I Know That God Does Not Exist

Just edited my previous post.

That's good, but I think my insult was better.

How dare you call me a *****!!

If you weren't you would provide evidence for all the assertions you have been called out on. As you have not, my calling you out stands.

I used the word "fascist" pejoratively and as obvious hyperbole. What isn't hyperbole though is that I do think that Hate Crime laws in Australia sound a little loose and a little too open to abuse. I see it as a slippery slope. For instance, I do see a place for Hate Crime laws when a specific action (i.e. assault) is accompanied by a clear and definable motive. And it should also be a crime to specifically threaten anyone on account of their gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and so on. But if someone is simply sharing their personal beliefs on an internet forum and not making specific threats, then they're just talking... talking shit, to be exact. You and I may disagree with the content on a personal level, as I think I've been very quick to point out with Dredge, but if he is too afraid to speak his mind on account of government intrusion, well, that sir is a bridge too far and one that very much is leading towards a path to actual fascism. I agree, up to a point. Saying "I'm going to kill Asian women on Tuesday at this location" is a little bit different than simply espousing racist ideology. Both are odious, but one is communicating an actual threat. It really depends on how far we're taking it. No, there's a lot of similarities and overlap between UK, Aussie and US law when it comes to this. My contention, if I'm reading Aussie law correctly, is that it is very broad when it comes to defining "acts." Creating a post on an internet forum is an "act," if I'm understanding their law correctly, whereas the United States would distinguish act from speech. Now there are, correctly in my estimation, limitations on what speech can or cannot be protected. Communicating a specific threat is a crime. And even then it is measured on a case by case basis because it ought to pass through several thresholds as a safeguard to protecting speech.When it comes to speech, we have to be very careful -- careful not to miss an overt threat and thus hinder our ability to protect the targeted individual but also careful not to label something an overt threat that is actually someone sharing a personal opinion, regardless of whether you or I think it is offensive. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

I agree. Well put.I wanted to say so because I'm often at odds with you.

I capitalized all the words simply because it's a title.
I generally try to capitalize "God" or any reference to "Him" partly because of my own Catholic upbringing but mostly out of respect to those that would appreciate such a thing.
For myself, there is no difference between "God" and "god."However, your question is a very good one: I had a long conversation with Catholic Scientist about this right in the beginning of this thread.
Please see Message 63 for a general conclusion to that discussion.The main idea (but there's also a bunch of "clauses" attached to it, explained in the earlier message):

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.

---

To me... if this does not describe the generally accepted definition for "God" (or "god")... then I don't know what does.Hopefully that helps?

Yes.
Is the test not "we look where the experts say we should look in an attempt to find evidence of their existence?"
Is the proof not "we looked, and didn't find anything that would indicate such things exist?" No?
Are we not able to "look where the experts say we should look in an attempt to find evidence of His existence?"
-the Sun
-thunder, lightning
-'heaven' in the clouds above the earth
-cause of famines or bountious prosperity
-source of love
-punisher of evil
-answers prayers
-does miracles
-author (perhaps by proxy) of the Bible - therefore the Bible should be true/valid (flood/exodus/water-to-wine...)
-helps those in need
-protects the weak
-always there when you need Him
-provides mental stability and mental strength
...
...Are we not able to test these as much as we test for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus?
Do we not find "no evidence" as much as we find "no evidence" for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus every time any "where God should be" becomes testable?How long did we search-where-we're-supposed-to-look for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus and find nothing? A few minutes? A few decades?
How long did we search-where-we're-supposed-to-look for God and find nothing? A few thousand years?When Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus are not found - do the goal posts shift accordingly? Or is the answer accepted?
When God is not found - do the goal posts shift accordingly? Or is the answer accepted?
How long or how many times have the goal posts shifted? Does this not indicate anything?Why is God treated differently?
What specific difference in "treating God differently" makes God "untestable" where Santa Claus or Sharkfin soup is "testable?"
What specific difference in "treating God differently" makes God's tests "unprovable" where Santa Claus's or Sharkfin soup's are "provable?"
What specific difference in "treating God differently" gives God a valid free-pass on how we apply the word "know" to every other "known to not exist" entity?Is the answer not "public opinion" or "social cultural ideas?"
Are these not terrible answers - logical failures - in order to assess a situation/question in a reasonable/rational way?These are the sorts of specific answer you'll have to provide if you want to contend that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly in regards to God's existence.
Your current simple claim to the contrary is not enough.

