I Know That God Does Not Exist

And Clarence Thomas is black. What is your point?

We have similar legislation in this country - a lot of other countries do too. See this page here: Hate speech - WikipediaI disagree that it's fascist. I certainly don't live in a fascist country and as you'll see, there's a decent amount of international consensus on the issue between a number of liberal democracies.We take, I think, a different view to many in the US, in that we don't see rights as 100% absolute in every case - sometimes rights conflict with each other, and when that happens, we believe a pragmatic view has to be taken (by society, and through a democratic process) to limit one of the rights in conflict. In this instance, the right to free speech was seen to be creating more harm against certain groups on the receiving end of prejudice, than would be caused to people by limiting somewhat their right to free speech. So we enacted laws to that effect.I realise that seems totally contrary to your understanding of rights, but it works for us.I feel very free indeed in the UK. That feeling isn't diminished by knowing that I'll get into trouble if I behave in such a way that we have collectively agreed would hurt a bunch of people too much.Freedom within our society includes the freedom to be a twat, but not where you are being such a twat that we have collectively decided that you would harm others by behaving that way. Fair enough for me.

Not fascist. You might want to research the term before you throw it around.

Let's get back to the beginning on this.
I'm saying I know that God doesn't exist.
You seemed to imply that this meant that I also know exactly how life originated without an intelligent first cause (God.)I'm telling you that I don't need to know the specific way life originated without God to know that God doesn't exist.If you're just trying to imply that I'm saying "yes, I know that life originated without God" - then yes - that's what I'm also saying, because God doesn't exist.
If you're trying to expand this to imply me saying "yes, I know that life originated without external-from-Earth input" - no - I'm not saying that because I'm only saying that I know God doesn't exist.
If you're trying to expand this to imply me saying "yes, I know how life on Earth originated through natural processes" - no - I'm not saying that because I'm only saying that I know God doesn't exist.Is that clearer? I'm not dodging "the point" - I'm only dodging you attempting to say I'm claiming something that I'm not actually claiming. Because I'm not claiming anything more than knowing that God doesn't exist. You can have intelligence without God.
You can have an intelligent 'root cause' for the origination of the universe and all life within it - without God.
That intelligence may be dead.
It may be very fragile and weak - weaker than humans.
It may have no way to monitor anything outside it's life - let alone know of the repercussions of creating a universe.
It may not even know that it created a universe - it may have done it by accident.
Such a thing is not a God by any definition of "God" I've ever heard of....Now, I can't say that I know such a thing doesn't exist because we at least have evidence that such things do exist in more limited form:
-we know we are 'intelligent'
-we know we do things by accident.
-we know we die
-we know we are not all-powerful
-we know we do things with certain intentions and then they don't go as plannedThis is much more information/evidence than what we have to support "God."Therefore, it is not on the same level to say I know "an intelligence that is not God" does not exist vs. saying I know that God does not exist.I am not claiming that I know God doesn't exist because we can't pin-point Him.
I am claiming that I know God doesn't exist because we've looked for Him and never found any single tiny shred of evidence that would even hint that He might exist. Not so, but I understand your defensiveness and I apologize for the social idea that fosters such defensiveness.
I do bring up Santa Claus with as much respect as possible.
I do not intend to mock or ridicule.
Santa Claus is also claimed to have magical abilities that allow him to be pretty much everywhere at once, undetectable whenever he wants to be, and does not adhere to known physical laws of reality. Such aspects seem relatively comparable to God. Your dismissal of this and your attempt to smear bringing it up only seem to imply that you're uncomfortable discussing clear analogies. How so?
If, as described, - there should be something at the North pole or something around Christmas putting presents in stockings... and we never find anything at the North pole or anything-other-than-people-filling-stockings at Christmas... how does this imply that we "could see such things in the future?"Just like with God.
We don't find God creating happiness or joy or love or friendship or heroism.
We always find people creating such things.
We don't find God punishing evil - we always find people punishing such things.
We don't find God in the sun or in nature or in thunder or lightning or the clouds or the sky - we always find nothing but natural processes.In this same way, none of this seems to imply that we will see anything in the future either.In fact, it seems to imply that we will continue to find nothing in the future - if we rationally follow the pattern. I would quibble with some of your definitions, and let's say we don't know "how intelligence evolved specifically" but do understand "how intelligence evolved generally", but for the sake of the argument - I accept your premise. What? How does this follow?
At most... you can claim "Therefore, I can clearly know that we are not created for a purpose or with an intelligent root cause in mind."How do you jump from this to "not the result of blind mindless processes?"You've "considered the idea that we exist simply as the result of mindless chemical processes, that have resulted in mindless particles combining to form conscious, intelligent and even moral life forms" and then simply conclude that "we are not the result of blind mindless processes?"Where's the part that actually connects these two things?
Why can't mindless particles come together to form a mindful human being?
Just like internet-less transistors can come together to form an internet-capable PC.
We have evidence of brainless creatures - like jellyfish.
We have evidence of smaller-brained creatures - like mice.
We have evidence of more-primitively-brained creatures - like reptiles.
Hows does this show that "we are not the result of blind mindless processes?" No, you haven't.
Your method doesn't link together.My method (nutshell):If we 'know' things don't exist by looking for them where they are supposed to be and not finding them... (like Santa Claus or Sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu)
And we look for God where He is supposed to be...
...and we don't find Him.
...then we know that God doesn't exist.Your method (nutshell):If we are created by a process of mindless particles...
...then we know that we are not the result of mindless particles...What??You think these two 'methods' are similar?
My method clearly has an "if, then, match, result..." form to it.
Your method is clearly just an empty claim with no attachment to looking at what we see in reality.
Where is your "if, then, match, result..." form?
Where are your examples that also follow this pattern?
Where is the meat to your method?

