I Know That God Does Not Exist

Well once again you've assumed your premise - that it's irrational to leave any room for doubt. But I think it's irrational not to, give the scope of what we don't yet know, the paucity of our instruments, the scale of the search area and the determination of the deity to not be found. The argument is only about this meaning of 'know' and as soon as you get to that point you're basically arguing about semantics which I always find a waste of my life. You just get down to how we can know anything.The best I can do for you is say that the rational hypothesis given the lack of evidence is that a deistic god doesn't exist. The only way to falsify that is to find it. You can't prove he doesn't exist and without that, you're left messing around with the meaning of words.

Essentially then what you are saying is that there *should* be no such thing as believers and non believers. Everyone would either accept the evidence or reject it. You examined it and rejected it and thus ascribe no right to "believers" to arrive at different conclusions than you did. Effectively God is a product of the human mind in your world view. I can only tell you that I believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand my premise?
I've repeated the first post in this thread many times, where I note how room for doubt is included in all knowledge. I'm not arguming semantics.
I clearly defined and have used the single definition for my terms (which align with the normal usage of such terms) in the first post.
It's you who's arguing semantics that the word "know" should have a different meaning when discussing God.I get it... I really do.
It's ingrained in anyone raised in a historically Christian, modern culture (North America, most of Europe, the UK...)
We've been socially and traditionally taught that "God" (Christian or a non-observable deity or whatever) is a special case and He gets free passes left and right.
I'm simply pointing out that there's no reason to give God a free pass, and if we don't - we end up knowing that God does not exist.I'll try one more time to show you the free pass you're inserting with no valid reason behind it: Example 1: Tangle and Stile discussing a deity (a non-observable deity):Stile: I know that a deity does not exist.
Tangle: Are you sure? You have not searched every where and every when... perhaps evidence for such a deity exists in some where or some when.
Stile: But we have tested the deity existing for the where's and when's we have available to us. Also, this fishbowl* of information available to us expands all the time. In the many, many recent expansions, we know that the deity does not exist. This allows us to know that expanding our fishbowl even further will produce similar results - that we will still know the deity does not exist. Perhaps - yes - one day we may find a new where and a new when where the deity actually exists - but such doubt is included with all knowledge and any massive upheaval overturning thousands of years of observations and fishbowl-expansions can rationally be ignored until evidence pointing in that direction is uncovered.
Tangle: Stop playing semantics. The lack of evidence for this deistic God implies that we don't know if it exists or not.
Stile: What? That's just crazy. If we remain rational about our analysis - we can easily say we know the deistic God does not exist. Example 2: Tangle and Stile discussing keys being bananas:Stile: I know that my keys are not bananas.
Tangle: Are you sure? You have not searched every where and every when... perhaps evidence for your keys being bananas exist in some where or some when.
Stile: But we have tested my keys being bananas for the where's and when's we have available to us. Also, this fishbowl* of information available to us expands all the time. In the many, many recent expansions, we know that my keys are still not bananas. This allows us to know that expanding our fishbowl even further will produce similar results - that we will still know my keys are not bananas. Perhaps - yes - one day we may find a new where and a new when when my keys actually are bananas - but such doubt is included with all knowledge and any massive upheaval overturning thousands of years of observations and fishbowl-expansions can rationally be ignored until evidence pointing in that direction is uncovered.
Tangle: Stop playing semantics. The lack of evidence for your keys being bananas implies that we don't know if your keys are bananas or not.
Stile: What? That's just crazy. If we remain rational about our analysis - we can easily say we know my keys are not bananas.This isn't semantics, Tangle.
It's a straight-forward argument on how we know anything and simply applying that same concept to a deity.Now, I'm assuming that you do actually understand why we can say my keys aren't bananas.
So - now you have a problem, since the same method is used for both:What's the difference in the two examples?
What's the difference between ignoring the irrational possibility that a non-observable deity exists and ignoring the irrational possibility that a non-observable set of banana-keys exists?If you can't identify a difference - it is you who is playing semantics - protecting a subjective feeling of "you can't expand your fishbowl!" for God, but not protecting such a subjective feeling for my keys being bananas.It is a culturally, traditionally, socially ingrained subjective feeling... and you're falling into it's trap.
If you remain rational and reasonable... the conclusion that we know a deity does not exist is unavoidable.
Or, at least, no one has been able to offer up a rational, reasonable argument to the contrary so far.This is why I Know That God Does Not Exist.*for more information on what's meant by "fishbowl," feel free to peruse this old thread: Message 1121

The larger question is why you were unable to accept God.