We're probably veering off topic with this one, but I wanted to clarify a couple of things.First off, speaking for myself and my experience of British society, I agree that it pays to be very careful in relation to freedom of speech - and indeed we are. In UK law, the requirements for hate speech laws to be breached are significant. It's not about causing offence - you have to both (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a protected class - eg a racial group; and also (b) you intend to stir up racial hatred or cause harassment, alarm or distress to someone (to paraphrase, genuinely put them in fear). This is where we've chosen to draw the line. It's further than in the States, but the laws are pretty much only used to keep in check the far right neo Nazi organisations we have. We allow those organisations to exist, meet, talk and publish material - but if they breach the hate speech laws, we can punish that.We have had these laws for quite a while now, and I haven't noticed any slippery slope. The line has stayed where we decided to draw it. We haven't abandoned freedom of speech, but have determined that it has a small number of limits, when we feel that the harm it could cause to protected groups is greater than the harm caused by drawing those limits.It's not a question of abandoning freedom of speech - quite the contrary. It's that we (and a lot of other countries) have drawn a narrow line where we think freedom of speech can cause more harm than it does to limit it slightly.My view is that life is rarely (possibly never) about absolutes. That's far too simplistic for me. It's more about balancing rights to make sure that in the 1 time in a 1000 we, as a society, feel that they cause more harm than good, we take a pragmatic view.Your mileage may differ.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

etc.One place that the experts may or may not mention is your own heart. If you have honestly looked and found nothing then you are 100% correct. You know that God does not exist. And being the nice and agreeable person that you are...your willingness to reconsider and examine your own views should more information become available... would say that someday you may well know that God exists. The evidence is internal. It is not objective and verifiable by humanity-at-large. Of course thats my opinion, anyway. The evidence shows that some of us found Him...within their own hearts. Others never found Him. Still, others found no reason to look for Him. Free Will is a sacred thing.

I’m very, very surprised and rather disappointed that you should make this comment. It should be obvious from my various contributions on this forum that I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to evolution and science in general . unless I am completely deluded or insane.Regardless, the demise of the Native Americans is undoubtedly an example of evolution in action. According to your Darwinist belief-system, species and sub-species have been coming and going for billions of years - a process that’s considered perfectly natural. But for some odd reason, when a sub-species of humans is threatened with extinction or is dominated by another sub-species of humans, you call it “genocide”. If the numbers of Native Americans were reduced by wolves and grizzly bears or an Ice Age, that would be “evolution” and “nature”, but if other humans are responsible, suddenly it’s “genocide” and “evil”. From your Darwinist perspective of reality, this makes no sense. Humans are just another species of organism among millions of others that have existed and are therefore subject to evolution, just like any other species. Why are you opposed to the natural process of human evolution?I’ve never come across words like “genocide” and “evil” in evolutionary science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I don’t know. What do you mean by “racial equality”? And how does the “equality” of organisms fit into your Darwinist belief-system? I’ve never come across any such concept in evolutionary science (and as you know, I’m very well-read in that area), so perhaps this “equality” thing is unscientific and a fig-tree of your imagination or some emotional response to reality.(Once upon a time, a mouse piped up and declared, “All animals are equal!” An elephant that was nearby heard this and asked the mouse, “Mouse, what do mean, “All animals are equal”? The mouse replied, “Actually, I don’t know - it just sounds good.”) I don’t know. What do you mean by “superior”?

So he's trying to promote his and your sub-species - why do you have a problem with that? Are you opposed to the survival and evolution of your own sub-species?

if you were as well read as you claim to be you'd know that there is no darwinist belief system, unless of course you're not very well read and are just a ignorant arrogant loud mouthed asshole.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Yeah, right - just like all those career women out there who insist they aren’t feminists!Cultural Marxism has become the dominant culture of Western civilization. Many folks aren’t even aware that they’re participating in cultural Marxism, as to them it’s simply the cultural norm.
For example, Western mainstream Catholicism (as opposed the official Church) is dominated by cultural Marxism. Your average Catholic priests gets indoctrinated into the Marxist religion as a result of attending university (as do most nave and gullible undergraduates). He then returns to his parish and like the brainwashed lemming that he is, starts preaching political correctness (aka Cultural Marxism) from the pulpit, calling it “Social Justice” or “the gospel in action”. Sadly, most students never grow out of the Loony Left crap they picked up at uni.If you believe in racial equality and support feminism, abortion or “gay” rights, you are a cultural Marxist. If you vote for the Democrats, you are almost certainly a cultural Marxist. If you live in Austin, Texas, you are almost certainly a cultural Marxist. If you are an educated Western atheist, you are almost certainly a cultural Marxist.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.