I Know That God Does Not Exist

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.

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."

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.

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.

I'm an atheist.
I don't hope for such a thing. I'm not looking for any rewards, either.
And I don't intend to preach atheism at all. I like having religious-folk around. Some of them have interesting ideas.

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.

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?

quote:

---

I'd rather live my life as if there is a God and die and find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.

---

This only makes sense if you think God would be a dick and think negatively about someone who doesn't believe in God when there is no evidence of God.if you think God is at least normal (not even "good") then there's no reason to suggest God would think negatively about someone who doesn't believe in God when there is no evidence of God.Therefore, if you think God is at least normal, it makes much more sense this way around: I'd rather live my life as if there is no God and die to find out there is, than live my life as if there is and die to find out there isn't.In this scenario let's look at the first part:Person leads a good life not believing in God.
Person dies.
Person finds out God actually exists.
God isn't a dick, though, God is at least normal and God's reaction is: Ha ha, funny, eh? I do exist! Nice life, though... you did fine, I'll treat you as well as any believer.And the second part:Person leads a good life believing in God.
Person dies.
Person finds out God actually did not exist.
Therefore, all the time and effort put into "believing in God" was completely wasted and could have been focused on living an even better "good life."So, we have to balance between two things:1 - No loss at all, outcome is what it would be anyway.
2 - Waste of time and energy while alive.The choice seems obvious to me.The only way believing-in-God-just-in-case-God-exists-over-Him-not-existing makes sense to gamble for is if you think God is a dick. Otherwise, there's nothing to worry about anyway.

Well, that depends on the person and the belief.Some will not be very different one way or the other.
Others could be drastically different.For example, we could have someone who worries over what God thinks of them and what they're doing all the time.
All this worry and possible anxiety would be wasted time and effort.
Can you imagine spending an entire life worrying over something and then finding out that the "something" didn't even exist and you never had to think twice about it in the first place? That can be a very big deal.Instead of attempting to "please God" all that time and effort could be focused on attempting to create a good life for yourself and others.Of course, some could say that "pleasing God" is creating a good life for themselves and others.
Whether or not the worrying/anxiety/pleasing affects a life one way or the other regardless of God existing is something only the individual can really know. My point was merely to suggest that the quote you brought up has this very same reaction from any non-believer that this quote attempts to imply as being "negative" in some way.If you understand how the reverse doesn't really apply to you in any negative sense...
Then perhaps you can understand how the quote as-is doesn't really apply to anyone else in any negative sense...The quote really does nothing more than to boost the ego of those who already support the quote.
And same in reverse... the way I said it doesn't really do anything other than to boost my own ego (because I already support it that way).
I'm a sucker for a good ego-boosting Eh. Seems like you're just moving the un-specified-and-vague notion of "belief" onto another un-specified-and-vague-notion of "attitude."What specific belief?
What specific attitude?Get to the specifics and we can have a discussion.Everyone has beliefs and attitudes. Even non-God-believers believe in other things... like maybe that tomorrow will be a good day, or that their sports team will win.Certain beliefs/attitudes are good, others can be terrible.
It all depends on the specifics.I don't see how "attitude" makes it any clearer than "belief."If you intend to discuss a specific detail about a certain kind of belief or attitude, however... then you'll have to describe that detail. Absolutely true. And my response to you basically comes down to two words: So what?To me, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.We all try at various levels on how good we can be.
How much we can help others.
How much we attempt to please everyone, and not offend anyone.And each and every one of us gets to judge everyone else on their efforts and personally-chosen levels of motivation.
8 billion currently-existing and in-your-face judges, remember?Are you going to use "can't please everyone!" as an excuse to do nothing?
Or as motivation to try and please as many as you can and correct errors that you are capable of correcting?That's the question, isn't it?

You are wrong.
I do not need to have died and seen what's on the other side.
Just as those who claim to know that God does exist are not required to have died and seen what's on the other side.There are other ways.Like the way I explained:

quote:

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

​

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.

