|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes: I maintain that you don't find Him because you don't want Him. When you go against the evidence, it's easy to "maintain" anything you want that's incorrect.I've told you many, many times - if God does exist - I certainly do want Him in my heart helping me - why wouldn't I? This doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that God exists in my heart - or yours.This doesn't change the fact that things with no evidence are irrational to posit. This doesn't change the fact that in a rational, reasonable sense - I know that God does not exist. You simply made an argument absolving you of any emotional responsibility. I accept any and all emotional responsibility.Now what happens to your argument? Do you alter it to adjust to the new infomation?Or do you dig in your heels - insist I must be lying, and continue to pout?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Dont you see it? The human hubris at asserting a low probability of God? Based on our microcosmic position?
You dare accuse others of hubris? You are the one with the hubris thinking your personal religious belief is correct in the face of all the evidence counter to it. You are the one that asserts some sort of secret knowledge based on anonymous bronze age and classical age writings. Writings that you manipulate to mean things that the plain reading does not make any mention of.You have the audacity to accuse those that do not claim any secret knowledge of hubris? Maybe you do not know what hubris means. Us nontheists do not claim to have the answers. We claim there is not enough data to understand how things began and there is no data to show there is a god like character. You call that hubris? Self-awareness is another word you should learn. as there are also many arguments supporting the Bible
And all this evidence has been shown to not be evidence at all.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thugpreacha writes: Jesus was God incarnate. Jesus did people things. Though many arguments have attempted to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence, the argument is far from conclusive. What I see here is an attempt to pull things along by mis-placed context. Let's parse it a bit:
Jesus was God incarnate. There is no evidence of this.
Jesus did people things. There is evidence of a man named Jesus doing people things during the time that the Bible is describing, yes - but you are correct, it is far from conclusive.
many arguments have attempted to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence There is no evidence of God's existence.It is therefore rational and reasonable to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence. Just as we do with Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs. If a claim is made without evidence - it is irrational.If a claim is made with evidence - it is rational. There are no claims of God's existence that come with any evidence for God's existence.They are all irrational. Therefore - from what we do have rational evidence for or "from what we know" - I know that God does not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The hubris is in thinking there's a creator of all things seen and unseen who wants to be buddy-buddy with you.
Dont you see it? The human hubris at asserting a low probability of God? Phat writes:
Evidence is lacking period. If you have any evidence, you have to be able to show us what it is.
Evidence is lacking, according to some secular arguments. Phat writes:
Again... again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again... show us the f**king arguments, just one or two teeny, tiny little arguments. Give us a chance to show you where they go wrong. Don't just assume that they are right and we are wrong.
Apologists disagree, and have many arguments countering this, however. Phat writes:
Nonsense. You are the one who throws out the Bible when it doesn't fit your apologists' pronouncements. I am the one who is trying to get you to respect the Bible.
This specific evidence against God first seeks to discredit the Bible itself. Phat writes:
No, the jury is not out. You were out to lunch when they came in and gave their verdict.
The jury is still out... Phat writes:
Again... I am the one who is supporting what the Bible says. If your apologists have any arguments worth listening to, present them.
... as there are also many arguments supporting the Bible. Phat writes:
Stop saying "argue" when you mean "assert". And stop asserting that nonsense. I have told you many times that it's a lie. I would argue that humans by nature are defiant towards the idea of an authority that is "alien".All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Not existing doesn't make it an irrational concept.
God is an inherently irrational concept.Unless you can provide any amount of evidence that suggests God actually exists? Stile writes:
The sharkfin soup is what defeats your whole argument. There is no place where it is "supposed to be". Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God.
Sharkfin soup on McDonald's menu is meant to show how we identify something that doesn't exist - look for where it's supposed to be and see that it's not there. Stile writes:
Still wrong. God is irrational - there is no evidence He exists.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: not existing doesn't make it an irrational concept. That's true.What makes it an irrational concept is the "no evidence" for it part. God is an inherently irrational concept.Because there is no evidence for the concept. The word "exist" doesn't have to be in there at all - it is irrelevant to the idea being irrational or not.
Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God. You're moving goalposts here. Sharkfin soup has evidence that it exists.God does not. What applies rationally to Sharkfin soup - because there's evidence for Sharkfin soup - does not apply rationally to God - because there's no evidence for God. You're trying to say they are analogous in this context - but they're not.One has evidence, the other does not. I only tried to say they are analogous in the way we identify if things exist or not: 1. Is the concept rational?2. If rational - where is it? 3. Look there to see if it's there. With Sharkfin soup: 1. Is the concept rational? - Yes.2. If rational - where is it? - It is on McDonald's menu. 3. Look there to see if it's there - It is not. Therefore I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu. With God: 1. Is the concept rational? - No.2. N/A 3. N/A I know that God does not exist. I am not shifting goalposts - it is the same process flow for both.You are the one attempting to say that point #1 for Sharkfin soup should say that point #2 or #3 for God is rational. It doesn't work that way. God doesn't make it to #2 or #3... just like Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs. The sharkfin soup is what defeats your whole argument. There is no place where it is "supposed to be". Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God. I never claimed that Sharkfin soup does not exist - do you think I did? Perhaps that is your error.I only claimed that "Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" to show an easy example of how we identify things not existing: looking where they are supposed to be. Sharkfin soup not being on McDonald's menu only allows me to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."I have never claimed to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist." ringo writes: Stile writes: God is irrational - there is no evidence He exists. Still wrong. Still correct - actually. Your critic is mis-applied, as I've described to you many times now.You seem to make the same error again and again - taking context from one aspect and attempting to use it on another aspect to imply that it's incorrect. This mis-application of ideas is why your identification of an error is incorect in itself. If you really think you have something here... then walk through the easy steps I've provided. How is Sharkfin soup's #1, #2, and #3 the same as God's #1, #2 and #3? They appear completely different to me - although they do both us the same process and goal posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
A concept doesn't need evidence. There is no evidence for unicorns but it is not an irrational concept. There's a whole realm of literature - science fiction, fantasy - built on concepts that are not evidenced but not irrational.
