I Know That God Does Not Exist

That isn't my claim. I am only saying that it exists and that it either has an intelligent root cause or a completely non-intelligent root. Either view is subjective and can't be objectively proven.

Good ideas do not equate with "knowing". I'm not suggesting that it would help in understanding how consciousness evolved. It is about why consciousness evolved. Well firstly we cannot tell whether there was guidance or not, but I'm personally ok with no intervention. The question is why evolution at all. If it didn't have an intelligent root cause what is the process that allowed the evolutionary process to begin - and what was the process that kicked that process off and on and on and on. It is only partly about arguing for an intelligent root cause but I accept that the answer is subjective. However, the view that we are the result of mindless chemical processes that started from lifelessness is every bit as subjective.

I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?

I'm not saying that the processes can't have produced life. What I am claiming is the incredibly high degree of improbability that the processes themselves existed without an intelligent cause.

Sure, with our human level of intelligence. The processes exist. The question is why. Are they the result of an intelligent agent or are they the result of a regression of other processes from fortuitous blind chance?Stile claims he knows that the first option is wrong therefore he is also claiming that the second option is correct. His view is every bit as subjective as mine and isn't absolute knowledge of the truth.I do claim though that my conclusion is more probable, but that again is subjective.

Call it whatever you like but that doesn't make any point beyond the use of words. I am not arguing for a canned answer but simply against Stile's claim of knowledge. Stile's view is based on what we objectively know and stopping there. Essentially, I don't mean to put words in his keyboard, but we have learned a great deal about the evolutionary process, and then he claims that this proves that there is no intelligent agency without showing how evolution itself came into existence. ..and just how did the laws of mathematics become part of our existence?

..you too have a predetermined position. Mine is that we are the result of intelligence and yours is that we aren't. My view is subjective as is yours. Here is a secular site that outlines the high degree of improbability of life forming.
Odds of life emerging]

It's all made up. The view that we are all the result of a series of mindless processes is just as made up as is the idea that the processes had an intelligent root. Understanding "why" the processes exist is an entirely different question than actually understanding the processes. Yes, I have my beliefs about the fundamental nature of the intelligence but that has nothing to do with it. What we are talking about is an intelligent root to creation which includes everything from deism to any fundamentalist religious belief. It seems we have reached an agreement. Stile's views and my views are both subjective and neither one of us "know" that we are correct. That is been my point in this conversation. It depends on the question you are asking. Adding God as a cause does not add, or subtract, from the discovering or learning the math involved in our existence.If you are asking why the symmetry and logic behind math principles, we can then subjectively conclude either an intelligent root or a mindless one.

No I am not. I agree that my view is subjective and is not absolute knowledge as Stile claims his views are. I am fairly sure that we don't disagree on the stuff that you know. Our differences are in the stuff that we don't know but have subjective views on. I did kind a allow myself to get dragged off topic but, the fact remains that the improbability of life, IMHO, is more easily rationalized by assuming an external intelligence, (Which I agree does set up a new set of questions), than does natural processes driven by chance.

Stile's claim is that he "knows" God does not exist. That claim means that he believes his views are objective, and he attempts to give an objective rationale for his statement. It seems to me that we agree that he has failed to do so.

Hers is a quote from a reading we had in church this morning from Galations 5.

quote:

---

14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

---

There is nothing about having to give intellectual ascent to any specific doctrine or any doctrine at all for that matter.Let's look at this quote from the sheep and goats parable in Matthew 25.

quote:

---

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ”Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ”Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ”Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

---

Once again, nothing about believing in a specific deity. They performed these acts of loving others simply because they were responding to God's call on the hearts of all of us, and loving their neighbour as themselves.As a Christian it is my belief that the ability to give and receive love is a gift to all humanity. At the same time we all have the ability to make choices about how we use that gift. We can go from the extreme of living to a code of self love without concern for its impact on others. to living lives which are committed totally sacrificially loving others.When we perform acts of sacrificial love, we believe in, and follow God, whether we give intellectual ascent to His existence or not.IMHO, it appears to me that the atheist ringo provides a more accurate position of the Christian faith than does the Christian Dredge.

Do you agree that if we claim to "know" something then we are making the claim that we have objective knowledge in order to make that claim.I'm not at all clear on what objective evidence that Stile has that you are referring to.

Good point, but I can say the same thing for materialists who believe that we are simply the result of natural processes, driven presumably by mindless chance. We have considerable objective evidence for the evolutionary process. As a materialist I have to believe that the evolutionary process resulted from some other process. Of course that process would have required a third process and then............to the Big Bang which in itself required a process.My subjective explanation for a creative intelligence is that this creative intelligence is outside of time as we perceive it. I see it in a similar vein to the novel Flatland, where the book's characters experience existence in either 1, 2 or 3 dimensions spatially. We are like the residents of "Lineland". We only experience time on one line. I suggest that God is like a resident of "Spaceland" where there are 3 dimensions of time. In that case God could move around infinitely in time, just as we can move infinitely around in space, and therefore God exists timelessly and simply always was and always well be.That is simply my own philosophical view, with no evidence to support it, but it works for me.

We would agree that to for either of us to say we "know" that God doesn't exist would mean absolute knowledge. Using Stile's apparent definition I am pleased to announce that I "know" God does exist, but please, not in the way that Dredge defines Him.

So your response is simply to say I'm wrong but you aren't able to provide an explanation of what makes me wrong.