I Know That God Does Not Exist

They "found" Cold Fusion.They looked for, and did not find, the Luminiferous Ether.We know there is no Cold Fusion.We know there is no Luminiferous Ether.Your thinking on this issue is simply not rational.

But belief on the basis of faith is not a rational decision.Of course, people do many things on a non-rational basis, from choosing a favorite music to deciding what gift to give someone for a birthday. . .

Why do you say I would be dead without a soul? The heart pumps, the brain neurons fire, the adrenals secrete hormones all from physical processes. Why would these stop if my (alleged) soul were to suddenly vanish?

Michelson and Morley looked for the Luminiferous Ether and did not find it. It's not there.At least we got you to admit that you can demonstrate that something isn't there by looking for it and not finding it.

The problem is that if someone says their deity somehow interacts with us, it's easy to test and show that nothing's happening; and if they say their deity doesn't pay any attention to us, then there's nothing to talk about.

At least you agree that belief in a deity is irrational! I believe I've also shown that the idea of a deity itself (how, precisely, is having an idea of a deity different from believing in a deity?) is irrational, in earlier posts. And you haven't responded.But anyway, let's continue. One idea of a deity is an omnipotent, omniscient being that gives humans free will. That's a contradiction (irrational) in terms. We can flip a coin and say it's random - we have no control over whether it lands heads or tails. We can offer a dog two brands of dog food and see which one the dog chooses, saying the dog has the free will to choose.But an omnipotent, omniscient being flipping a coin knows what will come up. Such a being would also know what choice a dog, or cat, or human or anything would make, because a human is no more complex to an omnipotent, omniscient being than a flipped coin.By the way, how could a deity "rest" (like on the seventh day). Being omnipotent, the deity would consider a day of work no more tiring than a day of doing nothing, hence there would be no "resting".You get the idea: irrational!

That may be your position.Now let's see you defend your position...

Sure. It means your god doesn't exist.Because something which is not detectable (and will never be detected) is no different from something that doesn't exist.A difference that makes no difference is not a difference.

You say, "He's not SCIENTIFICALLY detectable." By that you mean he's only detectable by faith, is that correct?If so, then "He" doesn't really exist.

I bring up evidence because drawing conclusions contrary to the evidence is irrational. I bring up falsifiability because believing in things that are not falsifiable is irrational.

You say you're "not sure"? Care to explain why you're not sure?On the other topic, you don't like my description of your god, which, it seems to me, is common to the monotheistic faiths. You want me to show that "all ideas about" a deity are irrational. But I've already shown that the pagan thunderbolt-throwing, thread-of-life-snipping, chariot-of-the-sun-driving ideas of god are irrational.What idea of god is left? Is your god a twelve inch tall plastic doll invented in 1959 by Ruth Handler? In that case, yes, your "god" is rational, because Barbie does indeed exist.

Sigh. You contradict yourself. You contain multitudes.

This is getting rather insulting. I've written a good number of posts describing the irrationality of all this deity stuff. Here's the latest one (from message 1735)

quote:

---

One idea of a deity is an omnipotent, omniscient being that gives humans free will. That's a contradiction (irrational) in terms. We can flip a coin and say it's random - we have no control over whether it lands heads or tails. We can offer a dog two brands of dog food and see which one the dog chooses, saying the dog has the free will to choose.

​

But an omnipotent, omniscient being flipping a coin knows what will come up. Such a being would also know what choice a dog, or cat, or human or anything would make, because a human is no more complex to an omnipotent, omniscient being than a flipped coin.

​

By the way, how could a deity "rest" (like on the seventh day). Being omnipotent, the deity would consider a day of work no more tiring than a day of doing nothing, hence there would be no "resting".

​

You get the idea: irrational!

---

If people want to read and respond to my posts, they should feel free to do so, but replies like "why won't you fill in my blanks" are just dodges by people who cannot muster coherent arguments.

Sorry I got the wires crossed.Ringo is a bit incoherent, but I believe that Ringo has conceded that the belief in a deity is irrational. Ringo only wants to talk about the idea of a deity in and of itself, rather than a belief, and then discuss whether or not that idea is irrational.

I did, in message 1762.