I Know That God Does Not Exist

Hi there! If, by "debates like these," you mean debates like this one on the internet, then I am genuinely surprised. I suppose my original conclusion was rushed; I am meaning to speak more towards the "proving of God's existence" side than the "non-believer." That my friend, is exactly what I'm speaking towards. You have illustrated for us the exact thing I wish to combat. Why is it so often the case that the "religious people" are (either seen as or truly) completely illogical, while rational, well-educated people argue the other side? I truly believe that it is because religious people go about the argument the wrong way. Eliyahu and Faith, for example (they are the names you referenced) are seen this way for a reason. I would totally agree with you. CS and RAZD are both excellent examples of that balance. I suppose then, that all I'm getting at is that from an I.D. perspective, and a specifically Christian one, I would not be so quick to try and use the same means of arguing my beliefs as "the other side." If I believe this Jesus stuff then I'm not going to approach the argument the same way. If I can love you guys, even through the internet, with at least my typed words, let that be the testimony that God is real. Or dont But at least its good vibes! I appreciate you saying this Phat. As you know I am still in my Undergraduate studies.....there are many here much wiser than I Faith and Eliyahu included. I tend to think out loud sometimes, and that communicates into type as well I fear. Haha. I see the benefits of what you're saying.The conversation then is not fruitless, if the goal is to continue to grow in the the how of saying things, the journey, the process. I see merit in that. I have seen growth in myself from that very thing. I suppose my frustration speaks more towards those (myself included) proponents of I.D. who try and use the same argument process as those against and end up only getting frustrated and seen as illogical. My question would be: Why go about the debate the same way only to be seen a those things? If I had one goal it would be to change the perception of what "religious people" are like. Perhaps I am falling into the very thing I am fighting against. haha. Oh well...such is life. I still have a long way to go. - Raph

I assume you're talking about a difference such as this:We can say we know the monster does not exist under the bed.
But we cannot say we know the monster does not exist. (no qualifiers) Is this your position?Why can we say the monster does not exist under the bed?
Why not claim that we may not have the detection tools to properly identify the monster under the bed?
We don't claim such a thing because that's not how we use the word "know."
That's not how we use the word "know" because it's an unattainable standard and is therefore useless to us as limited human beings.What we mean when we say "I know the monster does not exist under the bed" is the following:-I have done an appropriate amount of testing and all my tests of the monster being under the bed are indistinguishable from the monster not existing under the bed.The monster may be invisible... but we don't hear anything (therefore, the same as not existing).
The monster may be quiet... but we don't feel anything (therefore, the same as not existing).
The monster may be non-physical... be we don't sense anything else (change in temperature/pressure/ultraviolet-light/mass of the room/energy level of the room...) (therefore, the same as not existing).All tests show that if the monster actually is in the room... then the monster is exactly the same as "not existing."The same evidence is available for God.The tests have been done.
Everywhere and anywhere God is supposed to be:-with us everyday
-in our hearts
-in our minds
-supporting nature
-beginning the universe
-...All these places and more. When we search them "for God" they are all indistinguishable from God not existing.Have we searched everywhere? No.
Have we searched everything? No.
Have we searched at the same time? No.
...but none of these things are required.Just because you can imagine another place that we haven't searched yet... doesn't make all the other claims and searches disappear. That evidence is still there, and that evidence still counts.As long as we diligently search in the areas where the item-in-question is supposed to be... and the search comes up "indistinguishable from the item-in-question not existing"... every time... and there's lots and lots of tests... then we know the following:All tests show that if God is real... then He acts exactly the same as "not existing."Because we know that, we can say:"I know that God does not exist." You seem to be arguing for a 100%-absolute-knowledge use of the word.
Such a measure is currently unattainable for humans about anything.Defining God to be "undetectable by current technology" is the same thing as defining God to being "indistinguishable from not existing."If God acts exactly the same as "not existing" then we end up with the same conclusion as when we do all the testing of looking where He is supposed to be anyway!This means the same conclusion would still hold. So, again, even if you define God as we-don't-know-how-to-detect-Him, everyone else can still reasonably say:"I know that God does not exist."You may not agree with it (and, you may even be right!)... but "being reasonable" (or rational, or logical...) does not require ringo's agreement.