On this side of the pond we feel pretty much the same way but extend our First Amendment rights to the point just short of causing actual physical harm. We do not believe that speech is harmful unless it is directed to incite immediate violence, say, provoking the crowd to stream out of the meeting to go kill, or calculated to cause an obvious harm like screaming “fire” in a crowded theater.The overriding belief here is that speech, no matter how caustic, is better free and open so the rest of society can react, positively or negatively, to the ideas expressed without any directing interference from government. We do not see government’s role, and vociferously reject the idea that government should have any role, in regulating the marketplace of ideas no matter how ugly an idea may be. Government cannot be allowed to decide which ideas are allowed/disallowed to be expressed. That decision is for us as individuals and thus as a society.

I'd have to check with our resident bible expert, ringo, but as I recall your jesus said quite the opposite but you christians neglect that part of his teachings.Instead you tell us we cannot do this or that because your god doesn’t like it, or we cannot say this or that because your god doesn’t like it, or we cannot think this or that because your god doesn’t like it . . which is fine, except . ... you go further and torture, burn, and make war against humanity to force your restrictions on the world.That is hate.Your religious tomes are filled with stories of your god and your priests doing exactly that. Your christian philosophy encourages and practices this hate.

quote:

---

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

---

And to clarify, "hate" in this context is more of a willingness to give something up:

quote:

---

Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

---

Similar to when He told the rich man to sell what he had and give to the poor - which you reject.

No, I’m not saying that you have to know exactly how life originated without an intelligent first cause. I’m simply saying that you have to know that it did originate without an intelligent first cause. If I claim that I know that life exists because of an intelligent first cause, then I am also saying that I know that life doesn’t exist because of a non-intelligent first cause.
You are claiming that you know we are not the result of an intelligent first cause so as a result of that claim you also need an explanation for how it is that you know we are the result of non-intelligence. OK Exactly, knowing that we are not referring to any specific god, but only an intelligence responsible for life. How would you want to name that external-from-earth input? Wouldn’t that external -to-earth entity be a deity if it is responsible for life? I’m not saying that you have to know how it happened through only natural sources without an intelligent root and simply saying that in order to prove your premice you have to know that it happened that way. You clarified your position but I understood you that way before. I’ll try and make my point clearer.
You cannot know that we are not the result of external intelligence then you have to also know that we are not the result of an external intelligence. OK then. I suppose what we really need is an agreed to definition of God. My definition would be ; any external pre-existing intelligence that is responsible for life as we know it. With that definition your point isn’t made. However if you want to argue against the Christian God then it is a different argument altogether. I was simply assuming a theistic vs atheistic discussion. But as I theist I do not know “where” a deity is supposed to exist. I just believe that this entity does exist but without any specified “where”.. Also as I mentioned, “where” from a human perspective only has meaning when we talk about our perceived localities. (Straight to Jupiter and turn right for 3 light years for example.) Sort of except my argument isn’t simply about mindless processes but about processes mindless or otherwise that don’t have an intelligent root. A process can be set in motion with an intelligent cause to then continue without further direct intelligent input.
BTW, It is very impressive that you came up with that last response in as short a time as you did. I am envious.

