I Know That God Does Not Exist

Defining God into existence is little more than begging the question. I could define Thor as the creator of lightning, and then use lightning as evidence for Thor, but I doubt you would find it that compelling. The Higgs Boson was not defined as being invisible as God is. That's the difference. Once again, you beg the question when you claim that a creation requires a supernatural deity. Imagination is the most parsimonious answer. When there is no distinguishable observable difference between a claimed entity existing and not existing, then parsimony points to not existing as the best answer.

But me knowing God doesn't exist isn't based on my personal experience.
It's based on the entire experience of all of humanity.You're included.
If you know of any place where God exists, all you have to do is show it. If you do, I will be wrong.
If you don't, then I'll still be right... that I know God does not exist because everywhere we look He cannot be found. Except I'm not talking about claiming things.
I'm talking about knowing things.From my first post in this thread:

quote:

---

How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

---

Notice that I don't say I look at the menu.
Nor do I say that you look at the menu.I say that we look at the menu.
That is, I can do it, you can do it, we all can do it.
Clearly, if we look at the menu and I don't see Sharkfin soup, but you do... then something is going on.
Perhaps my eyes are bad (I can have them tested).
Perhaps I can't find it and missed it (you can point out to me exactly where I should look).
Perhaps it's actually not there... and you claiming it is there is exactly that... just a claim that is indistinguishable from imagination.That's how I know things.And that's how I know God does not exist.Because you can't show that He does in a way that we can all review.
You can only do it in a way that only you claim is "real" except that it is indistinguishable from imagination.
And if that's all you have, then that doesn't count for knowing. What you have done is listed many things where we have researched and looked for God... and never found Him. We've looked, He's not there.
Some people still claim He's there (like you just did). But those claims are always indistinguishable from imagination. Go figure.Therefore, all these things are simply building the case that I know God doesn't exist.But you can change it all. Just show us one place, your best place, where God is. We will all look. If you're right.. then I am wrong.
But if God isn't there, or if you are the only one that can find Him... then your best place for God remains indistinguishable from imagination. And then I still know that God doesn't exist. No.You are attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with the possibility of God existing.
That is not the same as attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing.One idea actually has data showing God exists.
The other idea is indistinguishable from God being only in your imagination, and remains nothing more than a baseless claim.The other key point you seem to miss from my first post in this thread:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

---

I'm not claiming to know that the possibility of God doesn't exist.
I'm claiming to know that God does not exist.The possibility is still there. Just as the possibility of Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is still there.
But... none of these sorts of possibilities are distinguishable from imagination.
None of them have any data to analyze concerning the actual existence of the idea. Just like God.Therefore, I know that Zeus, Santa and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist.
Just as I know that God does not exist.But you can still change that.
Just show some actual data, any data, that we can all review, that is distinguishable from imagination... and I'll be wrong.Without that, I still know that God does not exist. And then what?
Then we found actual evidence for the higgs boson that is distinguishable from imagination that we can all review.Now I would be wrong if I said I knew that the higgs boson didn't exist.But I'm still right about knowing that God does not exist unless you (or anyone else) can provide the same kind of data to the contrary. Invisibility is irrelevant.
There are other methods to use where we can detect oxygen and germs. The question is, actually, do we "know" any of the elements?We know some of the elements for the higgs boson exist... therefore, we know that the higgs boson exists.
We do not know any of the elements for Santa exist... therefore, we know that Santa does not exist.
We do not know any of the elements for God exist... therefore, we know that God does not exist. The path to showing me wrong is still open to you.
It just takes more than your say-so.Just find any element of God that is distinguishable from imagination that we can review.
We can do it one at a time.
Pick your best one, and we can go over it in fine detail for as long as you think it has merit.
If you want to discard it and move onto a different element you've learned might be better to distinguish from imagination, then feel free.
Please don't throw multiple baseless claims at the wall hoping one will stick, that only goes to show that you have no confidence in any of them.
Just pick one, your best one, until we go through the details on it.Do that, and I'm wrong.
Don't do that... and I'll continue to know that God does not exist.

Though you must admit that while you can declare that you know that God does not exist and that some of us also know, you can not conclude that *we* know that God does not exist.

Absolutely.1 - It's quite possible that someone knows God exists and can show it to others for review.
Perhaps they just haven't told anyone else yet. Or, at a minimum, perhaps they just don't know about this forum and this thread.
I will quite happily change my position upon gaining such new information.2 - My talk of we is not about whether or not we all follow the evidence where it leads. That's another discussion entirely.
My talk of we is only important towards the aspect of evidence existing in the first place. (If it's impossible for us to review it... then it's not actually evidence in the first place... it's just a claim).For example:-I know the earth is not flat
-I know that God does not existI admit that many people adamantly claim to know that the world is flat.
I admit that many people adamantly claim to know that God exists.Therefore, I can't say that *we* know the world is not flat.
Therefore, I can't say that *we* know that God does not exist.And yet, all these people have one thing in common with their claims of knowledge:None of them can present any data that is distinguishable from imagination for us all to review about their adamant claims.Can I be wrong?
Of course.The minute I review data showing the world is, actually, flat... and I just thought it wasn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that the world is flat.
But without that, I'll continue to know that the world is not flat.The minute I review data showing that God, actually, exists... and I just thought He didn't because "[insert data here]" then I will change my mind and start knowing that God exists.
But without that, I'll continue to know that God does not exist.There's no logical twist or linguistic persuasion to get around this detail.

quote:

---

I know that God does not exist.

