I Know That God Does Not Exist

"Yes, but your experiments won't work if we invoke ghosts and majik."Sure they will. They will produce the same null results as all the others because your ghosts and majik are as fanciful and false as the gods you are testing for.Unless you can show us otherwise. With evidence. With real evidence. With real scientific rigorously detailed and documented evidence. None of this fakey "it's in my heart" evidence. Real evidence.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So you decide in advance that there are no gods so that the very idea of trying to devise the kind of test I've suggested would be required to detect the existence of gods won't detect gods because they don't exist, so there's no point in trying to find out if they exist, or devising a test for the purpose, and then you go on to challenge me to devise a way to gather the evidence although I just suggested the only way I think could gather it.Somebody could devise such a test I assume, not I, not you, but someone. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Not in advance. Just based on the evidence ... of which there is only null evidence.My understanding is that billions of people keep looking, searching, testing for some kind, any kind, of evidence for these gods, ghosts and their majik and all keep coming up null. Sure there is. It would be very telling about the nature of this universe if some, any, evidence of gods, ghosts or majik could be found.I don't have to try to find out by my own efforts any longer. I did my due diligence and found nothing. So now we have these so many billions continuing the search and if they find something, or not find anything, I am the beneficiary without having to do all the work.But your point that physical experiments may not work because gods are ghosts and use majik is rejected *unless* you can first show that ghosts and majik exist. If someone can show that then the possibility of gods being and using such things could be entertained.The point is that, as of now, all the billions of tests, the billions of searches, all the millennia of looking has resulted in no gods. That's a whole lot of null data points in evidence against such things.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But there is evidence. We know about Julius Caesar as someone wrote about him. We know about Jesus and His resurrection because people wrote about it.You can say that the evidence can't be verified, that they were wrong or even lying but the fact remains, it is evidence.Also, we exist with intelligence and a knowledge of morality and with the ability to empathize . That requires an explanation for which there is either an intelligent root or a non-intelligent root. It does leave a choice. As there is a choice it is evidence to be considered.

Bells inequalities violates the speed of light speed limit and experimentally verified.
reality is not something that those who think they know wtf they are talking about is in the bag. 97 percent of what we know about our own universe is a question mark. Despite everything we think we know, we know shit.
So get in line about saying" I know god does not exist." You do not even know the most basic fundamental crux of what comprises our own universe or how reality is manifested on a quantum level. I do not know how many angels can dance on the head of pin but there is enough room in my universe to consider that something fantastical and "majick" could be beyond my human ability to comprehend it. Yes of course I agree the mythos part of god and gods is antiquated. God if it does exist will be the ultimate explanation.
Why dismiss it because we are only beginning to understand. I do not believe someone who says they know god exist no more than I believe someone who says they know it does not. I am biased and a cultural Catholic so of course my opinon is tainted. I just feel it is a bit presumptuous to claim complete knowlege of something that is in such contention because your bar for knowing is the lack of evidence that is subjective and can not be scientifically verified and yet something like Bells inequalities that is scientifically verified is ludicrous and yet accepted. (been at the pub today.)Quantum Theory and Common Sense - Tim Maudlin » IAI TVhttps://qudev.phys.ethz.ch/...tions/QSIT-BellsInequality.pdf

We know about Julius Caesar because not only did someone write about him but because *everyone* contemporary to the time wrote about him, from historians and court scribes to kings of other empires, their historians and their court scribes.A generation later that same world of kings, historians and court scribes, most telling the ones in the middle east, say not a word about this Jesus and his astounding miracles that would, if true, have made headlines and noteworthy mention all over the region instead of just a handful of religious tomes written by ghostwriters a century+ later. There are none.Is this because the devil hid all the accounts or because there was nothing of note to record?Like with evidence of the flud we have to not only look at what is in the record but what *is not* in the body of the contemporary record that should be there if the stories were true. Evolution is amazing isn’t it!