​

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

​

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.

​

Therefore, I know that God does not exist.
I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.

---

I seem to copy and paste my responses to you every time you post.Do you have any questions that aren't already dealt with?

Do you see any issues with the theorizing? Or are you going to avoid an actual discussion again?

quote:

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

​

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.

​

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

​

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.

​

Therefore, I know that God does not exist.
I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.

---

A very reasonable opening position.This thread started itself as a "huh, I wonder if I can actually defend this..." thought I had once, years ago.
Turns out, it's not too difficult to defend, and I haven't seen anything that would overturn it.Granted... it depends on the every-day usage of the word "know" for almost everything.
However, it needs to be noted that the general usage of the word "know" when talking about God isn't the same as this normal every-day usage of the word.Part of this thread is about identifying that difference - that people use a special-pleading-different-definition of the word "know" when they say "You don't know God doesn't exist!" than when they say something normal like "You don't know McDonald's doesn't sell Sharkfin soup!"But, if we refuse to use the special-pleading-different-definition - and enforce the same definition of "know" for God as we do for everything else... it's pretty easy to know that God doesn't exist.It's the difference between "knowing" something because you think/feel it vs. "knowing" something because you've checked it.
The caveat is to include the fact that "checking" something doesn't necessarily force it to be true. It can be wrong, of course... "knowing" something doesn't force it to be a part of reality. It's quite possible for someone to edit the words "Sharkfin soup" onto McDonald's menu even if they don't sell it... or remove them even if they do sell it.Which brings us to the other part of this thread: Being able to check against something is always better than being able to check against nothing.
And the more, various things we can check against... the stronger confidence we can have in something being a part of actual reality.
Which tells us that the fewer things we can check against, after scouring for things to check against... especially those we can't check against anything at all are very likely to be imaginary only.

I Know That "God" Does Not ExistWhat is meant by "God?"In readying one of Phat's replies, it reminded me that I actually went over this already in this thread.
Check out this post: Message 63Does that help?Basically, by "God" I'm talking about the popular North American version - a powerful (possibly all-powerful) being that created us, loves us, and is a part of our lives in some fashion.But, as explained in that linked message, I'm pretty sure this claim holds up against almost any version of "God" that anyone holds.

Sure.
Although I almost missed this reply to me as it was linked to Pressie. I would say we can use all tools and methodologies at our disposal.
However, if you want to suggest ones that are "irrational" - it's up to you to show that they can actually work before claiming that they imply God's existence.I have only used rational tools and methodologies since those are (as far as I know) the only ones that ever work. Are you trying to say that a man crying implies that God exists?
I don't see the connection.People cry. You are a "people," aren't you?
People who never do things in their life - can do things later in life. You've never done something new before?This all seems like incredibly mundane and normal things. I don't see how you crying implies that God exists in any way.If I cry - is that proof that God does not exist? I think this is healthy.
But I don't think it affects the conclusion I'm drawing here.People find emotional strength from many things that are false.
-Sometimes people find unending strength from their relationship, but learn that their partner has been cheating on them all along
-Sometimes people kill themselves because they think the world is ending and "it's time."
-Many people believed smoking was healthyI am not persuaded that God exists by your emotional belief giving you strength.
Emotional beliefs give people strength all the time.
I myself get massive strength from my emotions concerning my beliefs on love, family and friends - no God included. That's fair enough.
But you questioning your rationality is no reason for any other rational argument to become invalid. In fact, it lends strength to the rational argument as your irrationality proves to be... undesirable. Why?
I like my emotions where they belong - in the subjective arena. They are stronger there. I agree.
This proves that people don't like change.
It doesn't imply that God exists. Belief is only a better go-to crutch than logic, reason and reality... for some people.For others, belief only makes things worse. And only logic, reason and reality can grant the levels of solace and peace some of us strive for.