I Know That God Does Not Exist

How utterly ignorant can you be? Both Protestants and Popes burned, hanged and tortured plenty of heretics, witches and homos well into the 1750s.Your protestant reformation only spread the disease into new cults.Your religion is evil.

This is a long one. Lots of different historians. I'll list the index then one snippet. Protestant InquisitionThe index ...I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES
III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION
VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS
VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS
VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

quote:

---

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism - the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!

​

"Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest!

---

--Auguste Comte, (Philosophie Positive, vol.4, p.51)

The only things we know of your views are what you have told us several times here on this forum over this last decade+.Unless your expressed views here were all lies then, M'Lady, your anti-scientific views as expressed are known to be crap. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

A snippet is just a small part of a work. Comte was not the only source cited. There *is* the rest of the work which is the bulk of the evidence.You ignored it all. You didn’t even look at it did you? No, don’t answer. It’s not very flattering to your demonic protestant religion and you’ll have to deny it all anyway.Faith and facts just do not play well together.So here we have it. Both Protestants and Popes burned, hanged and tortured plenty of heretics, witches and homos well into the 1750s.Your protestant reformation only spread the disease into new cults.Trying to say the other guy is more evil does not absolve your church of the millions of tortures and deaths perpetrated in the name of your demented vision of a god.Your church is as evil, even more evil, as any church out there.Your religion, as all religion, is evil.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No. They are not.Ignorance of undiscovered fact can lead a rational analysis to a wrong conclusion.The world looks flat from every vantage point. I look out over a calm sea and see a flat surface stretching out into the distance in all directions. The earth is flat. I have no evidence of any curvature and lack the technology and the knowledge to conclude otherwise. The earth is flat is a rational conclusion based upon the limits of all my Bronze Age knowledge.However,when the storm brews and the waves lash at my boat and the shores of my home, to say that the great sea god Poseidon is angry at us for having peed in the ocean is also a wrong conclusion but in this case it was arrived at by irrational analysis of the situation. Might as well have been huge birds dropping great boulders of poop into the far off sea creating massive waves and darkening the skies with their flatulence.Drawing a conclusion, wrong though it may be, from the facts around us is rational. To suppose an object made-up ad hoc in an attempt to explain our ignorance is irrational.In the days of the ancient temples your average goat herder had no training in critical thinking and rational reasoning to challenge the visions of the semi-schizoid shaman dancing around the campfire in his painted face and adornments of seashells and bones. The society was predisposed toward supernatural objects and explanations. But that does not wash away the stain of irrationality from the rantings of the shaman which very few of the populous had any capacity to reject.Without some evidence of viability there are no reasons to suppose that such gods do or can exist.Further, without some evidence of viability then whether yesterday, today or tomorrow, appeals to gods as explanations for our ignorance are irrational.Finally, any argument based on an irrationally derived premise is an irrational argument.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

As part of the flat earth scenario people are given the postulate there is no curve to the horizon. This is false, of course, it’s just that they could not see or measure the subtle curve that was indeed there.That they believed this postulate true makes no difference. The conclusion the earth is flat, rationally derived, is false, was false, will always be false regardless of the state of their knowledge at the time.The god postulate is irrational and not only has no truth value it has no logic value. Just like the no curve postulate it doesn’t matter that they believed it was rational at the time. Given the irrational postulate god there can be no logical conclusion. As long as "god" is irrational god done it is irrational, was irrational, will always be irrational.That goat herders thought the no curve postulate was true because they took the shaman’s word for it does not alter the truth value of the logical conclusion. The conclusion was false.That they thought the god postulate was rational because they chose to believe the shaman from the village in the other valley does not alter the logic value of the argument. It has none. It is irrational no matter how logical the structure of the syllogism may appear.Any syllogism containing a logically derived wrong premise will ultimately lead to a wrong conclusion.Any syllogism containing an irrationally derived premise is irrational prima facie and cannot be further considered regardless of the strength of it construction. It is like hitting a divide by zero in a program. It blows up the whole construction without any regard for what follows and cannot achieve any result right or wrong. The syllogism itself is irrational. There can be no logic value to it no matter how logically structured it may appear.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Their logic not withstanding since none of them can show any viable evidence of "god" they all are indeed irrational. And as such any argument they make that includes the irrationally derived "god" as a postulate is irrational.Yes, I’ve read Aquinas, Gdel, Descartes and others.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

