I Know That God Does Not Exist

I wanted to post again on this one line, because I think it depicts one of the larger issues.Many times people think that because a solution works well for them, then it works for everyone.
In fact, they don't even really "think" that... but they "assume" it.They never stop to think that different people may think different than them.
They never stop to think that different people may need different things than them.When they stop to think about it... they can understand it (I hope.) But it seems incredibly easy to fall back into the assumption that "everyone works like me."When children grow up, you can see them grow through this issue.
Teenagers generally have an epiphany at some point on various ideas... "wait, not everyone celebrates Christmas???! That's crazy!!"It's not crazy. It's just different.
Different in exactly the same way as favourite colours.It simply takes a certain willingness and imagination to remember that the way things happen to you is not the same as the way things happen to others. ...for some people.
Not everyone feels confidence/safety/warmth by the idea of a powerful being that "saves everyone from everything" (but never actually seems to do any of it.)
Some people need reliance on actual real solutions.Have you ever read the book Dune?There's a line in it that gets repeated a lot: "Fear is the mind-killer."It's a mantra that's supposed to help remind/help people get through difficult (panic-causing) situations.
Yes, calming down because "God is a go-to crutch" will help calm down... but then what?
In Dune, the mantra is used to calm down... so that you can do what needs to be done to get through the situation.So on one side, you can use God as a crutch when things get tough... and then what? Rely on yourself anyway? Who's going to do what needs doing to fix it? God?On the other side, you can use the mantra to remind yourself that fear is temporary. Then work on a way to do-whatever-needs-doing in order to get through the situation.The more you use God as a crutch - the more likely you'll be to not act when you need to act (because you'll be focusing on God as your crutch.)
The more you focus on doing what you need to do - the more you'll get done (because you're not focusing on anything else.)Of course, I'm not claiming that this will work for everyone. I'm only claiming that it works for me, and those who may think similarly-enough to the way I think.

What strange sort of physical evidence needs to be believed before you can appreciate it?That doesn't sound physical.
It sounds like the opposite of physical.
It sounds extremely subjective.Like the kind of 'evidence' that's always wrong, and only put forward by those who are trying to convince others of malarkey. No. Not by believing what I'm told.
By testing it against actual physical evidence.
Just because you don't do your homework doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Witness reports of evidence is speculative stuff. Sure you can. Lots of folks believe having a baby will fix a marriage. Agreed.
The problem is that there's no answer sheet that tells us which is which.
So, we have to figure it out.Testing against reality works - progress is made. More progress than ever before, even.One would think that if there was a God with the answer sheet, then having a relationship with Him would help progress.
But.. believing in God has led to the same amount of progress as not even trying - minimal progress in some areas, and large-scale stagnation in others.Believing in God for progress was tried... for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Then - testing against reality was tried... more progress in under 100 years than eons of anything previous.One more test that leads us to knowing that God does not exist - as results including God are equivalent to results including nothing at all.

Your confusion is puzzling. It doesn't seem like a very difficult concept."Witnessed" physical evidence is not physical evidence.
Your conclusion in finding a sense of finality when you believe it and I don't displays that you do understand The Bible is not on the same level as physical evidence.Physical evidence doesn't have an acceptable "agree to disagree" closing.

Why would I need my own equipment?I just use other people's equipment. Like those found in schools.You also make it sound like I need to test things I've already tested.
The good part about testing physical reality is that it's cumulative. You don't have to do it for the same thing over and over.If it takes 100N of force to lift an object 5 feet... it will take 100N of force to lift that object the same 5 feet again and again.
If I also learn (by testing) that object's forces differ in the same way over various conditions (as described by certain formulas) - then I don't need to test those formulas and conditions all the time either.
If I also learn (by testing) that certain tools can be used in certain ways to make the calculations on their own and display the results for us - then I don't need to test every single one after every single measurement.
If I also learn (by testing) that sometimes equipment can fail and it needs to be regularly calibrated to ensure proper accuracy - then I don't need to worry about failing equipment.
If I also learn (by testing) that sometimes people make mistakes or can be purposefully untruthful and that by incorporating multiple tests by various people with various backgrounds and rewarding those that 'find mistakes' - then I don't need to worry about human failures.
If I also learn (by testing) that certain procedures using the tools can lead to new tools and new procedures and new information - then I don't need to test every item every time it's claimed "Stile doesn't know how it works" by someone posting messages on the internet.Cumulative testing against reality is incredibly powerful.
I can tell you are not accustomed to such levels of confidence.
I would recommend starting in a school or library.It adds a certain... peaceful solace... when you're able to identify how much confidence - how much knowledge - you have in various aspects of reality by learning how to physically test them as opposed to accepting "witnessed" claims.

