I Know That God Does Not Exist

I would tend to agree with you that your position is the reasonable, rational and logical position.

I happen to believe otherwise but certainly realize that my beliefs are unreasonable, irrational and illogical.

Remember Phat, the Bible itself describes man, plain old human type man, correcting God. We've been over this more then once IIRC.

The Bible itself describes God as unsure, insecure, frightened by the prospects of plain old humans, unable to defeat a plain old human even by using deceit and trickery...

Why do you insist on placing the God YOU create above the God other folk create?

Phat writes: Are you thus claiming that every "religious" or spiritual believing person who claims to have allowed the Spirit of the Living God into them is thus delusional and crazy?

No, rather asking "How do you know and what is the evidence to support your claim? What is the 'Spirit of the Living God' and what is the test for its presence?"

Phat writes: You cant really tell me that someone is a myth when I have already met them.

And what evidence is available to support your claim to have met them or that they even exist?

Phat writes: And of course I judge the integrity of the authors making the claims rather than the raw facts presented in the arguments.

And when the author or authors are totally unknown what model, method, mechanism, process or procedure is used to determine the integrity of the author(s)?

Phat writes: As PT Barnum was quoted, There is a sucker born every minute.

That refers to the believers Phat.

Phat writes: Many Christians, myself included, would argue that we have satisfactory evidence based on our personal experience but our critics, you among them, would counter with the idea that subjective personal experience is not evidence--that evidence must be objective.

Not quite yet again Phat. We don't say it is not evidence but rather it is only evidence that you believe what you claim.

There is no way your personal experience can be evidence that can be tested or validated or reproduced or duplicated by all others.

Personal experience is evidence but evidence of little or no value beyond the individual involved where other evidence, evidence that can be tested and confirmed independently is of value beyond just the individual.

Phat writes: But scripture even alludes to the fact that not all will understand, whereas the evidence based skeptics claim that in order to be valid, the understanding must be seen by all.

Oh good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That too does not even rise to the level of word salad. It's at best a classic Harold Hill parody.

Faith writes: Are there scientific tools to detect a mind?

Of course there are and they have been in use on non-human animals since 1875 and human animals since 1929.

Phat writes: 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.

What we can say based on what is actually written is that they were people who claimed not just to know God but to be followers of God.

Once again you just pick the pieces parts you want and ignore those parts of the Bible that refute your desired position.

Have you ever actually Read Matthew 6?

Does it not begin with Jesus telling folk how to go about giving alms for others. Does it not admit that we all need food, shelter, clothing, protection? Does it not say we need to stop hoarding money for ourselves? Does it not say we need to not worship mammon?

Does Matthew 6 not say that it's the little things we do, not for praise or profit that count?

Stop living by the conjob Proof Texts. Stop just picking out the whole potato chips or center of the watermelon, stop just picking the pieces out of the Bible that support your desires and look at the whole body of writings.

And remember, Matthew 6:31-33 is NOT Matthew. Matthew is 28 Chapters long, not 3 lines.

And you will find contradictions between different parts since the author of Matthew was taking material from Mark and at least one other source and even changing and modifying pieces parts to change the emphasis and meanings and product from what Mark marketed to what the author of Matthew wished to market.

Read what is actually written and learn the subtle differences in what was being promoted.

SB writes: Of course, if there are problems with contradictions in the book that is said to be the Word of God, how do we know what the word really is?

We use logic, reason and reality to test what is written.

Does a writing point to a model that is of use to all? Does it provide a moral guide to a functioning society? Does the writing teach us how to live today in harmony with other people, things and the environment itself?

Faith writes: So let's see, if our reason is "offended by" the idea of the supernatural, then we throw out those parts of the Bible, as Jefferson did. So we'll never know if the supernatural is real in relation to its events, and the Bible is one of the few documents that reveal it to us.

That is silly Faith, really silly. The Bible reveals nothing in the first place and it certainly cannot reveal anything supernatural.

Yawn.

No Faith, the Bible does not reveal those things. It claims and asserts those things.

Faith writes: It describes them within a historical framework.

But the historical framework is also used for King Kong and Godzilla and with exactly the same validity. The fact that the Red Sea (or Sea of Reeds) actually exists does not support the assertion that the Exodus fiction actually happened.

It is not a matter of semantics but rather once again logic, reason and reality showing that the Bible is seldom historical beyond the same relevance as seen in the history found in any work of fiction.

I'm a believer and understand that you simply create the "spiritual" crap you want, make God and the Bible in your own image and blaspheme the Holy Ghost.

MTW writes: That you just assert you are, "a believer" doesn't mean anything. If you disagree with what the bible unequivocally states about the spiritual man and the natural man then you don't believe that which you barely assert that you do.

It means that I am a believer, one that understands that the Bible is a collection of stories that were written by an unknown number of mostly unknown authors who each wrote what they believed at the time it was written and for the audience living in their immediate environment at the time.

It was later edited and redacted by an unknown number of unknown editors and redactors to reflect their beliefs at the time of the editing and redacting and again, for their immediate audience.

For the vast and unknown quantity of stories other unknown people selected certain stories to create a number of different compilations called Canons, each Canon designed to fit the beliefs and desires of a particular sub-group of believers.

I understand that the various Canons contain stories that are often fantasy, often contradictory, often factually in error and in all cases created as propaganda to market individual and group beliefs.

I understand that there is absolutely no evidence to support any claims of spiritual or spirituality beyond the individual beliefs of an unknown body of again, individuals.

I am honest enough to admit that there is no consistent "God of the Bible" but rather a whole series of evolving God(s) that each reflect to beliefs of the author of that particular description and revised to also meet the beliefs of the unknown redactors and editors and translators and compilers over time.

I am honest enough to understand that GOD if GOD exists is unlikely to match any of the various God(s) or god(s) we have created in our own images.