I Know That God Does Not Exist

This makes me think. If Jesus (as we understand Him) took The Authoritarians Quiz that was designed to measure such stuff, how authoritarian would He be? Likely not the same as todays Right Wing Christians. Jesus is portrayed as being uncompromising toward hypocrisy and legalism, but He also will not tolerate sin. The question may then become what we define sin as now versus what sin was defined as then. I suspect that it has not changed much, but then again, critics will say that this whole idea of authority under Gods supposed rules is negotiable...(since they believe that humans made up the whole God thing anyway! )

Only if we humans (and you specifically) can honestly say that your attempts at defining reason in the specific case of a Creator of all seen and unseen have the default position of defining, locating, and accepting such a Deity just as easily as you would accept the definition of a character in a book. Part of the implication of finding such a Deity is in surrendering your absolute decision whether to accept such a Deity or whether you maintain all rationality, control, and acceptance or rejection of such a concept in order to know such a Deity.(Which I don't believe can happen. In this case, yes, God does have a special pass. His intellect and rationality has veto power over yours. God is not some accepted fantasy/creation of the human mind, despite the hollow insistence of AZPaul3 that that is exactly the implication. AZPaul3 is an atheist who has defined his rationality and likely wouldn't accept such a Deity even if One asked permission to enter his mind, autonomously of course. Its one thing to reject a concept you've never experienced, believed, or accepted rationally.(due to non evidence)
Its another thing to set the ground rules on what you will and will not accept and to reserve the right to define the evidence that you would accept as you began uncovering any potential and possible evidence. Now, to be fair, Stile...I know that you have personally claimed that you would in fact be open to meeting such a Creator. I simply want you to consider my argument that essentially says that humans reserve the right to accept only what they will allow, and there are some of us who wont allow our own reasoning process to take a back seat of control and definition. This entire argument between all of us suggests that this is true. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

duplicate postEdited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

In matters of belief, rationality itself employs a double standard of sorts. Whom or what we consult in our search for truth is of course our responsibility. Knowledge may not be absolute, but for some of us truth *is* absolute, especially when God is involved. Critics would point out that we are in effect creating/defining the God Whom we want, and despite my disagreement, I see the value in considering such behavior. Let's break this down.What do humans consult as authoritative in their individual and collective search for God, and/or Truth, and/or Knowledge? Believer may insist that the *Living Truth* found them and that they simply accepted Him. Stile might say that no such illusion ever plagued him and that he simply looked for this elusive truth, God, or source in which believers seemed to trust so adamantly. He has concluded (tentatively) that "It" does not exist. ringo, ever the contrarian, counters that with the adage that Stile has not looked everywhere. Perhaps ringo is challenging Stiles insistence that he should be confidant with his final answer.To Stile: Why are you so confidant that this answer may be in a place that you have not, cannot, nor ever will allow yourself to look?To ringo: Why are you arguing? Do you simply enjoy challenging us to consider alternatives to premature "final answers"? Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

All that I can present is the idea that I have found God and *know* that He exists. You could fairly examine my reasons and conclude that this "God" whom I found was merely a creation of my own mind. You also would likely say that you have found that you can feel the same feelings of peace, security, and contentment without God. Thus for you, God is irrational from the get-go. I see God, or at least the idea of God, as rational. ok, lets relax and ponder this philosophically a bit more. Which brings up a question. Are you sure you are searching for the right God? Are you searching for a helpful God or for a hurtful God? Would you perhaps be uncertain enough that you may have already *found* God yet He did not pass through your protective filters? In other words, your internal protection blocked Him due to potential harm to your software....

So basically you can say that I, Stile know today that God does not exist. What you may or may not know an hour from now, a day from now, or a week from now may be different.And I admit that as a believer I have bias. I believe that God exists regardless of whether any or all of us *know* it or not. I also speculate that when the parables had God saying "depart from me I never knew you" they were people who either thought they knew God or were confidant that He never existed to begin with. Of course, sheer speculation.

