Why Atheists don't believe

No disrespect CG. But when your "I just dropped in" average sentence-per-post drops below a certain minimum I reserve the right to not reply

I'll leave it to the various protagonists to defend their case

But you know Q can do nothing of the sort. But you don't know in the same way about God. Atheism doesn't know anything. It is extreme agnosticism: I REALLY don't know...

It is safe to say that you know Q is a figment of human imagination (ref: Star Trek titles). Whereas you do not know the same about God. Do you mean unless YOU know then nothing can be known? Or perhaps you mean unless WE can know according to some arbitary system an arbitary WE chose to measure 'knowing' by, then God cannot be known. Do you not need to calibrate all those arbitaries against something concrete NN? And if not why not? This doesn't really appeal to an argument from anywhere (not that I am always innocent what your doing the same here myself)
Edited by iano, : Typos and clarifyEdited by iano, : heck its late

---

Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners

At the risk of causing that throbbing vein in your head to go POP!...Are you saying that I cannot know that God exists. Are you saying the God cannot let me know that he exists? Are you saying "I know you only believe" or are you saying "I believe you only believe" (which would account for your error)?If someone says they know something then either:They are a liar
They are deluded
They are telling you the truthYou can choose which one is true - but you cannot know which one is true (unless you come to know him yourself).You'd imagine folk would be queuing up to find out what its like to know God exists. Sheesh!

I'm not sure what omnibenevolent means. No matter. Does your modelling take into account a perfectly Just and Wrathful God who is as 'constrained' to satisfying his justness and wrathfulness as he is 'constrained' to satisfying his love. Or are you guilty of dismantling a strawgod. Edited by iano, : typo

Truth doesn't have to prove itself in order to be true. The world was round long before anyone proved it. Neither am I attempting to prove Christianity is true. I'm making a narrow point here. If true then exclusive it can be expected to be. Do you concur with that single issue? They all do - except that Christianity (if true) would be the one which works with Gods truths and not mans own. The worlds religions aren't designed to lead to God they are designed to lead to a god made in mans own image an likeness. A god designed to suit mans needs. A god that can be controlled and adapted. God takes a dim view on people worshipping such false gods. Its not harmless error - its blatant denial of him and his claim on us.If it weren't so tragic it would be funny. How do you know that? If God said there was one way only by which access to him was to be obtained then that would be the case (if you feel that this is unjust then say why you think that - specifically). If so, then what is arrogant and baseless and assumed in the stance of a group of people who are shown this path by him and who take it and tell others how to take it? That path is open to everyone after all. Where did you get the notion that God created all the religions? You don't think man is capable of making up gods (if not God)? Its not belief in another god per se which results in mans damnation. The god he worhsips is only an outworking of a deeper, universal problem. Sinpoint of note: I know Christianity is true. You cannot be sure of that granted - I could be lying or be deluded (in which case I might be saying I know something which I don't actually know). But I can be sure I know

Good. For that is precisely what I am trying to convey. For if one suspected for a moment that I was telling the truth then they might conclude that they could know for sure too (on the assumption that 'knowing' is a quality that shares similar characteristics amongst all people) Correct I agree. We might not exist. We can know we do but that doesn't mean we actually do. Presumably QM being true hasn't reached this 100% probability level either My definition allows for it not actually being the case. But only on the level: If God doesn't exist then neither do I.I know lots of things. I know my motorcycle is parked outside (at least I hope so - the bike thieves were around checking it out yesterday - I know that too for I used to be one). I know there is a computer sitting on front of me and that there is a person who goes by the name of Larni at the other end of itWhats the big problem with knowing anything? My confidence is not my own. He showed up and that is why I am confident. I am right. I am telling the truth. He told me to tell others so I do.Bring on the lions!

Your not the most wordy of posters at the best of times CK but this must set a new record.Was there a question in there somewhere?

That weren't me you wus quoting there Larni{AbE} I sure would like to meet the person who made up a principle of living that nigh on all people would, in their hearts, concur with, to whit:"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"hang on - I already did!Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I knew that both I and the universe existed before I knew God existed. My knowing I existed wasn't contingent on God. It was contingant on my knowing it. Same as anyone else I supposeThen I knew he existedIf I can know he exists when he actually doesn't, then I can know I exist when I actually don't. In which case I cease to exist - for existance depends on our knowing it to be the case - to be the case.

CK, I haven't done a trawl through your recent post history, but were I to, I would suspect no change in the behaviour demonstrated since I arrived here. 1 or 2 lines posts which don't argue a position but just nip at the ankles of those who attempt to engage each other.Get a series of 10-20 line posts established somewhere else, which lay out a position of yours and which is attacked and defended a while and I'll considering engaging with you. But for now, no thanks .

Given that one will never get concrete evidence of Gods non-existance (either one dies and there is no God in which case you still get no concrete evidence. Or you die and find out he does in fact exist) this is a path one can waste a life following.Or one can look for reasons to believe which at least holds out the potential for concrete evidence being gained (knowing is about as concrete as it comes)One search without end or a search with a potential end. Even to a neutral bystander the latter appears to make more sense.Like its not that it is very difficult!

Lets try it this way.My existance is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of the computer on front of me is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of God is contingant on my knowing it.If things that I know exist don't actually, then my knowing is no guide to anything actually existing - not even myself. Do you know you exist? Or, on what is your existance contingant?

quote:

---

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:18

---

Jesus in his summing up of the law and the prophets is the same Lord who spoke somewhat earlier in timeHeads down time again Larni