If you don't understand how those are the same thing, I don't know how to help you.
I would recommend beginning by learning about how the human brain works (you can even start by watching a fun show called 'Brain Games' if you'd like.) If this is what you meant by "You can't believe in something because you need it to be true." then I agree.Although, really... the two phrases are significantly different by my reading comprehension. I agree that this is their intention.
However - they simply fail to go beyond their "intention."The "answer sheet" in the Bible is wrong about too many things to be taken as evidence of anything. If the evidence is there - then there's no need to "believe it or not."
The fact that you think "you believe it or you don't" is an acceptable closing statement is enough in itself that what you think of the word "evidence" isn't actually evidence. You also can't test for "nothing existing as spiritual beings."Interesting. I agree that the Bible reports on such things.
It's just not evidence of anything in reality.

Okay. If it's actually not true - you haven't shown such a thing. All you've produced are 'claims' and 'intentions' of evidence.
But no evidence of God.Therefore, the claim that you have no evidence of God still stands.I do agree, however, that this claim is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous that people still need this specified in any form at all.
As ridiculous as having to "state a claim" that there's no evidence for Santa Claus.
Such things are simply understood by most people. If you have to 'believe' it to accept it - it's not evidence. It's merely a claim or an intention.No one has to believe that engines can power cars.
You can test the theory behind engines and cars.If you can't test it, it's not evidence.
You can't test the claims and intentions in the Bible. Therefore - the claims and intentions in the Bible are not evidence. I don't know God because I know God doesn't exist.
One of the large reasons is that whenever we look for evidence of God - we only find claims and intentions - but no evidence.
Your continued repetition is providing an excellent example.I reject your claims and intentions as evidence - because such things are not evidence.
Just as I would reject a spoon being called a knife. If this is your summary - I accept your label.
Seems as muddled as the rest of your descriptions and I'm confident that others will see it as such upon learning of the source.

Would there happen to be a text-based transcript that doesn't require playing a video?I may be able to watch the video eventually - but my motivation for such a thing is rather low.
If there's a text-transcript* I would be much more motivated to review it.*Heh... "text-transcript..." Is that like a "picture-image?"

Actually, I reach such a conclusion using all the data that all religions have been able to muster up in the last few thousand years showing that God actually is where He's supposed to be... or doing the things He's supposed to do.Who better to search for God than those who claim He exists and is active in our lives?
Unfortunately, all those religions (including yours) haven't been able to find God in all this time.God is only found in the imagination, in feelings.
Exactly where He would be expected to be if He didn't exist yet people wanted Him to.Not a single person (mathematician or physics guru or pious religious member, or high religious leader) can show any place where God may make a difference.
There's always another way to make the same difference.Not so with everything else we know to exist.Computer chips exist - Can't get on the internet without computer chips.
Engines exist - Can't drive a car without an engine.
Peanut butter exists - Can't have a PB&J without peanut butter.But with God? Everything can be done in another way.Can't be happy without God? - wrong, atheists are just as happy.
Can't be successful without God? - wrong, atheists are just as successful.
Can't be full of peace and love without God? - wrong, atheists are just as full of peace and love.
Can't be spiritually fulfilled without God? - wrong, atheists are just as spiritually fulfilled.
Can't keep your family safe without God? - wrong, atheists' families are just as safe.Everywhere we look... especially in the supernatural or the subjective or the spiritual or the religious-world... there is nothing that can't be achieved equally without God.Why is a believer who obtains something from God always equivalent to an unbeliever who obtains the same thing without God?
How many times must this test be done before it is accepted as positive that God does not exist?
How many times must we check the North Pole before it is accepted as positive that Santa Claus does not exist?Why have a double-standard?
And, of course, the only answer is "because believers want a double-standard because they want God to exist."Which is fine for their own personal subjective thoughts and feelings.
It simply doesn't fly when we move into the realm of objective reality - where entities actually "exist."Therefore, it is through "the religious" more so than maths and physics, that I reach the conclusion that there is NO God.Who else is better suited to find Him?