Is my reality of *knowing* that God exists any different than your reality of *knowing* that God does not exist? Is the art of *knowing* objective for all or subjective for some? ringo seems to use the argument from popularity, which is unlike him...I think he just enjoys the sport of argumentative dialogues.

to make your analogy clearer, both sides *can* agree that you can bake a cake but some folks remain skeptical. If an individual insists on objective evidence as their default standard, they will never settle for any other claims and only insist that they have never tasted your cake nor seen it. Moreover, they likely won't want to try it anyway since they have had bad experiences with bakers in general.

One error which is made is that you assume that humanity collectively "sees" something or nah. Some of them found gods. Others didnt.

I would argue that an appeal to popularity is either a strong indication of delusion (which you would likely argue) or of evidence of some compelling reason for the shared consensus.
If intelligence itself is any benchmark, this 11-year-old genius son of an Orthodox Priest(which you will argue indoctrinated his son) has a rather clever argument:
Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

He likely would attribute it to a natural extraterrestrial cause. Intelligent skeptics are far more likely to believe in *anything* which can be "evidenced"...I think it is because their minds can conceptualize it whereas their minds cannot and will not conceptualize God. Its not simply a mind issue...its a heart issue...but to be fair, many have been disillusioned by organized religion and the behavior thereof.The Bible itself says that a fool believes there is no God, and also that many will experience a strong delusion because they have no love of the truth.Many want to simply keep their own ability to critically evaluate anything they dont understand and regard "surrender" to a belief as a sign of weakness and gullibility. At least thats my assessment.

It is reasonable *if* Who and What you are looking for has been defined as existing in all places and at all times. Again, I will say that your need at finding such a Deity goes a long way towards determining how many places you will bother looking before you give up and conclude otherwise. I agree that Stile is being premature at declaring his knowledge, though that is his choice and reflects his position. AZPaul3 also claims to know. I would only suggest that we know what we want to know and what we can define as being knowable. Perhaps the argument should be framed in the idea of when (if ever) it is appropriate to stop looking.

Are you basically rejecting an argument from popularity as akin to dismissing the idea that some of *us* have found God within our available information(within our own subjectivity) or are you declaring that all believers are mistaken in their claim that God exists? There are just some things we *know* (or even believe) that can't simply be trotted out as objective facts for others to examine. If it were so, everyone would have the same belief based on the objectivity of the community at large. As I think about it, it's odd (and a bit brilliant) that you presented this argument. You took an atheist position(based on the fact that atheists are a clear minority) and made it the default position...thus eliminating the majority position as being valid in any way. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Absence of Evidence does *not* equate to evidence of absence.

Objective, measurable physical evidence may be lacking, but people suspected that radar, x-rays, and other previously undetectable forms of energy existed even before ways were found to measure them. This is, I think, ringos point. He claims that people are always going to be looking, whereas you claim that the rational mind has given up(for now). This may well describe you* but it does not describe everyone.

​

The argument is not one side or the other. The argument merely involves phraseology. You cant speak for everyone in your declaration.

​

For me, personally--God does indeed exist. Critics could say that my position is illogical. Why fight them? Critics could charge me for deluding myself. They likely said the same thing to early explorers insisting that the world was round, that x-rays and radio waves existed, or that the universe was not geo-centric.

​

A bigger question for examination is this: Should God Exist? Perhaps at its deepest level, this is what you should be asking yourself. Your answer likely would be "No, there is no need for Him". My answer would likely be that "Yes, He must exist, for I surely would never survive without Him" and I feel His presence. No scientific data is needed nor wanted in order to confirm(or disprove) such a point. Perhaps what gets me a bit riled is the idea that good guy Stile, whom I've always respected as openminded and willing to accept new information is, in reality, already set against information that may upset his world view. Looking further in the mirror, I see that I too don't want to know---if the conclusion is not what I believe should be the conclusion.

​

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

What gets me is that these days people believe in all sorts of*magic* apart from God. It's a bit like believing in luck or chance and rejecting the supernatural. I say that all of the RPG fantasy roleplaying games hurt us more than they help us. At best they are harmless---which is the same with belief in God. It is unrealistic to have too much hope in the magic of humanity...we likely will die off. God represents something (someone) who will never die, lives eternally as a Living Hope, and is one aspect of the eternal future that we can count on. Not too many of us are happy believing that we are worm food unless we(they) live vicariously (and somewhat eternally) through their children.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.