God is an inherently irrational concept.Because there is no evidence for the concept. Stile writes:
But you were looking in the wrong place for evidence of sharkfin soup. You can't claim there is "no evidence" if you're looking in the wrong place.
Sharkfin soup has evidence that it exists.God does not. Stile writes:
As long as you make the mistake of calling God an irrational concept, you will come up with the same wrong conclusion. How is Sharkfin soup's #1, #2, and #3 the same as God's #1, #2 and #3?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: A concept doesn't need evidence. There is no evidence for unicorns but it is not an irrational concept. There's a whole realm of literature - science fiction, fantasy - built on concepts that are not evidenced but not irrational. Remember our overall context - we're talking about things existing. I agree with you that "God exists" is a concept.I will not try to claim: I know that God does not exist as a concept. I am only claiming: I know that God does not exist. In this context: Sharkfin soup existing on McDonald's menu is a rational concept - Sharkfin soup and McDonald's menu both have evidence supporting their existence.Unicorns and God are are not rational concepts - Unicorns have no evidence for their existence. God has no evidence for His existence. I agree that I cannot rationally claim: I know that unicorns do not exist as a concept.I know that God does not exist as a concept. However, this has no impact on my being able to claim: I know that unicorns do not exist.I know that God does not exist. But you were looking in the wrong place for evidence of sharkfin soup. You can't claim there is "no evidence" if you're looking in the wrong place. Again - I didn't claim that sharkfin soup did not exist.I claimed that sharkfin soup did not exist on McDonald's menu. Where else should I look for such a claim other than McDonald's menu?
As long as you make the mistake of calling God an irrational concept, you will come up with the same wrong conclusion. You are, again, confusing contexts in an attempt to make a point that actually doesn't exist. To be clear: I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.I am claiming that God does not exist. To claim that God exists is an irrational concept - until there is evidence that God exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Again, rationality has nothing to do with evidence.
Sharkfin soup existing on McDonald's menu is a rational concept - Sharkfin soup and McDonald's menu both have evidence supporting their existence. Stile writes:
You are claiming (Message 1302) that, "God is an inherently irrational concept." It is not. I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.I am claiming that God does not exist. All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Again, rationality has nothing to do with evidence. Sure it does: believing that something exists without evidence that it exists is irrational - no?Believing that banana keys exist without evidence of banana keys is irrational - no? This is how "rationality" has something to do with "evidence."I agree that rationality isn't completely or only concerned with evidence. The word is rather versatile. However - to say it has "nothing to do with evidence" is clearly incorrect. And, the context of this argument keeps the word 'irrational' closely linked to 'evidence.'
You are claiming (Message 1302) that, "God is an inherently irrational concept." It is not. In the context where the concept is concerning God's existence - yes, it is.As is the context of Message 1302. My very next line was "Unless you can provide any amount of evidence that suggests God actually exists?" Clearly the context I was thinking of revolved around God's actual existence. Again, to be clear again: I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.I am claiming that God does not exist. Perhaps my older context wasn't clear. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, maybe you missed it - it doesn't matter.There's nothing wrong with clarifying when confusion occurs. You can accept this clarification - upon which the argument still stands.Or you can cling to the incorrect interpretation - which has nothing to do with the argument, although the more you chase an obvious strawman, the weaker your credibility becomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Believing that the concept is real may be irrational. The concept itself is not. You're moving the goalposts again. believing that something exists without evidence that it exists is irrational - no?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ringo writes: Believing that the concept is real may be irrational. The concept itself is not. You're moving the goalposts again. I've explained how this is not applicable and how I'm not moving goalposts. Again, see my #1, #2, and #3 items for sharkfin soup and God and how they apply:
quote: These are my goalposts.They haven't moved from the first post in this thread. If you think they've moved, feel free to show how.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You have not explained in any way how the concept of God is inherently irrational. You just keep asserting it. If you want to redefine irrational" along with "know", etc., it's going to be difficult to figure out what your "context" is. I've explained how this is not applicable and how I'm not moving goalposts. As long as the logic is internally consistent, the concept of God is not irrational. Thus, it is not different from the concept of sharkfin soup. If you contrive to search only in places where you don't expect to find them, you can claim non-existence of either, but your claim will not be very convincing.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 627 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
The concept belongs to the antiquity of our species, the ancient, superstitious times. Volcanoes spewing lava? Lightning blasting trees and houses? People falling in love with people they really shouldn't? Senseless evil? Beautiful rainbow? Just imagine a Vulcan hammering away at his forge, a Jupiter throwing thunderbolts, a Cupid firing arrows, a Beelzebub scheming to tempt humanity, a Voice from the heavens telling Noah someone powerful has made a deal with him and his descendants . . .
It's irrational. It's powerful, moving stories, but it's irrational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I don’t have a definition for omniscient. I don't know what it means for God to be omniscient.
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?
Pretty vague.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024