When it comes to physical phenomena, yep? That includes gods. In most cases, yep.Put three philosophers in a room with a question and you will end up with 7 different answers.When the philosopher uses an irrational premise in their product their product rots regardless of the beauty of their logic. Where did that come from? Science is alway tentative. If I did not couch that constantly in my verbiage then forgive me. I thought ... ... might cover my butt in this regard.A change in evidence may necessitate a change in value. But at this point there has not been any.I will stand by my analysis ... right now anyway.

Just like the flat earth/no curvature thing, they can believe it to be true all they want. It made logical sense to them even though we now know it to be false. When they put what they thought was true into their syllogism they concluded the earth was flat. All very logical and all very wrong.In the same way they could consider the "god" premise to be logical, rational and true even though today (some of us) know it is irrational. Neither true nor false but (in deference to Tangle) *presently* lacking adequate efficacy to even be considered.My contention is that when they put that one into their syllogism, even though they saw the result as "god did it" and believed it true, in actuality their syllogism was poisoned by irrationality and could not, in fact, draw any such conclusion. Not even wrong. Irrational.They just did not know that at the time. Which is ok. Progress marches on.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Wow. You missed the whole boat, didn't you.We are not comparing belief in god with belief in flat earth.We are comparing the efficacy of evidence and the logical analysis of that evidence (or lack thereof).The contention here, Faith, is that by today's standards the flat earth conclusion was scientifically defensible, logical and wrong while the "god done it" conclusion wasn't even wrong but irrational because the god premise was and is irrational.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I'll let the science decide. There. Fixed it for you. Oh, Tangle, my man, I've been telling philosophs that since before the internet was nothing but dial up bulletin boards. So true. But when it is I'm here to let 'em know that too. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

In the context of this discussion about a god premise I contend that right/wrong cannot even be determined because the premise is irrational. It is irrational for all.It is irrational because there is not sufficient evidence to show *any* level of efficacy in the premise (other than 0) and thus the premise has no logic value, let alone truth value, in this universe. (At this time. With what we presently know right now. Future mileage may very.)Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Agreed. But there does come a point where the millions of null results of our examinations become millions of data points in the decision process.Think of the luminiferous aether, a no show since 1887. No one seems to have a problem claiming the aether probably doesn't exist (pending future developments if any). Adding the aether to our equations without cause would be irrational.Yet god, a no show since forever, gets some special pass on rationality? No.Until someone can show some evidence of efficacy the use of a god premise is irrational for the same reason as the aether. They are separate things indeed since irrational is not even wrong just unusable as in non-existant (holding in abeyance a vanishingly small possibility and pending future developments if any). I was in service. I've done that.I would take this as some kind of well deserved English insult except I'm not really sure I've gotten the full enjoyment of it since I'm not familiar with its use.What that mean?

Well that goes for everything so ... agreed.

No, of course not. But when the strength of the available evidence points one way that is the way to look.Cannot say other universes do not exist. More appropriate to say other universes may indeed exist because some of our established theories lend themselves to solutions that point in that direction as possibilities. Grounded in the rigours of their mathematical extensions these solutions provide ample scientific reason to pursue such studies.A god proposal, however, provides no such intellectual underpinnings and other than wishful thinking provides no reason to pursue such studies.So we have on one side at least some evidence born in the mathematics from our present physical theories and on the other side nothing but null results for every observation, mathematical or otherwise, we have been able to conduct over X000 years.Which one seems more viable a possibility?I would have more faith in the possibilities of other universes than in gods.But still, I agree with you. This god thing is a perennial favorite for discussion and disagreement and will continue as long as people refuse to read the tea leaves and follow the evidence that is glaringly staring them right in the face. Since there are no intellectual, moral, ethical reasons to do so I fail to see where this is an issue.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.