I Know That God Does Not Exist

The concept of a deity is rational if it can be supported by rational argument. If the concept of a deity is merely a personal belief it becomes irrational.In my view (as an atheist) there are perfectly respectable and rational arguments for deities.But there are far better philosophical arguments for the non-existence of theistic gods and most - if not all - have been disproven by actual evidence or simply disappeared from our cultures.But I'm happy to allow that my personal disbelief in even a deistic, non-interventionary god is at least, in part, non-rational. That kind of god can not be totally disproven.

Yes of course, there's a wide body of perfectly respectable philosophical argument for the existence of a deity.

quote:

---

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Ren Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.

---

Existence of God - WikipediaBut the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true - there are at least as many rational arguments concluding the opposite.And of course none of the arguments support a theistic god. If, by using logic alone, you think that you can show the existence of a god, you've still got all your work ahead of you to show that it's the theistic god that YOU believe in.And if you could do it without logic ie empirically, we'd all believe. Or more accurately, we wouldn't need to believe; it would be a fact like the existence of electricity.

You have yet to demonstrate that, simply saying that they aren,t rational doesn't make them so. You're calling some of the greatest philosophers of all time irrational; that isn't rational.Of course many of the arguments *are* rational, they just happen to be wrong. In my opinion.

To coin a phrase what does that even mean? Anything at all? And we say you're deluded. Which is total gibberish. Words without meaning. Typical preacherish tosh. You thrive on this kind of ridiculous verbiage. I reckon it's to avoid thinking. From now on I think I'll call it a relativistic individuated subjective concept.

Sure but it's developmental, simple ideas become more elaborate as tails are told. Christianity formed from Judeism. Islam from both.Splits and schisms create varieties - Sunnies and Shi'ites, Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox and non-OrthodoxBut also sometimes religions are made up entirely by a single individual - Mormonism, Scientology.It's evolution combined with special creation.

It's a methodological difference. Philosophy can be rational but still be wrong. Philosophy believes that it can sit in a chair and think an answer; science requires evidence to form a conclusion but there is none.Philosophers have tried to prove or disprove god/s for thousands of years, all they have achieved are rational arguments for and against. A proof or conclusion is not possible.Science too can not disprove a deistic, non-interventionist god because there is nothing to observe or test. It can disprove all the theistic beliefs of the religious - hence all the complaints about Darwin and geology and astronomy etc etc.It might even get to a point of being able to show how a universe can create itself making the traditional religious ideas of primitive gods redundant. But it can never take that last step of saying therefore, there is no god.

Hawking did not believe that the universe had a creator, he was an atheist. Why do you just keep on making up stuff that seems to suit you? Why not at least check?

quote:

---

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist, he wrote in The Grand Design. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

​

Using language about God, Hawking told TIME after the book’s release, is more figurative than literal.

​

God is the name people give to the reason we are here, he said. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.

​

Hawking considered himself an atheist

​

Hawking spoke more plainly about his thoughts on God in an interview with Spanish publication El Mundo.

​

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation, he said. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.

---

Stephen Hawking Was an Atheist: His Words on Death and God | Time

Hawking was an atheist and did not believe in a creator. I gave you his own words, don't twist them, it's not Christian.

You always get hold of the wrong end of every stick....My comments have nothing to do with any of that, I'm simply pointing out that Hawking was an atheist, he therefore did not believe in a creator and his work demonstrated to him that a creator is not necessary.ICANT wants to claim Hawking for his side Hawking was not on your or ICANT's side of this discussion, to say otherwise is to lie.

Hawking believed that the universe could create itself.Why are you Christians so damned dishonest? Just read what he himself says. He was an atheist.

He was an atheist. Atheists do not believe in creators.That’s it. The rest of the garbage is yours alone

Humans obviously ARE our own creators but only in the obvious sense. What has creating our own destiny got to do with 'Creation'.

I'll try again. What has that got to do with (the) creation? Do I? Are you sure? Or are you - yet again - talking shite? Have you never seen me say that 'do as you would be done by', and 'love thy neighbour' aren't good ways to live your life? No.

He, and others, say that the universe can create itself. Scientists are trying to understand how theuniverse works. No they don't. And additionally, you are conflating creation, with 'The Creation'. Phat said it and you backed him Up. This is how you guys operate. You deliberately twist scientific findings so that your hangers on get the wrong message. It's dishonest.Here you are again. He did not believe in 'a creator'. 'A creator' is not 'The Creator'. You are simply obfuscating, implying things that he does not believe.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Ok, my apologies, I read that a different way.
But good. No. Esteemed physicists can be wrong, in which case others will correct their mistakes. Creationists are just wrong. I don't know or believe anything about those this. I don't even think that those terms have any meaning that we are able to even imagine. Your quote is silly. Atheists just don't believe in god. That's all you can say about them.