I apologize. I understand how such a concept (God) can be held very dearly to some people. I do not intend to be insulting.
I only intend to talk about the subject and I feel like this is the venue to do so.
If it makes you feel any better... I wouldn't dream of discussing such things at the dinner table in person with anyone. It's just too much of a "hot button" topic that has too great a chance to hurt someone. I agree with you completely.I simply do not think "popular opinion" is a very good indication of reality.
When I try to investigate a state of reality, I find that an evidence-based method gives much better results.
In fact, when investigating reality, it's been shown that an evidence-based method is the best-known-method for getting results.This doesn't make it absolutely correct. But it does make it the only reasonable/rational method for attempting to identify reality. Yes.
It's a good thing for me that popularity isn't required for a statement to be rational No. The only reason I picked the Judeo/Christian presentation of God is because this is EvC and that presentation of the supernatural is the popular viewpoint here. If I want to get replies... it is rational for me to appeal to the largest audience. In this context popularity does matter Oh, you misunderstand.
I don't have a problem with the Judeo/Christian God or the people who claim His name.
In fact, I personally wish He did exist (it would be a nicer world).
And I think that believing in God is a very important concept for some people and I wouldn't attempt to tell them they shouldn't honour Him.But that isn't what this thread is about.
This thread is about whether or not it's rational to say "I know that God doesn't exist."And I can say that without any malicious intent to believers.
Although, I can understand that some believers may feel hurt by me saying so regardless of my intent. And to them I must apologize, I think it's wrong to hurt people regardless of your intent. Actually, I wouldn't even need the book.
And that's not Jesus or God (for me), it's just Love... just being a person.

It's not an unattainable standard at all. I advocate using the word "know" for something that you can demonstrate on demand. You can demonstrate baking a cake. You can not demonstrate the sun rising at some date in the future.. You expect it; you don't know it. It's a subtle distinction but one that you should be able to understand. Only if you assume that God "would" jump out from His hiding place and reveal Himself to you. Otherwise, you can only claim that you know God isn't with you every day, in your heart, in your mind, etc. Others have detected Him with them every day, in their hearts, in their minds, etc. so it's the same situation as one person finding the monster and another person not finding it. The jury is still out on who is right. It counts in the same way as looking under half of the bed counts. Until you look under the other half, you can't say you know that there's no monster under the bed. Nope. I'm arguing for knowledge versus expectation, knowledge versus speculation. In 1491, Europeans didn't "know" that the Americas didn't exist; they had only failed to find them. They speculated that it was clear sailing to the East Indies (just too far to make it). They expected Columbus to fail; they didn't "know" he would. And using words properly, distinctly, usefully does not require Stile's.

This should be fun! I am going to cut and paste your schematic and fill it out as I would. Then we can proceed to test my sanity. OK here we go.....

quote:

---

-I have done an appropriate amount of testing and all my tests of the monster being under the bed are indistinguishable from the monster not existing under the bed.

phat writes:

​

Agreed. The monster used to exist in my imagination...yet I no longer feel fear,thus, he is no longer under there.

​

The monster may be invisible... but we don't hear anything (therefore, the same as not existing).(agreed)
The monster may be quiet... but we don't feel anything (therefore, the same as not existing).(agreed)
The monster may be non-physical... be we don't sense anything else (change in temperature/pressure/ultraviolet-light/mass of the room/energy level of the room...) (therefore, the same as not existing).(agreed)

​

All tests show that if the monster actually is in the room... then the monster is exactly the same as "not existing."

phat writes:

​

which is the same as the Beast in Revelation not existing. He was and is not.---Rev 17:6-8
7 Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

​

The same evidence is available for God.

​

The tests have been done.
Everywhere and anywhere God is supposed to be:

​

-with us everyday(I assert He is)
-in our hearts(found Him! )
-in our minds(still searching, but have found favorable evidence)
-supporting nature(jury is out)
-beginning the universe(unknown)
-...