Um ... no it doesn't. I think you may have missed something in your studies. This be true. But that doesn't mean we don't know anything. And what we do know, we know quite well. Until you show me otherwise ... not a chance in hell. I'm happy for you. I'm of a different philosophy. One that requires evidence before accepting things that with our present understanding of the universe around us, as incomplete and as flawed as it may be, so viciously violate that understanding. No such claim being made. Just concluding as best we can from the facts we have.No gods. 1.61803, please. You're in Texas. Didn't have pubs there in forever. We had bars, saloons, watering holes, not pubs.Sounds like you did have a good time. Good for you.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You are only talking about the amount of support from other sources for the evidence. That in no way eliminates the Gospel accounts as being evidence. You again are only talking about the quality of the evidence. Again, what you say does absolutely nothing to refute the fact that the Gospel accounts are evidence. The Gospel weren't simply original material. They were as Luke describes compilations of earlier material. Paul had access to eyewitnesses as we have him meeting with James and other contemporaries of Jesus. However, that isn't the point. You again are talking about the quality of what is clearly evidence. Sure, because a world wide flood would leave evidence that just isn't there but that was written by different authors several centuries earlier. It sure is, and we can only stand back in amazement when we consider the intelligence required to design and implement it.

You’re right either speed c is exceeded or something is wrong with our understanding in regards to Bells theory and hence our understanding of how our quantum world operates.your also right thatGod doesn’t exist scientifically but religiously. I can have both if I so choose. I meant bar but pub has a friendly ring to it imoEdited by 1.61803, : Spelling

But you are misrpresenting what I said. I compared their nonphysicality to minds -- thoughts, mental phenomena, spirit etc. You surely don't claim these things don't exist. If there are beings that are pure spirit (I think the Creator God is the only Being who is pure Spirit while the lesser "gods" have some degree of physicality since they can "manifest" in visible form at times), since you know that mental/spiritual things exist, we experience them every day, then you have some idea what to look for.You say there have been billions of "tests" for such things that have come up null. But I doubt you have any idea what "tests" have been done OR that they've all come up null. If these are finite beings that think and act you would have to take into account that they could act to evade your tests. That would have to be one major part of the definition of what you are testing for, and if you don't have that in mind at all your "tests" aren't likely to have any relevance or usefulness at all.I've already conceded that there is no way to concoct a scientific test for the Creator God at all because He has no physicality whatever, and our sciences can only test for physical things. I've also said, however, that He has given us plenty of evidence, described in the Bible and witnessed by hordes of people, so anyone who is serious about knowing God can find Him there. He has no interest in proving Himself to us, He wants to be known through our spiritual regeneration and belief based on witness evidence.But what we MIGHT be able to test for is the "gods" or demons. The "gods" described in the Bible are demons, finite beings that have no love for humanity. there's no point in devising a test that doesn't take this into account, you'll just be looking for a figment of your own imagination. \ In fact many have found not only the Creator God but plenty of the lesser "gods" or fallen angels, otherwise known as demons. You just refuse to believe their testimony.Anyway, if one seriously wants to find out if "gods" exist, you have to start with a definition of what you're looking for, which definition would include:

• Invisibility under normal circumstances
• Able to "manifest" visibly if they choose to do so.
• So they may have SOME degree of physicality in themselves you could figure out how to detect
• For instance there have been many reports of people feeling an "electricity" in the vicinity of such beings
• They think and plot against humanity so you have to be prepared for all kinds of deceptions they may use against you.
• They MAY possess human beings, and sometimes animals too, when they can. The possession may be only partial so that they aren't affecting major parts of the personality, or it may take over the mind and effectively determine how the person behaves.
• They may "manifest" to some people and not to others. They aren't very likely to manifest to you because your disbelief in their existence suits them better than if you knew they are real.
• They operate as hierarchical armies, all under the authority of higher-ups

