I Know That God Does Not Exist

Maybe it would help if you told us where you think god is supposed to be, what effects you expect to see and what you expect to find - with a non-interventionist god.

The problem here is that you want to define 'know' to mean what you want it to mean. I'm not accepting your premise. And it's based merely on word play.

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.

Complexity all the way down...I think that's pretty damn cool.

You like to imagine yourself as a preacher now don't you?All the bollox you're spouting these days and the way you kowtowed to that imbecile and fraudster ICANT - does it give you some sort of self importance? Is it your way out of your humdrum and troubled life? What is it?

Your problem is that the idea of a god *is* rational. In another context we'd call it a hypothesis.We then look for evidence - *that's* where it fails.But because we can't know whether we've looked for evidence in every place that it should be, we can never absolutely know. We can just form a reasonable conclusion based what we do know.

And still he gets it wrong....evidence and facts are the gold standard for KNOWLEDGE. And are therefore worthless. The book is all you've got but even you accept that it's myth and primitive storytelling so it's a puzzle why you're so hung up on trying to argue on a factual basis - the only facts you have confirm its fiction.You really should just claim it to be a mystery which has been personally revealed to you by the voice in your head and get on with preaching to your converted.

I *have* explained. The idea that the universe has been created by some super-powerful body that we traditionally call a god isn't intrinsically irrational. Just very unlikely. We do not know that. We may never know that.All we can say is that there is insufficient evidence to support the God hypothesis and that so far the more we learn, the less likely it is to be correct. Belief is not rational. Without sufficient evidence I see no reason to accept the god hypothesis so I don't. *That's* rational. Nevertheless, it's still a possibility that I'm wrong. That's also rational. We don't know, we form a provisional conclusion. Anything more becomes a belief. Which is irrational.

I know what you're saying, I disagree and I've said why.As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed.

I didn't say it was an irrational hypothesis - it's certainly rational. Whether it can every be tested is another matter - it seems doubtful, but it's all beyond my pay grade.But it seems equally reasonable to me to say that the god hypothesis is rational in that it's a belief shared by billions who claim personal experience of it and there's a host of philosophical argument that can be used to support it. (None of which impresses me at all but that's my belief at work.)All Stile is doing is attempting to rule out a possibility of a god by fiddling around with words. That impresses me even less.A the moment we don't possess the data to rule a non-interventionist god thing out entirely, it must remain a a possibility regardless of how slight.

I didn't say that because billions of people believe something so it must be true, I said that billions of people claim to have personal experience of god which they claim as evidence. I don't think it is but dismissing it out of hand is not rational. Of course there is; there are several perfectly respectable philosophical arguments that conclude the existence of a god - you (and I) say that they are wrong and have a different set of arguments. It doesn't disprove them and it certainly doesn't make them irrational.According to your position, if there are reasonable arguments for a hypothesis, then it's reasonable to have one.

Oh stop it. You know the arguments, they're hundreds - some thousands - of years old and still stand as reasonable, logical constructs, even though we both think they are wrong. This is the only point that matters - the rest is word play. We haven't yet begun the search, we don't even know how, where or what to search. We're only just left the cave blinking - we're baies just discovering the world. We *know* sod all.

I think this is intellectually dishonest. There are several well established, respectable, philosophical arguments that we have objections to but nevertheless are reasonable positions. We can argue against them but we can't disprove them in a scientific sense so they remain as hypotheses. Awaiting evidence. This is a very silly thing to say. We know that the FSG is a made up construct to make a particular point, we suspect that gods are made up for the same reason but we don't actually know that.

Hmm, then how can you *know* for sure? Your argument is or was that the concept of an non-interventionist deity is irrational. And being irrational leads you to *know* that such a being does not exist.But there are several perfectly rational, reasonable and respectable philosophical arguments for the existence of such a god.Existence of God - WikipediaAs these arguments are rational - though we both believe them to be wrong - how can your position stand?

But I'm saying I don't know for sure. You're the guy with certainty. I suggest you prepare for your prize then. Well now your just mangling words. So now you've abandoned the irrational argument entirely (which is sensible) and are depending once again on lack of physical evidence.But of course the fact that we've looked and not found does not mean that we never will. We haven't actually started yet - we've not gone much beyond our tiny little planet let alone had a peekinto the 5th dimension. But you've abandoned the irrational argument? Wtf?