​

Have we searched everywhere? No.(No)
Have we searched everything? No.(No)
Have we searched at the same time? No.(well...maybe we have...just separately)

---

The result? In some questions, I agreed with you. In others, I did not. But agreement is not required. Thus...carry on the conversation......Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I suppose this is our main differing concept?You don't think the Europeans "knew" the Americas didn't exist... and I think they certainly did "know" such a thing.
I simply think they were wrong. And shown to be wrong by finding more evidence.I think we both entirely understand each other's stance on this concept. We just like the side we're on? I'm putting more weight on basing conclusions on the evidence we have rather than leaving things open-ended.
You seem to be putting more weight on leaving things open-ended rather than basing conclusions on the evidence we have.Hmmmm...Seems to me to be more of a philosophical difference.
I can't think of a way to identify that one method is "better" than the other.
I guess it all depends on your priorities at the moment.Building knowledge seems to have pros and cons on both sides... evidence = solid foundation but open-ended = searching the unknownI suppose the biggest negative on open-ended-ness would be that you may not be able to claim to "know" anything.
I suppose the biggest negative on evidence-based would be that you may not be able to justify searching the unknown.I can't seem to decide which of those is worse.
In fact, I actually agree that both are required...I think the priority level would depend on how fast you want to grow your knowledge vs. how much risk you are willing to take...That is: Leaving things open-ended has a greater chance of increasing your knowledge faster (you'll explore the unknown without any evidence required to do such a thing). However, leaving things evidenced-based has a greater chance of decreasing risks... if you wait until you have evidence, then you'll understand your exploration better.Therefore "I know that God does not exist" would only be valid if you're content (personal subjective measure) with the amount of knowledge we've gained so far and do not feel it is necessary to take any further risks into "the unknown" in order to increase your pool of information.And, on the flip side: If you're not content (personal subjective measure) with the amount of information we have obtained regarding God's existence... then it is not valid to say "I know that God does not exist."Then, since each side is actually initially based on a personal subjective measure of how "good" the available information is... it means that all claims of knowledge (no matter what their forms... open-ended or evidence-based) are all nothing more than personal opinion?Something doesn't seem right about that...
Then again... since we don't have any chart of "absolute reality" in order to judge how accurate any of our specific knowledge actually is... it does sort of make sense in that context as well.Again... hmmmmm....I suppose it would boil down to being able to show that we are passed the point of "having enough information" to no longer make it "worthwhile" to risk wasting our time trying to find where God may be hiding.So... how long do we continue to look (and come up with nothing) before we can say we're passed this point?
It is my contention that "never" is an unacceptable answer because I have a limited lifespan and other things to consider. Therefore, wasting my time on searching for something where I have evidence showing it doesn't exist... is not acceptable.But, how much evidence is "enough" evidence?Perhaps this is the point where Modulous' statement comes back into the discussion and I am content with leaving it there: I now understand why it must be stated in this way... because it is a subjective measurement on how much evidence is "enough" to say we've reached this point.Therefore, on the basis of popular opinion regarding fairies, Santa Claus and thought-controlling-CIA-bases-on-the-moon...
I say it is rational to also say "I know that God does not exist."We have limited information on all these things.
But, we actually have more information on fairies, Santa Claus and thought-controlling-CIA-bases-on-the-moon than we do for God.
Therefore, that is my basis for saying "I know that God does not exist."

And this was a good topic, by the way.The way that I gather information is largely through listening to others and/or reading what they write.One needs an informant in order to obtain information.

Don’t be too surprised. It sure started on the net. Real, real crazy creationists against educated people. That’s when I started doubting my faith. Some religious people do (not the majority). Arguing for an earth less than 10 000 years old and for a a global flood a few thousand years ago is always wrong. Illogical. Illiterate. Craziness. No matter how you approach it.Edited by Pressie, : Added last part

Boy, are you going to be surprised in the end.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Forgive me, I'm going to lecture you here Whe you write I.D., it refers to a mottley crew of people who formed a political/religious organisation pretending to be 'scientific'. Nothing to do with science, though. Formed to shoe-horn religion into science classes after 'scientific' creationism has been banned from educational facilities. They range from YEC's to OEC's, to all kinds of creationists who want to deny scientific findings because those findings don't agree with their interpretations of their holy books.When you write id, it refers to religious scientists who not only accept scientific findings, but contribute tremendously to it. They accept the findings of science. From the BB theory, to the earth is very old, to the theory of evolution. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists do this.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Science-minded people should aim for clear and precise usage of words. As I have said, your use of the word "know" is the same as the creationist's use of the word theory: sloppy. You should aim higher. As I have also said, more than once, we can claim to know what we do know, what we can demonstrate that we know. Only people who think they know more than they do know are content. The extremes - "I know there is a God" and "I know there is no God" - are the same in that respect. I would say "collective opinion", which is one step toward objectivity. If I can demonstrate that I know something, to the extent that you agree that I know it, then I can say that I know it. It's more a question of how much of the territory you've searched. You've looked under one corner of the bed and declared there's no monster. The appearance is that you don't want to find a monster so you're very careful to limit your search.