A very large problem.I've tried to address it in an earlier post.
Please see Message 63 from this thread.Main idea (but there's also a bunch of "clauses" attached to it, explained in the earlier post):

quote:

---

When I started the thread, I was simply thinking of the popular idea held by our current society... That God is a rational concept of some entity that sits back and governs good things and helps out people who pray to Him and used to do grand miracles but hasn't felt like it since we started to monitor such things.

​

But now I think it will hold for any and all conceivable definitions of God that do not include God being an inanimate object and do include God being at least "something more" than humans and relates somewhat to the popular idea held by our current society. And the proposal, of course, must be rational as well.

---

Hopefully that helps? Absolutely God could be like that.Which is exactly what the main point of this thread is about.Here's the main rebuttal to that argument, also from the post you're replying to:

quote:

---

Not a single person (mathematician or physics guru or pious religious member, or high religious leader) can show any place where God may make a difference.
There's always another way to make the same difference.

​

Not so with everything else we know to exist.

​

Computer chips exist - Can't get on the internet without computer chips.
Engines exist - Can't drive a car without an engine.
Peanut butter exists - Can't have a PB&J without peanut butter.

​

But with God? Everything can be done in another way.

​

Can't be happy without God? - wrong, atheists are just as happy.
Can't be successful without God? - wrong, atheists are just as successful.
Can't be full of peace and love without God? - wrong, atheists are just as full of peace and love.
Can't be spiritually fulfilled without God? - wrong, atheists are just as spiritually fulfilled.
Can't keep your family safe without God? - wrong, atheists' families are just as safe.

​

Everywhere we look... especially in the supernatural or the subjective or the spiritual or the religious-world... there is nothing that can't be achieved equally without God.

​

Why is a believer who obtains something from God always equivalent to an unbeliever who obtains the same thing without God?
How many times must this test be done before it is accepted as positive that God does not exist?
How many times must we check the North Pole before it is accepted as positive that Santa Claus does not exist?

---

So sure, it's possible that we haven't discovered God yet.
But how long do we look where God is - according to the "God-experts" (the religious), and find nothing, before we say we've checked?
It's happened over, and over again... for so many eons and for so many different ideas of where God should be. Always, everyone of them... nothing.Which leads back to the opening argument, which still stands in spite of this "possiblity:"

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.

---

No one has a problem going against this "possibility" for Santa Claus - we all say we know Santa Claus doesn't exist.
No one has a problem going against this "possiblity" for Sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu - we all say we know Sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu doesn't exist.I simply extend the exact same "knowledge" onto God for the exact same reasons:I have no problem going against this "possibility" for God - I say I know God doesn't exist. Personally, I also know that there is more to all this than just an absurd and arbitrary occurrence - and I don't involve God in any way.
I define my own purpose - which creates the "more to all this" - and it works fantastic for me.I understand that some people require the idea of a God for the same "fantastic more to all this for them" feeling - but this is inconsequential to how valid it is for me.