Perhaps it was because you put limits on his character. You limited Him to how you thought He *should* be.

Perhaps you thought that you knew him or What it was that you should be looking for.

​

or perhaps for you He simply does not exist. But not for everyone.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

You find him on a personal, subjective, irrational level - and this is perfectly fine.
If we look in exactly the same place on an objective, rational level - we don't find God there. We just find people doing people-things.The whole point to this argument of "I Know God Does Not Exist" is to remain rational.I fully understand (and even endorse, actually) the idea of believing in God on a personal, subjective level when it's helpful to the individual.
This just has no bearing on what we can know about reality in a rational sense. No.
The problem is that it's a subjective, personal "finding."
This is proven by the claim you're making of "not looking hard enough."
If it was, actually, rational - I wouldn't have to look hard at all - you could show me and I'd see the same thing as you. Like my keys not being bananas.But you can't do this - which is what makes it subjective and personal.
Again - subjective and personal is huge and very powerful and I endorse it - for individual mental health.
However - if we're talking about rational claims on our knowledge about reality - there's no place for subjective, personal ideas - only rational, reasonable ideas - which means in this context it's not valid for you, personally, to "see God" in people - in has no meaning and is not persuasive.It's like looking at a blue sky... but someone comes by and talks about how they love green skies and the sky is looking very green to them today and it's such a beautiful day.
...But the sky's blue that day. No amount of "feeling the green-ness" will change the actual colour of the sky that day.

Not quite.
I actually endorse and think people *should* believe in God where it benefits their mental health on a personal level.However - if we're going to move into the context of rational, reasonable claims about reality... I see no reason to include personal, subjective feelings to add 'reasonable doubt' to a conclusion. Only if we're all trying to determine rational, reasonable conclusions about reality - which is the context of this thread. I think believers have full rights to believe.
I just don't think believers have any rights to allow their beliefs to bleed into rational, reasonable conclusion about reality. If we did that, we can't know anything and we end up with banana keys. This is true, but only incidentally.
It's actually irrelevant to the argument of this thread. That is a perfectly acceptable response.
You're allowed to believe anything you'd like.
In fact - much human progress started with someone irrationally 'believing' something and following their heart.If no one ever dreamed of "crossing" the sea... the vikings would never have found North America.

I agree that my views as I expressed them were subjective. On one level they are personal. It is personal as well fro millions of others.I don't agree that it is irrational. We exist. We have consciousness. We have intelligence. We understand morality. Is it any more rational to believe that we are the result of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes or of a conscious intelligent root for the processes involved in the formation of life as we know it.My views may be subjective but that doesn't make them wrong. In the case of Christianity I do objectively know that the NT writers claimed that they had objective evidence of the resurrection. I subjectively believe them. You subjectively don't believe them. Neither of us objectively know the truth.

When you say "I look for God in the hearts of people like Dale Lang and I find Him there. I look for God in the hearts of people like Jean Vanier and I find Him there. I look for God in human activities such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..." you are speaking poetically, not literally.The fact that people may do good is not evidence that there is a deity.

Some of it's semantics and some of it is poor logic. No. You can't mix up deistic gods and theistic ones. It's the intervention that turns the theistic god into Santa. He becomes observable.A non interventionist god outside time and space can't be observed - and incidentally, makes himself irrelevant.I don't accept that it is irrational to leave a tiny space for that possibility. I think the opposite; it's irrational not too.As for our fishbowl - in the scheme of things I doubt we know much more than our stone age friends about the outside of it yet.I'm not even going to discuss keys and bananas! 'fraid not. Apart from conflating deism and theism, you're missing the fact that I'm an atheist - I *know* that gods of any kind don't exist. All I'm saying is that word ”know’ is incorrect usage. Like most atheists I feel that rationally there has to be a small element of doubt, that last 0.000001% is more like a belief. It's certainly not knowledge.Percy is a deist may be he can help you understand that position.