Maybe.
But I don't think so.
You have yet to show any of this claim, and I'm not concerned with how you think of things.Contrary to your claim I have been extremely precise and long-winded in defining how I use the word "know" and how strict it is.
If you want to call it sloppy... that's your choice. But I don't really care about things you say without evidence. And I've demonstrated how I know God does not exist. Again in the post you just replied to.
I get it... you don't accept the information we have as "enough." That's your judgement to make.However, I do see the information we have on God as being more than the information we have on many other things we all agree that they do not exist.Therefore... I know that God does not exist as well. This is not true.
I'm content with plenty of things where I understand just how little I know.
It may be true for you... and may be a part of why you're not content with the information we have on God.
It's a subjective judgement... you don't get to make it for other people. You can never demonstrate anything beyond a certain level of contentment with the information we have.
Even if you bake a cake right in front of me... Maybe it's your body-double and not actually you. Therefore... you can't demonstrate your ability beyond a certain level of "contentment" with the information.
There's always a level of doubt some where down the line. All that matters is where "your line" is drawn. This is your "level of contentment" with the information.You have your level of contentment, and I have mine.Mine allows me to say that I know fairies, Santa Claus and mind-controlling-CIA-bases-on-the-moon do not exist.
The same level of contentment used on the available information allows me to say I know that God does not exist.You can leave your "level of contentment" wherever you'd like. This is the "level of contentment".
You see our available information on God as "only looking under one corner of the bed."
I see it as looking under more of the bed then we look at for fairies, Santa Claus, mind-controlling-CIA-bases-on-the-moon and other such things.You have your level of contentment, and I have mine.I understand that the statement of "I know that God does not exist" is not acceptable to you and your level of contentment with the information.That's why I'm not attempting to argue that you should be agreeing with me.
That's also why I don't really care whether or not you agree with me.You are unable to poke any holes in the argument that my rational position is based upon.
So you move onto poking holes in the arguments you personally find no validity within.Well... I'm not using your arguments. I'm using mine. And the conclusion is really very simple: The "if" statements even remove all your silliness about a strict definition of the word "know."
If you feel like changing the definition, then yes... it may change the conclusion. I have no issues with that.
Those same "if" statements remove all your talk about "demonstrating evidence." If you think we've demonstrated that fairies, Santa Claus and mind-controlling-CIA-bases-on-the-moon do not exist, then (using the same standard) you should think that God does not exist either.If you do not think we've demonstrated such things... if you do not think we "know" such things... then yes, obviously, the conclusion does not hold.The point is that "how good our knowledge is" is a subjective judgement due to the fact that we do not have a 1:1 map for comparisons to "reality." What's good enough for me many not be good enough for you. There's nothing wrong with that.There is, however, something obviously wrong with you claiming that my subjective judgement isn't good enough for me... that sort of shows a certain character flaw in yourself more than anything else.

There's a difference between agreeing that something (most likely) doesn't exist and claiming to "know' that it doesn't exist. On the contrary, I'm quite content with the information I/we have on God. I have no particular desire to look for more information because I have no particular desire to know whether or not God exists. I do not, like some, have the arrogance to call my contentment "knowledge". Irrelevant. The point is that you are convinced that I know and anybody else who sees the demonstration is convinced that I know. The evidence is evident to anybody who looks at it honestly. The same is not true of your "evidence" against the existence of God. I'm not trying to poke holes in your argument. I agree with your conclusion. All I'm saying is that you're stating it badly. Sure. You can use "if" statements to make any statement meaningless: "If pigs could fly bacon would be more expensive." That's exactly why we have to use strict definitions instead of watering everything down with what-ifs.

Sounds good to me.I don't see anything we haven't already posted pages about, anyway.
Time for me to leave it to the readers.Thanks for helping me think through my own stance, though.
It was thinking about your comments that actually allowed things to click into place in my mind.

Good for you!