A very good question.
And I am unable to answer it.
...which is precisely why I go to the experts on such things... the religious.Do as I do... ask them. Did He?
How so?It seems that you, yourself are claiming to be a "religious expert" and that you know the things God has done.Okay - let's look at it, then.How do we know God found us?I am here, no God found me.
-Is this not evidence enough to show that no God "found us?"I expect the same as all claims on where God is or what God's done - nothing at all.
But, please, if you do have some evidence we can look at - then let's look at it. I am able to describe and backup my claim that I Know God Does Not Exist.
Can you describe and backup your claim that He is not limited to our imagination?Again - you seem to claim to be a religious-expert who knows things about God.
Please share your evidence so that we can all know.Just as we can all look at McDonald's menu to see that there is no Sharkfin soup on it - as this is how we know things. If God is not absent, then it's easy - show the effects of His presence.Everything that exists has an effect of it's presence.Computer chips allow us to get on the internet.
Engines allow us to drive cars.
Peanut butter allows us to eat PB&J's.What does God allow us to do that we cannot do without God?If your answer is "everything" then it is equivalent to an answer of "nothing."
Because your claim is then based upon a guess - not knowledge.This thread is about knowledge of God. Not guesses. There may eventually be a 'hell on earth,' but it will not be because of any God. Because I Know That God Does Not Exist. If you cannot show that God exists - then you cannot know that God exists.
You can only guess.I'm not persuaded from my knowledge that God Does Not Exist because of your guesses.
There is a difference between guessing at something, and knowing something.This thread highlights that difference. There is no war.
There is no God.
There is no Satan.I Know That They All Do Not Exist - according to everything everyone has posted in this thread. No need for a reminder, it's included in the opening post:

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.

---

But, this doesn't change the conclusion. Or anything else that we know.I Know That God Does Not Exist.

Fantastic!Of course, in order for us to know this, you'll have to show it.
Can you do that? I am an atheist.
And you are wrong.When I'm on my death-bed, I will be comforted of a life well lived, not wasting a second on anything that didn't exist; living real - in reality - every moment full of the greatest of meanings and purpose. I will be relaxed, and will welcome a rest.
When your average Christian is on their death-bed, they will be overwhelmed by fear and sadness... the doubt of being wrong about God's existence will dawn and they will go screaming into oblivion, knowing that they wasted so much time. I am very spiritual - without God.
What part of "spiritual" do you think is only available from God?
-I am very calm in tense or crazy or even insane situations as my foundations in spirituality provide me with a strength unmatched by any others I've ever met (even Christians.)
-I am able to allow my feelings to wash over me and take me to heightened levels of spirituality whenever needed - without God
-I am extremely connected and understanding with my fellow brothers and sisters (that is... "all humans") around me as my spirituality allows me to be empathetic with their various situations
-anything else you think comes along with "spirituality?" - I would assume I have it as well if I've missed it, but you're free to guess if you'd likeI accept that the after-life may exist - without God.
-I've often thought that we may be a 'run-through' world of a collective conscious
-the collective conscious may want to experience many different thoughts, feelings and situations through the lives we live here
-when born, we do not remember where we came from or what we're 'supposed' to do
-when we die, we return to the collective conscious
-adding our new thoughts, feelings and experiences to the collective conscious
-obtaining answers to all our individual (during "life") questions from the rest of the collective conscious
-moving onto "the after-life" by becoming a part of the collective conscious and doing whatever-collective-conscious'-do
-all without GodIt works like that.If you have more specific questions, I can then answer more specifically if you'd like.

Yes. These are two different ideas - both need reconciling, but not with each other... separately.I will tackle the later first, as I don't understand what you're attempting to get at: What do you mean by "more" to this existence if you're not talking about a higher purpose?If you just mean something along the lines of hoping we are not a lucky-to-be-here result of the natural laws that govern this reality...
Then I need to adjust my response.
If this is what you mean... I don't "know there is something more." I don't even want there to be "something more" than this.
To me... if we are a lucky-to-be-here result of the natural laws that govern this reality... this blows my mind on how amazing and incredible this all is.
Way more meaningful than if we were put here on purpose by some being that simply has the power to do so... where's the cool factor in that? I do things I have the power to do all the time. Why would I be impressed by something else doing something it has the power to do? Why would anyone 'hope' for such a mundane, simple beginning? Yes.Just like I KNOW Santa Claus does not exist despite the possibility.
Just like I KNOW Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu despite the possibility.The way you're using this definition of the word "KNOW" - we cannot use the work "know" for anything... as there is ALWAYS the possibility we could be wrong.
You can't even know you're using a computer when you read this post over the internet - there's a possibility you could be using a device that is not a computer, but only makes you think you're using a computer.Therefore - we might as well strike the work "know" from the english language.
And then we'll need another word to identify the difference between "guessing" and "being confident in a conclusion based on the verification of an objective test."This issue is still nicely cleared up by a paragraph from the opening post:

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.

---

But, as long as we use the accepted, and used-by-everyone definition of the word "know" - I can validly say: I know that God does not exist.

What? Why?Are you trying to say that "spirituality" is equivalent to naming a few imaginary friends?
If this is true - then why would anyone want to be spiritual in the first place?I think you're confused about what spirituality actually is.
If you can define anything worthy of pursuit, let me know. Otherwise - I am uninterested in whatever you're attempting to define as 'spirituality.'Here's what I mean when I talk about spirituality:

quote:

---

In modern times, the term both spread to other religious traditions and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions and religious traditions. Modern usages tend to refer to a subjective experience of a sacred dimension[8] and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live", often in a context separate from organized religious institutions, such as a belief in a supernatural (beyond the known and observable) realm, personal growth, a quest for an ultimate or sacred meaning, religious experience, or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension".

​

(Bolding by me to mark the parts that seem obviously notable and desirable)
Spirituality - Wikipedia

---

Everything that's not bolded in that description, to me... only seems like says to reach/obtain the bolded parts anyway.
If you want to claim that 'spirituality' should be more focused on the non-bolded parts rather than the bolded sections... that's fair enough.
But then you also have to defend why anyone should care.That is, if we assume someone already has a method to obtain "the deepest values and meanings by which people live" without God - why would they need religious traditions to attempt to tap into something they already have?

Yes, very futile.
Especially in light of the fact, as described by this thread, that we all know that God Does Not Exist.Feel free to make your "choice."

I don't know - what's the evidence for other universes existing? My answer to this question, as the one with God, depends on looking for evidence and seeing if any is found. Again, and again and again... That's right.Religious experts have been searching for God in any place they can think of for thousands of years.
Every time they come up with a place and we look in that place - we find no evidence whatsoever. Not even anything that might point at evidence. All we find is nothing. Absolutely no difference between God existing where the experts say He should, and God not existing at all.That's why I know God does not exist.Just as I know Santa Claus and Sharkfin-soup-on-McDonald's-menu do not exist - we've looked for them where they are supposed to be and found nothing.
Haven't even looked for these as long as we've looked for God...So, if we're going to test my consistency concerning "God" with "other universes" - we start with the same question - What is the evidence for another universe?If there is anything that can objectively point in the direction of another universe - this raises it above the level of evidence for God.
Therefore - I would say I know it is a possibility and cannot claim to know other universes do not exist.If the experts have looked and we have found nothing objective to show anything at all about other universes existing - then this equates to the level of evidence for God.
Therefore - I would say I know that other universes do not exist.But, to apply the concept consistently, there's another issue involved: How much time have the experts been searching?
In keeping the "other universes" questions on the same level as God's existence, we could easily say "Let's allow the universe-experts one thousand years to search for another universe before making judgement." Now, even if no evidence is known today, we still have a lot of time to search and check - therefore, it's reasonable to say "I do not know if other universes exist or not - we are currently looking, the possibility is valid." While still remaining extremely consistent and saying: Thousands of years of looking for God has yielded no evidence whatsoever - Therefore, the possibility is beyond remote and has become irrational to cling to without any reason - This leads me to reasonably state "I Know That God Does Not Exist."These are the kinds of questions we need to answer and compare with the results of religious experts searching for God in order to make the example you're attempting to use be applicable. Wouldn't you agree?