At least one of the verses is wrong. We already know, since Genesis 3, that God is capable of bending the truth. You really ought to read the Bible before you bumble into Bible discussions. Take your own advice.

So, is that Jesus' left-handed way of admitting that the serpent in Genesis 3 was right?

If you could identify some, that would be a start. If something cannot be observed - it is an irrational concept.
That is, you cannot have any evidence to think such a thing may even exist in the first place - because you can't observe it.
Therefore, in a rational, reasonable analysis of the evidence in order to form a conclusion about "knowing" something in reality - such an irrational concept is rightly ignored. I didn't think you could identify a difference - because there isn't one!
If you really think non interventionist gods should be treated differently than banana keys - make your case.
Without making your case - your position has no weight. I don't care who or what labels themselves as whatever - what does this matter about the argument? Yes, I understand you're saying this.
What you're not doing is showing it.
In fact - you provided me with a very solid rebuttal against it - one that you seem to avoid at all costs.
You don't get to do that and continue to claim you're correct. You do understand that we don't *really* know anything at all - right? That *everything* is only based upon the information available to us?
Such doubt is included in all knowledge.Such doubt is described in the first 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.

---

Understanding the deist position is irrelevant to my argument that I Know God Does Not Exist.
Unless deists use their own dictionary with different meanings for words?

Okay. Nope.
I don't put limits on God. God could be whatever He is - if He existed.
What sort of limits do you think I'm putting on Him? Nope.
I'm open to any and all God(s) contacting me - regardless of my previous-modes-of-contact or previous preconceptions.I may still miss it - I'm not infallible.
But so far - nothing ever has. Not for everyone indeed.
Only for those who decide to look at the God situation rationally and reasonably.I myself am quite capable of having an irrational side and a rational side within my mind.
However - when I'm attempting to make a claim about reality - then it's been proven that the irrational side is unreliable and usually wrong. The rational side, however, always gets closer and closer to truth. Which is why we say we "know things" when we do a rational analysis.From this thread - if we move into a context of rationally and reasonably analyzing reality - the inevitable conclusion is that We Know God Does Not Exist.
You can read the thread as well as I can - any and all of those that disagree are not being consistent and rational so far. Therefore, the statement stands. For everyone (within it's scope of rational context.)

That POV though assumes that the only way that we can perceive God is through physicality as perceived by our 5 senses. I subjectively believe that my wife loves me and find confirmation of that by how she treats me. I believe that God works through the hearts of humans and I find that confirmed by the actions of people who live out lives of altruistic sacrificial love of others.
I agree that my view is subjective but I don't see it as poetic. I just see it as the still small voice of God in all of us that we can respond to or reject.

Yes, it is more rational.
There is evidence for the latter, and none for the former.The definition/context of "irrational" for this thread is: A concept that is claimed to exist when no evidence for the claim exists in the first place.Do you disagree that this definition is a normal definition for the word "irrational?"Do you disagree that the idea that God exists even though we have no evidence for God fits this description of "irrational?"
-considering that no evidence exists for claiming God exists in the first place?Do you disagree that there is evidence for us existing as a result of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes?
-considering that all the evidence we've gathered about our coming-to-be is that of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes?I understand that the word "irrational" can sometimes be used to mean "silly" or "stupid."
I am not using it in that context - and I agree that the idea is not "irrational" along such definitions.
And I apologize for the easy-enough-to-make-conflation here - but I don't see any way around it.It's simply easier to use the word "irrational" rather than write out "a concept that is claimed to exist when no-evidence-for-the-claim exists in the first place" every time.
Do you know of another word that better describes that phrase/idea rather than "irrational?"I am open to using another word, if one is better suited for that task. Absolutely true.
My point is, however, that this also doesn't give them any weight in a rational analysis. This is true. You do subjectively believe them.
I, however, objectively do not believe them - there are also objective contradictions within the NT writer's works.
This gives evidence that they were not telling "the truth" at all times. And we're back to the same concept:
In this sense - none of us ever objectively know the truth about anything. Remember?

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.

---

However, if want to objectively know what we can, by objectively analyzing the available evidence - we can know things.
And if we apply this method to God - then the conclusion becomes I Know That God Does Not Exist.