I Know That God Does Not Exist

What units are you using to measure comlexity?

Sorry, but your claim is illogical and unscientific and no psychiatrist would agree with you: One vision and one mysterious voice (known as a locution) over a period of several decades hardly represent symptoms of mental illness - especially when the vision very accurately foretold a future event and when the mysterious voice saved my life. On the other hand, someone who is experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices due to mental illness (schizophrenia, for example) does so on a regular basis.
Furthermore the hallucinations and voices are meaningless - they certainly don’t predict the future or save anyone’s life.When confronted with miracles, atheists like you find themselves completely out of their depth and discombobulated, hence the irrational reactions. You can run and hide from aspects of reality that you don’t want to face up to, but your phobia strongly suggests you have no love for truth. The problem for you is, the truth eventually catches up with everyone.

Depends on one's definition of "omniscient", I guess.

Yep, I had absolutely no idea what you meant by "alter boy" . lol! Anyhow, now at least you know how to spell "altar".

Other than a priest have you ever talked to anyone about this? A real medical professional type?Such occurrences are not unknown to the pshryncs and there may be some help for your condition. You may not have to suffer these delusions any longer with therapy.

My words passed straight through your head, in one ear and out the other, without hitting anything in between.How droll.

What would your definition be?
The dictionary definition is some version of "all knowing". Pretty straight forward. Little or no room for ambiguity. So how would you define the word?

If it is compelling to you, but not all reasonable reviews... then it is not "evidence."
Evidence is compelling to all reasonable reviews. Always. The way you have evidence is by having objective criteria support your ideas.Like the way this post is evidence that Stile posts at EvC.
No one can reasonably argue with it. If this is true, then God is equivalent to any imagined idea.
And hence there is no evidence to suggest that He exists in reality.It is unreasonable to allow a non-evidenced idea affect the level of doubt placed in something we can "know."Therefore - I still know that God does not exist.

You did not have evidence.
Evidence can never be subjective.You seem to be confusing "evidence" with the idea that "something-convinced-me-that-it-is-true."
They are not the same thing.What you had was "something that convinced Phat."
Which is fine.

How so?If God actually does exist "in our hearts" - then shouldn't there be a significantly-sized group of people who find God in their heart and therefore act nicer/better/more-Godly than others?This can, and has, been checked.There is no such significantly-sized group of people.
There are also equally-insignificantly-sized groups of people that are nicer/better/more-Godly than others and do not find God "in their hearts."The check is complete - the evidence is that there is no God in our hearts.It may (irrationally) be wrong - but this, again, will be identified with evidence if true.Until then - You've only added to the conclusion that I know that God does not exist. That's nice.
I propose that the reason I never found Him is because He doesn't exist. God doesn't want me to protect my family?
This doesn't seem like a God anyone should try to "unblock."

True. Not true.I did explain it, but I didn't invent it.
"Know" has 2 big main meanings in common language.1. "Know" - the idea that one has checked and verified against evidence to ensure that the conclusion is as-correct-as-possible.
-this is as I've described the word "know."2. "Know" - the idea that one has an opinion on a matter. Equivalent to saying "I think..."I did not invent the first definition for the word.
But I did explain it, again here:

quote:

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

​

How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

​

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

​

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.

---

If you think this definition "has little value" - that's up to you, or you can explain why you think such a thing.

This thread is about knowing God does not exist.
Therefore, the context of the word "irrationality" is in knowing-things.Specifically: Something is "irrational" if you claim it to be true without any evidence to support the claim in the first placeSynonyms:
Irrational/unreasonableI wasn't intending to get too deep into an AI discussion in this thread. I think I understand what you mean here - and I agree.
My defense would be: Does it matter if one is unbiased if they are correct?Example: Stile claims: EvC mainly uses a black-and-blue color scheme.
-I may very well be biased
-but - who cares? - it's also objectively correct regardless of anyone's bias.Can this be applied to "programming irrationality into AI?"
-I don't know
-maybe, maybe not
-lots of things can be programmed
-some things cannot be programmed
-many things I didn't think could be programmed, have been programmed
-programming's abilities grow as we grow in our needs/requirements/understandingEdited by Stile, : No reason given.

Yes, you have.
And we've looked there.
There is no evidence of God. But we an see the effect of thoughts.
Like me thinking of typing and submitting this post - the effect is that you can see this post.
You cannot see my thought.
But you can certainly see it's effects.How do we "see God?" or "see the effects of God?" Okay. He is?
How?
All the evidence shows is that people develop rules to live in social groups.
Some of those rules are so basic that they are required for social grouping.Even rats follow "the Golden Rule" within their social circles:
Do Rats Feel Empathy?

quote:

---

A new study finds rats prefer helping others over eating sweets.

---

Exactly as defined by "treat others as you want to be treated."

I didn't say that the definition has little value. I said that conclusions you have drawn from it have little value."As-correct-as-possible" is subjective - i.e. you can choose any convenient stopping point. Essentially, you're doing the same thing as Faith does: You're deciding arbitrarily that you've looked enough. That's "enough" to form an opinion but it isn't necessarily enough to "know".

I did decide that "enough" was enough - yes.But only in comparison to other things where we've found "enough" to be enough.Again:Searching and finding nothing for Sharkfin Soup on McDonald's menu?
-searched for 5 minutes, found nothing
-conclusion: "I know that Sharkfin Soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."Searching and finding nothing for Santa Claus?
-searched for decades? a few hundred of years?
-conclusion: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."Searching and finding nothing for God?
-searched for hundreds of years? a few thousand years?
-conclusion: "I know that God does not exist."We have, in fact, searched for God's existence a great deal more and a great deal longer than the vast majority of other non-evidenced concepts we all seem just fine with saying we know they do not exist.Applying the same criteria to God in a reasonable and rational manner - we end up that "enough" has been enough.You are free to think otherwise.
You are also free to explain how thinking otherwise should be considered reasonable or rational (...if you can think of anything?)But this conclusion has as much value as knowing:
-Sharkfin Soup does not exist on McDonald's menu
-Santa Claus does not exist
-my keys are not bananas
-my chair is not a crab
-any other "irrational" idea(where "irrational" is: an idea that is proposed to exist with no evidence to support the idea in the first place.)If you think there's no value in being able to consistently and reasonably ignore irrational ideas... that's up to you.
But go ahead and enjoy your banana-keys and crab-chairs.