I Know That God Does Not Exist

Christian hate apparently is wider spread than I thought. Is there anything human that you people don't hate?

quote:

---

Good point, but I can say the same thing for materialists...

---

And if you did you would be telling a falsehood. You really should stop repeating this misrepresentation.

quote:

---

My subjective explanation for a creative intelligence is that this creative intelligence is outside of time as we perceive it.

---

That is obviously not an explanation (unless you think that being “outside time” automatically makes a being intelligent, conscious and moral). Worse, it only creates more problems for your claims.

quote:

---

That is simply my own philosophical view, with no evidence to support it, but it works for me

---

Because you don’t care that it doesn’t work at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This one is funny. Nope. He reflects the zeitgeist of modern capitalism. He loved taking the money for years and years. Reaganism and Thatchertism and all that. Thats the modern zeitgeist. Rake in undeserved money.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

That would be how I would define knowledge but Stile's definition seems to be slightly broader. He seems to be counting lack of objective evidence as objective evidence. I think that's valid in this case.Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist.

I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident.

The problem he has is that if he thinks that we can't actually know anything absolutely then he can't say he's an atheist, because that's a binary position. There's no room for any doubt.Personally I think it's a 'beyond reasonable doubt position. The step to absolute certainty becomes a belief - although a reasonable one.

I agree.I have explained at one time or another that I would only use "know" for something that I can demonstrate - e.g. I know how to bake a cake, and when I show you the evidence, you will agree that I know.I would particularly avoid using "know" in a constroversial example like this one. This is the perfect place to be explicit about our confidence level.

What has believing in existence got to do with it? We could walk humbly with neutrinos before we knew they existed. We can walk humbly with leprechauns whether they exist or not. Ask Micah.Ask Jesus. According to Him, the ones who inherit the kingdom are NOT the ones that mouth, "Lord! Lord!" They're the ones who do the right thing, whether they think they're doing it "for Jesus" or not. And Jesus said that the commandments boil down to loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself.So, how do you go about loving God? Presumably, those who inherit the kingdom are those who love God - and those who inherit the kingdom are those who love their neighbours. How is it different? It's what Jesus taught, as I have quoted. You can ridicule Him all you want and you can claim that He's easy to refute all you want.

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.

It's a C. S. Lewis sort of view. But as there's no evidence for it...

Fair enough. It is philosophical as was much of what Lewis believed.

quote:

---

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

---

It should be obvious. You don’t get to invent your opponent’s position. Indeed, believing that human morality, intelligence and consciousness can be attribute to a cause which shares none of those properties does not invite an infinite regress. Insisting that the cause must also share those properties does. And that, too, would be obvious if you cared to consider why the suggestion of an infinite regress came up.And I for one do not believe in an infinite regress.Funny how you fail to address the more important point. How do you account for the morality, intelligence and consciousness of your hypothetical creator? Calling it timeless doesn’t do that. At all.

If it is obvious then tell me. What is the non-intelligent process that began the evolutionary process? Just give me one process without me even asking where that process came from. I don't claim to be able to. A timeless deity was not about answering that question and of course doesn't explain it at all. It is faith. As Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody".

quote:

---

If it is obvious then tell me. What is the non-intelligent process that began the evolutionary process?

---

Interesting that you should ask a question which doesn’t touch on the reasons why the points are obvious - and one I’ve already answered in this thread.But to explain why the points are obvious.Inventing positions for your opponents is less than honest and does nothing to refute their actual positions.Attributing human morality to a moral creator begs the question of where that creator got it’s morality from. Without any hint of an answer to that - indeed with the implicit rejection of other causes - a moral creator is the obvious answer. Thus you invite an infinite regress. Attributing human morality to causes that are not themselves moral obviously does not beg the question. The regress doesn’t even get started.

quote:

---

Just give me one process without me even asking where that process came from.

---

What you ask doesn’t matter. You can’t force me into believing an infinite regress just by asking questions. And I don’t even need to evade the questions the way you do. So, I’ll suggest this. The process that formed our universe is a consequence of the existence of space-time.

quote:

---

I don't claim to be able to. A timeless deity was not about answering that question and of course doesn't explain it at all.

---

That isn’t what you said in Message 897: Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.