If the scientific "tests" haven't been taking such characteristics into account they aren't really tests for the existence of "gods."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The gospels, written well after the supposed events, have no more efficacy than Homer's accounts of Troy. Troy was a real place, but Achilles? Not so much.Because of their history the gospels are suspect at best and cannot be counted as evidence.But, let us grant your view. They are hearsay. The embellished recording of an oral history just like the Iliad and the flud. The darth of contemporary evidence corollary to the events is far more compelling. And they say nothing about Jesus and his miracles.Your gospels do. But then coming back from the dead was all the rage throughout all the myths in human history. The gospels aren't anything special in that regard. What is even more amazing is realizing this was all done with natural processes in chemistry alone without the need for any gods or majik whatsoever. Mother Nature was able to make pond scum come to life and make monkeys that could contemplate their place in the cosmos. Smart girl.

The gospels were written within years, decades at most, of Jesus' death on the cross, and all but one were written by eyewitnesses, the other was written by someone intimately familiar with the eyewitnesses. They all compared notes and used each others' work because they were writing for people who weren't there at the time, different groups of people, and wanted to include as much as they could come up with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny how you want the UNBELIEVERS to testify of Jesus and His miracles, but the thing is when people believe in them their testimony is the testimony of believers and you won't take them seriously at that point. Catch 22.

Really? Where are these testimonies of contemporary authors outside the bible?There are four mentions by Roman historians of peoples telling stories about a Christus or a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" or other obscure references to stories heard on the street. No detailed accounts or even general briefs of any such events. More hearsay.Even a letter home to mom with a "you'll never guess what I saw today" story would be fine. But no. Nothing but these accounts written by ghostwriters all copying from each other 70-110 years late.And to make it even worse not even the believing scholars can verify who wrote what when because all they have are fragments of the books from copies 150+ years after the originals were supposedly written. Not even fragments of the originals. Fragments of copies written 150+ years after the originals were written 70+ years after the events.I understand that believers have to believe. You need these writings to be ... well ... gospel. But from the outside looking in these books are as bad as evidence can get.There is no provence. No documented evidence trail.Now, I am not saying these things were faked out of the blue. Obviously *something* happened that these ghostwriters believed and wanted to record. But we know the game of telephone and we know how memory works and we know how *everyone* *everywhere* embellishes their recordings of ancient oral histories decades after the fact.The gospels tell some tall tales. If they were true at that time in that place there *would* have been outside sources recording *something*. There isn't.Was there a charismatic David Koresh-type religious hippie with an exceptionally attractive manner and a pleasant message of "don't worry, be happy" wandering in the desert like a hebrew Buddha? Probably.Was he god on earth performing the most outstanding miracles here to save my soul?Remember I'm a scientist. No evidence. Or rather really piss poor evidence if you insist on it.No. He was not. Not that anyone anywhere can show otherwise.Edited by AZPaul3, : subtitle

Good grief, the early church fathers testify to the authenticity of the gospel accounts, and down through the centuries we have lots of believers who have written about them.There are over five thousand "fragments" of the Bible from the tenth century on. The Bibles get destroyed from use so we can't expect really old ones to survive. There are a few that go back to the early centuries which are understood by the scholars I happen to trust (and there are lots of others I don't trust) to have been tampered with by early heretics. There are a few whole manuscripts from those early centuries and the reason they are whole and not fragments is that Spirit led Christians recognized them as bogus so they didn't have a chance to get destroyed by use. Unfortunately today they are used in all our Bibles except the King James, because the false scholars convinced everybody they are legitimate.There is a science of textual reconstruction scholarship that has shown that the later fragments all support each other and the text of the original manuscripts, there simply is not the doubt about them you would like to believe is the case. This science notes copy errors and correlates the whole mass of texts to arrive at this conclusion of their authenticity.I understand you are a scientist but so are all these people who study the various fragments of the Bible text.And perhaps I missed it but I don't recall your ever identifying your science. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.