No. Why would it?
In a necessarily-must-be context. In order for this to proceed, you need to show that:"ANY" external intelligence must therefore, necessarily also be "God."I don't think that flies.
It may for you, personally, but this is where I'm coming from:Let's say we have an "external intelligence" that created the universe, and that universe created life.
-this being did not create the universe on purpose
-this being never knew they created our universe, even
-this being never comprehended the concept of 'another universe' than the one they inhabited
-this being is very frail and weak, weaker than a human
-this being has absolutely no knowledge of our planet (they don't even know our universe exists)
-this being died within a few decades of their accidental creation of our universe
-this being was created without the need of any other external intelligence within their own universe
-this being, within their own universe, was only alive for approx. 80 years
-this being's universe itself existed for over 100s of billions of years
-this being, within their own universe, was the product of some sort of natural evolution that did not include any intelligent first causeYou'd call that being "God?" I don't think many would agree with you.
Isn't that sort of like calling you mother and father "God?"
If you're just going to use the term in ways no normal group of people would agree with... I don't see the point you're attempting to make. I do not agree that such a being would be "God."I do, however, agree with your conclusion on that point.
Because... with that definition... I have no point to make.
Who cares if we were created by some pre-existing intelligence that has no idea who we are, had no intended purpose for us, and didn't even know they accidentally created us?I wouldn't call such a pre-existing intelligence "God" anyway.
All of Christianity and every other religion would still be based on a non-extistant God - and I would still know that such a God did not exist as well. I don't know of any theistic group that would accept such a definition as "God." This is acceptable.
And I still know that your deity does not exist because it is obviously irrational for you to believe in such a thing.
Why wouldn't I know that things without evidence don't exist?If, at a future date, some sort of evidence is discovered... then it's perfectly reasonable to begin an investigation and update my position on my knowledge.
Of course, without such a thing happening... it is still perfectly reasonable to say I know such a thing doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it at all.
And, when previous generations have claimed there was evidence... they were always mistaken. Such a history cannot be ignored.

When it's not the 'same old stuff' it will be a very interesting day. Please let us know when you have anything new that might provide just a morsel of evidence for your god. Ok, but like Hitch used to say, even if it was possible to show that a god exists, still you have all the work in front of you to show that it's any particular religion's god. Style 'knows' god doesn't exist in the way you 'know' that he does exist - it's a belief. Scientifically and philosophically it's not possible to prove that a non-interventionist god does not exist. Rationally though it *can* be deduced not to exist beyond reasonable doubt.I'm in the same boat, I say I know he doesn't exist but what I mean is that Im sure beyond reasonable doubt - rationally there has to be a tiny chance of a non-interventionist god, but equally rationally it's so remote that we know there really isn't. And, I should add, it's irrelevant anyway as the deistic god has no interest in us. No afterlife, no heaven, no hell, so it's not an issue that should concern us beyond the academic. It's a reasonable deduction from the lack of evidence. Personally, I don't think it's possible to know whether god exists or not - the use of the word 'know' in these contexts is incorrect. What people on both sides have is a belief. On the atheist's side that belief is based on evidence - both of natural causation and absence of evidence where it should be found. That is the case for a pure deistic argument. It is impossible to prove that a non-interventionist god doesn't exist. Similarly it can't be proven that it does either.But no religious believer is a deist. They are, by definition, theists and there is ample evidence that those beliefs are bunkum.

I don't think that's true.I think the way I'm using the word "know" is exactly the same for the following three statements:I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
I know that Santa Claus does not exist.
I know that God does not exist.All 3 contain the same following elements:
-I did not know before investigating
-There was a period of investigation (length of time varies for each subject... but "much greater" for investigating God), where I searched for evidence by looking where experts say I should look to find the entity in question
-The investigation came up negative - no evidence was found
-There is a possibility I could be wrong
-I am open to updating my position given evidence found at a future dateIf we can't use the word "know" in this context - what context can we actually use it in?
Can we use the word "know" for anything at all?

Before I reply Stile I need to know the answer to this. Your opening title is: "I Know That God Does Not Exist". You did not say a god with a small g although I agree that you capitalized all the other words as well. But in order to discuss the issue we need to know your definition of "God" in this context. I don't believe that you have given us that definition as yet.

Testable and provable Testable and provable. Not testable, not provable In an evidential and/or testable context Sure, we know there's no sharksfin soup on MacDonald's menu.

As near as I can tell Tangle we are on the same side in this discussion Don't let it go to your head. AbE Having had second thought on this I am going to have to go along with my signature and say humbly that will have to try and not let it go to my head.Edited by GDR, : Honest humility.

So's Stile he just missing one step. No worries, Bruce.