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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I also discount the fact of martians. Does that mean there are martians or I wouldn't have them to discount?

Having been poisoned by various opposing superstitions the collective human mind needs a good washing out with a large dose of reality.

Neither religion nor science had anything to do with either.Historical revisionism and ignorant buffoonery.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I have no idea what this means or how it relates.

Has it reached a definitive conclusion? Have you look in the dark matter and in the northwest passage?

The search for God is at a stage many hundreds of millions of iterations and many thousands of years beyond Michelson-Morley.

The search for gods has taken many forms over many millennia. In each and every instance nothing has ever been found.You're an intelligent person, ringo. I'm pretty sure you made your own search for the gods. How did that turn out for you?

And I'm saying the millions of null results over millennia, including your result and my result, are as relevant to the search for gods as Michelson-Morley's null result in the search for the aether.Until there is a dramatic change in what we "know" today saying "We know there are no gods" is as valid as saying "We know there is no aether."

I love you, you PhatThug, but you just love those BS arguments.4 big bangs, my ass.This whole video is nothing but the usual arguments of personal incredulity from ignorance.There are things we don't know, yet. The religious knee jerk response, predictable, is to invoke a god.No new arguments, no new insights, to this piece of apologist tripe.Move along, citizens. Nothing to see here.
Edited by AZPaul3, : subtitle