I Know That God Does Not Exist

Yeh we know you believe it but what's in you book is not evidence of anything other than someone we don't know wrote a book about some things that we do know (from real evidence) are not factually correct.We know this in the same way that you know that the book of Mormon is not evidence of real events or the Quran is not evidence of real events just because someone in a book claims to have witnessed something and someone else (who we don't know) who didn't witness it but heard it from someone else and wrote it down many years later.Can you see how this doesn't work?

quote:

---

blood on doorposts is physical
pillars of smoke and fire are physical
parting of Red Sea is physical
manna from heaven is physical. They picked it up off the ground.
There were also quails God sent when they complained about the manna: they littered the ground too. Real quails. Physical.
Dew on fleece physical. Wet stuff.

---

And yet you don’t even have witness accounts of any of these things, let alone actual examples that have been investigated.
(I don’t even know why you list “blood on the doorposts” since that is something the Hebrews supposedly did themselves).

Don't be silly. Speculation is speculation, witness reports are witness reports. Not a good example. We're talking about stuff you can't witness yourself, but you can witness a baby and see for yourself if it helps the marriage. That is not what we're talking about.I ccouldn't believe in God on the basis of wanting to believe in God. I don't know how anyone else can but some say they do so I guess they can though I can't. As I've been saying, there are lots of witnesses reported in the Bible to miraculous PHYSICAL events that are intended to be evidence of the reality of God. That's the "answer sheet," whatever that means, for those of us who believe those accounts. If you don't you don't, but that's the point, the evidence is there, you believe it or you don't. I'm talking about the Bible, I don't know what you are talking about, but the Bible reports on lots of evidence for God and you don't have to figure anything out, you either believe it or you don't. You can't test for a spiritual being. He either gives you evidence of his existence or he doesn't. If he does you either believe it or you don't. There are no tests you could do that I know of. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.I'm not talking about any "answer sheet," I'm talking about evidence for the existence of God as such.Also I believe there has been plenty of progress in society, civilization, compassion, and also science as a result of Christianity over the last two thousand years. But I'm not making that argument here, I'm just arguing that the Bible reports on witness evidence for the existence of God. Believe it or not; take it or leave it.

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.

I wasn't asking you for your opinion, I was answering the ridiculous claim that we have no evidence of God, which is not true. I knew perfectly well what your opinion is. I was saying that we do have evidence and those who know God believe that evidence. You don't know God and you reject the evidence. So what else is new? Just makes you another know-it-all rejecter of the truth.

Your personal belief is the revealed truth isn't it? You believe that your god has told you this.Why has god told you a truth that is different to what he tells GDR and Phat?

I recently watched an intense debate between Ben Shapiro and William Lane Craig. The transcript, auto-generated on YouTube, is fascinating.
I plan on spinning off a new topic based on this transcript and the 50+ minute dialogue between two polished speakers.

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?"

I did watch most of Andrew Neil’s interview with Ben Shapiro. Shapiro came off very badly. He was reduced to (laughably) complaining that Andrew Neil was a biased leftist and finally walked out.Craig is a professional - and skilled - debater - I’d expect him to eat Shapiro alive.

I have the raw transcript in Google Docs via a shareable link, but I need to go through the 72+pages and attribute which words to what speaker. I should have it done soon.

I really dislike Craig because he calls himself logical and is a philosopher but as soon as he gets onto god his logic goes to pieces.I watched the first ten minutes or so and found myself disagreeing with him but finding his answers fair and logical, then he got onto god and he talked utter shit.I saw Sam Harris debate with him and he just shrugged in disbelief that someone with an obvious training in logic would fall apart when trying to justify the existence of god. It was embarrassing to watch. His premises fail. Weird thing to watch happening to an accademic.

I am attempting to edit the transcript over at my new topic, (by edit I mean to attribute the raw data to the proper speaker)and I hope to get it promoted soon. I would also be interested in finding the Sam Harris debate and discussing that one at my new topic as well. Tangle, can you find a link to the Sam Harris debate which you're referred to?

Probably this oneSam Harris | The God DebateCraig is a dishonest debater

quote:

---

While I believe I answered (or preempted) all of Craig’s substantive challenges, I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for not rebutting his remarks point for point. Generally speaking, my critics seem to have been duped by Craig’s opening statement, in which he presumed to narrow the topic of our debate (I later learned that he insisted upon speaking first and made many other demands. You can read an amusing, behind-the-scenes account here.) Those who expected me to follow the path Craig cut in his opening remarks don’t seem to understand the game he was playing. He knew that if he began, “Here are 5 (bogus) points that Sam Harris must answer if he has a shred of self-respect,” this would leave me with a choice between delivering my prepared remarks, which I believed to be crucial, or wasting my time putting out the small fires he had set. If I stuck to my argument, as I mostly did, he could return in the next round to say, “You will notice that Dr. Harris entirely failed to address points 2 and 5. It is no wonder, because they make a mockery of his entire philosophy.”

​

As I observed once during the debate, but should have probably mentioned again, Craig employs other high school debating tricks to mislead the audience: He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said; he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded; and, in our debate, he falsely charged me with having wandered from the agreed upon topic. The fact that such tricks often work is a real weakness of the debate format, especially one in which the participants are unable to address one another directly. Nevertheless, I believe I was right not to waste much time rebutting irrelevancies, correcting Craig’s distortions of my published work, or taking his words out of my mouth. Instead, I simply argued for a scientific conception of moral truth and against one based on the biblical God. This was, after all, the argument that the organizer’s at Notre Dame had invited me to make.

---