I Know That God Does Not Exist

But *you* claim to know! But *you* tell me that you don't see evidence where you would expect to find it. I'm simply asking what evidence that would be and where you would expect to find it. If you can't tell me I'm going to ask how can you then know.

no that is not something I believe. I do however accept that it is currently the theory that is best supported by the available evidence. natural processes.

of course they do, haven't you seen Crocodile Dundee? I'm not calling christians sister-fucking hillbillies, I'm calling racists sister-fucking hillbillies. When you get people whining about culrural marxism or "the fairy tale of racial equality" invariably it come downs to some inbred cousin-humper who's got his diaper full because he can't call people the N word.

Probably not. We will be the AI.Even with the entire world-wide internet wired to the tip of our tongues there will still be room for human irrationality, like putting pineapple on a pizza.Resistance is futile.

And if I can know that unicorns exist, then I can know that God exists for the same reasons. You can make any argument "rational" by slapping an "if" in front of it and you can make anything exist by defining it as existing.But you're just rigging the game so you can't lose.

It doesn't have to be conclusive to be objective. On the contrary, all of the evidence points to natural processes leading to natural processes leading to natural processes leading to natural processes leading to natural processes leading to natural processes.... We are searching reality. There is always a default position: No unicorns without evidence for unicorns, no spooks without evidence for spooks. That's a good excuse for filling your argument with convoluted made-up nonsense but it isn't very useful when dealing with reality. Reality tends to confirm Occam.

Sure, but Stile says He "knows" which IMHO asserts that his evidence is conclusive. What evidence is that, and is it subjective or objective? For that matter ultimately there has to be either an intelligent or a non-intelligent root for that string of processes regardless of how far back you want to go. But there is evidence for a creative intelligence. Intelligent life itself is subjective evidence.There are also the Gospel stories. We have the objective evidence that they exist and we subjectively decide whether or not to believe them. But it certainly doesn't allow Stile to be correct in saying he knows that "God" doesn't exist. For that matter is the simplest solution, a virtually infinite number of untraceable lucky processes or the concept of theirebeing a pre-existing intelligence that is responsible for life?

While I realize that its badf form to use "The Book" to prove "The Book" I will bring up a common apologist argument in defense of The Good Book. Allow Me..... The only evidence that we have for the book is what is written and recorded over the years. The jury is out concerning specific authors and the motives of said authors, but speculations are allowed for the purposes of this hearing. In addition, I submit that the Believers themselves are evidence for some effects claimed from the God within the book via the Holy Spirit. One side would say Spiritual Impartation while the other side would call it Mass Delusion.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

It’s an odd defence.The assertion that God’s existence is obvious is obviously false. But the book goes on to falsely attack anyone who dares say so.So this is more evidence that it’s a scam. And a rather nasty-minded one at this point.

I think he's made it clear that it's the current conclusion, not the "ultimate" conclusion. No objective conclusion is ever final in the sense that it can not be altered by new evidence. Evidence is not subjective.All of the evidence we have points only to natural processes. How could evidence ever point to something unnatural? Why? If you can say "the buck stops here" at your intelligent cause, why can't the buck stop somewhere else? There is evidence of human intelligence. And as I have said before, the evidence shows that intelligence can only manipulate natural processes. It can not create new processes except from existing processes. What we know about intelligence can not point to an ultimate origin of processes. There's no such thing as subjective evidence. You don't get your own private evidence. Evidence must be evident to everybody. We also have Treasure Island. We have the objective evidence that it exists. And furthermore, we have objective evidence of how it came to exist, in Stevenson's own words, which puts it well ahead of the Gospel stories in authenticity. The simplest solution is known processes, as opposed to speculation about the unknown.

Believers are pretty conclusive evidence that they have nothing special, no imparted wisdom, no exemplary morality, etc.

The book is only attacking anyone who outright rejects the possibility of God and who flaunts their freedom in a flesh driven manner. We could go there, but Stile is the topic originator and (he)seems a very nice atheist, so I wont start anything. Keep in mind that one side believes the book to be inspired by this God Whom we cant seem to be able to objectively prove to your satisfaction.

All of them? I have seen some rather inspiring sermons...perhaps we can start a new topic on Inspired Sermons and you can attempt to debunk the logic of them.

quote:

---

The book is only attacking anyone who outright rejects the possibility of God and who flaunts their freedom in a flesh driven manner.

---

Does it? It seems to me to be saying that everyone knows that God exists, so everyone who denies it deserves to be accused of dishonesty.

quote:

---

Keep in mind that one side believes the book to be inspired by this God Whom we cant seem to be able to objectively prove to your satisfaction.

---

Keep in mind, that while the general idea of inspiration is not as obviously false as the inerrantist silliness, it’s got some serious problems.

Every religion has adherents who are decent people and atheists can be decent people too. You keep claiming that believers themselves are evidence that the belief is valid; I'm saying there is no reliable correlation between belief and behaviour. Believers can use their belief to justify the vilest behaviour. Since the purpose of sermons is to inspire believers, that's hardly surprising. The logic of sermons? You might want to think a little longer about that.