Why Atheists don't believe

I would have thought that a God who didn't demand that we follow a few well meaning rules in order for that to be would be an even better proposition... If you would like to point one out then go ahead. But it can be jading so no probs if you don't fancy it. Bear in mind that 'not about following the rules' business if ever you get to wondering which item you should try from the spiritual menu.Ian

The world exists and I exist and you exist. We are different, separate things (not the world-a-product-of-mind). On what basis do we accept that is the case? Do we pluck it out of thin air? Or do we base it ultimately on our knowing this to be the case?If not knowing (see self-evidence later), then on what basis do we accept it? Could you spell out the false dichotomy using an example of something that I know exists - rather than something I know doesn't - for that is the area I was dealing with. Self-evident. Evidence. And if the evidence is compelling enough then knowledge it becomes. For that is what knowing (I exist) is - knowledge of which there is no doubt. If there is no such thing as such knowledge - then there can be no certainty of our existance.For us to exist relies on us knowing so. The more certain we are the more our knowing is certain. I am certain I exist Larni. Are you? The switch to belief happened in the twinkling of an eye here. Can we first dismantle the knowing arguement before assuming that belief is the debris left over from said dismantling

Fair enough. Although I never suggested my knowledge demonstrated anything empirically Then what I knew to be the case isn't. I never said that what I knew to be the case proved something was actually the case. I was suggesting that knowing something was the very best proof we have for ourselves that something is actually the case. Not iron clad - but the very best. Which is a belief - not knowledge. And beliefs can be wrongEdited by iano, : clarify

I don't hold up knowing as proof. I know I exist but that isn't proof of my existance - there is no proof of my existance as far as I can tell (proof being something which can demonstrate that I actually do exist) Self-evident(ce)? self-aware? Both knowledge based. But our existance doesn't depend on these. Okay...If not these then what dictates existance? (I presume you won't refer to anything - the existance of which has relied on our existance to verify its existance - in order to verify our existance. That would be circular) Hang on a sec Larni. I am prepared not to plough a furrow down "the world is created by our own consiousness". But you've made a leap right out of the zone we are in.We exist is a given. But we are looking at how we arrive at it being a given. Working back from the given - not forward.

Almost Freudian in its timing {AbE} But it illustrates my position:My knowing God revealed himself to me proves (to me) that God exists.One needs compelling evidence to know things. Like, for you to know God is 'made up' you would need the kind of total evidence presented to you which could not be countered by any other evidence - not even by God showing up to you.Have you got such compelling evidence. If not then I suggest you do not know God is made up. You only believe that from the less-than-compelling evidence you have got.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

So what? You keep on banging on about empirical evidence as if this was the only way to know anything. Either show that it is or quit tossing it the salad. So what II? You mean that which looks to verify its existance invents a system whereby it verifies its own existance by referring to others who are trying to do the same thing. That's as circular as any other method of verifying our existance. We "self-verify" at the end of the day: empirical "I think therefore I am" etc, etc - no matter which way you look at it.Where is the third (verified) party proof for our existance? There ain't none (until perhaps, he shows up) I know..and alien playstation games. But for the purposes of this discussion we are taking our existance actually being as we percieve it. And the way we arrive at that notion is not through any verifcation process other than our self-verification. Simply knowing we exist and accepting that knowing as representing the way it is.Edited by iano, : typo

The good news (for you as much as me) is that its not the case.You can only 'believe' because any evidence you gather can always be swept away by his appearance "on front" of you.Mine cannot be swept away because the evidence is of a quality that has satisfied the very highest court that any individual can refer to: their knowing something to be the case.And because you don't know him and because he loves you very, very much, he gives me a message to give to you. He asks me to tell you that he wants very much for you to know him too.That's all this space/time world is about. The whole thing set up for that one reason. To allow you to get to know him and to allow you to say "No! - I don't want to know you"(and they say "Don't shoot the messanger" sheesh!) Right, message delivered - I'm off to do something else today. Caio Larni.

You only think your right. I know I amCheers Larni

What? Your model or my dissection of it.

You see table, Larni sees table - I don't see table. Simply because I am not in the same place that you two guys are. You show me pictures but they could be airbrushed for all I know. I can trust you or not trust you when you say "its a table"For me to know its a table I would have to fly to where you guys are and then I would too see that it is a table.How do you tell? You cannot tell because you are not in a place to look at make up your own mind. And it is as possible for you to fly to where I am at and know God as it is for me to fly to you and see table. No difference really - you just have to travel in a different kind of aeroplane s'allI believe you when you say table. You don't believe me when I say God.I wouldn't expect you to. Its too serious to believe anyones word alone. Perhaps though, you will believe me enough to one day check it out for yourself. The need to do so will hopefully arise for you

Is this one of your compelling evidences? Ever hear of the term Common Descent? Lie
Delusion
TruthYour choice...I'm not selling anything SNC. I'm just pointing...

You mean this one. Nonsensical ramblings usually don't make any point or argument. They just (as our buddhist friends would say) ARE. Your model was missing some vital componants if it was attempting to describe the biblical God. I could see it wouldn't work - but if you don't fancy fixing it then no skin off my nose. Whats the alternative: there are no absolutes? How delightfully and fashionably post-modern!

You ever turn the activity meter red when batting against a multitude FC? No? Well, come back when you do and we'll pop a cap on a beer or two and have a laugh at your youthful (postwise) exhuberance.

Could you tell me, ultimately, where does the evidence for anything exist. Yup. In your own head...Surgically your senses are all chopped off NOW.No sight, smell, touch, taste, feeling. You have become a self-with-a-brain. Do you cease to exist? No. Any empirical evidence to prop that notion up? No. The evidence is all in your own head? Yup. You don't need anyone else to support your knowledge. You know it - because you know it. You will know it for as long as you live.

Sorry Crash. Not now. I have my hands full enough as it is. But it was a bloody brilliant post idea generator (was it a year ago -my...) Have always been kind of percolating it over in my mind. A "How to find God without empiricism" thread or something