​

There's only 1 way to show that I'm wrong:

​

Present some data that we can all review that can be distinguished from imagination showing that God exists.

---

It's not really a difficult request.I can do it for trees, rocks, cardboard, computers, screwdrivers, pizza, the colour red... I can do it for anything and everything that actually exists.
We all do it millions of times a day for all the things surrounding our environment in our day-to-day lives.Strange no one can do such a thing for God, no?

LOLahteists are damn great experts in making "straw gods" and disproving them . . .

Is there any other form of god?btw, no one - not even almight atheists - can disprove the existence of god. Did you mean something else?

Atheists look for straw gods and can't find them.Theists look for straw gods and find them.What's the difference?

What the heck is a Straw God? Our imagination is limitless! And who are we to say that the collective imagination of humanity gets close to an archetype of the actual? Or at worst potential?One can argue that any God imagined or described is in fact made of straw, I suppose.One can also argue that the collective archetype is possibly real?
Another way to describe it is to ask whose imagination we are talking about.In my belief, He imagined us long before we had evolved to the point of imagining Him. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

ringo writes:

quote:

---

Atheists look for straw gods and can't find them.

​

Theists look for straw gods and find them.

​

What's the difference?

---

Simple:Atheists don't come up with the straw god. Theists do.After all, that's the entire point behind being an atheist: You don't have any belief in gods. Thus, the only definitions of these "gods" are coming from the theists. Just as it is not up to the atheist to prove there is no god, it it isn't up to them to come up with a definition of god in the first place. That's why atheism is the default position. Burden of proof, ringo. You know this.If theists are upset that atheists have knocked down their straw gods, that isn't the atheists' problem.The theists should have come up with a better definition.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

btw, no one - not even almight atheists - can disprove the existence of god.

---

Incorrect.And you know this, Tangle. We've been over it plenty of times. You can easily prove a negative. People love to say you can't, but it simply isn't true.Here, let me prove it to you (see...I'm about to prove the negative of "You can't prove a negative" by proving a negative. How meta!)There is no largest prime number.Assume there is. Let's call it p. Thus, we can generate an exhaustive list of all primes (Sieve of Eratosthenes will do):2, 3, 5, ..., p_n-2, p_n-1, pConstruct q as follows:q = 2 * 3 * 5 * ... * p_n-2 * p_n-1 * p + 1Note, that q > p.Question: Is q prime?Well, if q is composite, it will necessarily be factorable. But every time we divide q by any of the primes on our list (which is exhaustive), we get a remainder of 1. Thus, we have a problem. Since q cannot be divided by any of the primes and since q > p, then one of the two scenarios must be true:q is prime.OrSome number between p and q is prime.But that contradicts our original assumption.Therefore, our original assumption must be false. Instead, there is no largest prime.See, it's trivial. People prove negatives all the time. In fact, that's the vast majority of scientific work: Most experiments fail. You come up with an hypothesis and come up with an experiment to try and show that it is consistent with reality. But your experiment likely fails, proving your hypothesis to be false. To be completely fair, it proves that your experiment is incapable of showing the effect proposed by the hypothesis, but the point remains: You've proven something to be false.Science is brilliant at proving things false.What it cannot do is prove something true. The best it can do is to prove something consistent. If you use 17th-century technology, Newtonian mechanics is consistent with the observations you're going to make. It's only when we started getting better technology and capable of making better observations that we found out that it's false.And it is. Newtonian mechanics is false. At every level. The only reason we still use it is that for most scenarios, the error term between Newtonian mechanics and observed reality is so small as to be of no significant effect. You can't run your GPS on Newtonian mechanics, but that's the point.So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god. All you need is a sufficient definition of "god."Which, again, is something theists come up with. Atheists, not having any belief in god, don't define what "god" is. How could they? Instead, it's up to theists to come up with that definition.If theists are upset that atheists have disproven god, that isn't a problem for the atheists. The theists should have come up with a better definition.That's why the definition of god has become so nebulous for so many people: It's just a "presence." They are very careful not to proffer a definition that provides any way to test it. When your definition of god includes the claim that god created the universe about 6000 years ago with a worldwide flood killing all of humanity but 8 about 2250 BCE, then the fact that we can show the universe to be billions of years old and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago and that humanity didn't collapse to 8 individuals at that time does, indeed, disprove god.If theists wish to change their definition, then they can do so. Of course, they run the risk of going afoul of the ad hoc fallacy, but the definition of god is their responsibility, not the atheists'. Burden of proof, and all that.

Ok, so let's see you disprove the existence of god. Scientifically.

In your imagination....

And yet we were created in His imagination. When God imagines, He creates. sez me.

Doesn't it worry you at all how easily you can make these things up? All you have to do is imagine it and it becomes true for you.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Science is brilliant at proving things false. [] So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god.

---

Ok, so let's see you disprove the existence of god. Scientifically.

---

You know what the process is, Tangle. Didn't you read the post before you responded?You need to tell me what you mean by "god." See, if I come up with the definition, you'll accuse me of using a "straw god." Burden of proof, and all that.You need to tell us what is meant by "god" and then we'll go to work seeing if there's a disproof for it. If your definition is so vague as to be untestable, one will then wonder how one can claim existence of such a thing that has no effect that is tangible or detectable.You have to go first.