake, please READ if you're going to comment on what I wrote. I compared YOU to a mechanic... not God. And the point I was trying to prove has nothing to do with God, but rather the way in which you seemed so ready to jump into the topic, wave your hand in the air and gleefully yell "Fallacy!!", just for the sake of looking like Mr. logic-hero. I encourage you to read this particular portion of the post over again. It really was the best part.

When you say, "I know" you are claiming knowledge, it would of been better off for you to say, "I don't know", or "I don't have knowledge of", instead of making this entirely useless spiel on words.

Again, you knew what I meant. I KNOW you did. And "spiel" on words? Who's playing the game here, really? I mean come on. You're the one breaking out the "rule-book" and getting all petty here. Not me. Try again.

If you want to get a point across without trouble, consider how you try to communicate it, instead of explaining things in a way that only you understand it.

"I know that I know nothing of God", is like saying "Nothing exists", the two statements can mean two entirely different things simply because of the ways its worded.

"Nothing exists" suggests that nothing does in fact exist, but most people use this statement to try and suggest that "nothing doesn't exist", or "nothing exists factually".

And you said you have enough "knowledge" of people to know and directly communicate what your talking about

Just for you, I'll go see if I can get myself an interpreter, Oriass.

 

[Orias]

I figured it made sense. Unicorns don't exist yet we have a label for them. Having a label for something doesn't mean existence.

-Benhamine

I know what you mean and I agree with you, but I realize there is multiple types of existence as well, like the plane of the mind.

I just clarified myself in my prior post on this topic. I meant details... knowing DETAILS about God. Of course - you ignored that part, apparently. And again - you knew this... but you had to be a smart-Alec and spin off on some tangential CRAP about how you see wrong in what I said. Go smarty!




I usually only direct contradictions in posts, sorry that I didn't give you merit for what you think is necessary.

And actually you didn't until the end of your post, and by then I had already seen that you were back peddling, in your last post you used and I will quote...

"I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT GIRAFFE VENOM"

Which is equal to, "I know nothing about God". So my argument still stands in its entirety, but nice try though. Details wasn't something you brought up until you realized how a label describes the existence of something, on the physical and mental levels.

I encourage you to read this particular portion of the post over again. It really was the best part.

Your right, the best part was that it had nothing to do with the debate at all besides getting personal.

Thats a common tactic used by noobies though, so I understand.

Again, you knew what I meant. I KNOW you did. And "spiel" on words? Who's playing the game here, really? I mean come on. You're the one breaking out the "rule-book" and getting all petty here. Not me. Try again.

Actually, what you meant didn't make any sense, which is why I replied to you, in this debate thread.

Again details simply describe something, claiming ignorance upon the existence of something is a detail, and a minor one you seemed to have overlooked.

Your lack of justifying response is really boosting my confidence.

Since facepalms only show disagreement and do not directly communicate what its about.

Just for you, I'll go see if I can get myself an interpreter, Oriass.

Well, saying that people exist is saying that people do exist. So saying that nothing exists is saying that nothing does exist.

Interpreter? I suggest speaking on a level without assuming or expecting people to know what your trying to communicate or describe.

Again, details wasn't something you brought up until recently, had that been your main point you should of said it in the first place, instead of claiming to have no knowledge of God or be the first to admit that you know absolutely nothing about God.

"Scio me nihil scire", an ancient latin proverb for, "I know that I know nothing".

Again, nice try, the best way to cover your footprints is to not leave any at all