I Know That God Does Not Exist

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Well of course it does. What it does not mean is proof of absence. That's because there are levels of evidence. Finding the fingerprints of someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that they were present, but it's not proof. Perhaps there's some other way to account for the fingerprints being there besides the person being there. But the point is that the presence of fingerprints does not need to definitively prove that the person was there to be evidence that they were there.

Similarly, the absence of evidence is evidence that someone or something is absent. There may be an alternative explanation for the absence of evidence that would account for the someone or something being there without leaving evidence, but that does not mean that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To a degree you have a point. Without some kind of definition of God, it is quite difficult to determine whether the evidence that we have supports the nonexistence of God.

It seems to me that virtually every description/definition of God that any culture has devised contains at least one item in common, some degree of supernaturality, either in the nature of God's being or in the things that he does, or both. If this is true (and I invite anyone to correct me if I'm in error), then the complete lack of any evidence anywhere of any type of supernaturalness, and the complete consistency of all evidence that shows the world is governed by natural laws, without exception, strongly support Stile's position.

It's always better to "know" things based on positive evidence rather than lack of evidence.

True. However, Stile has investigated and found no evidence where such evidence would be expected to be. That is in fact some positive evidence.

How else would you suggest we come to conclusions about the existence or nonexistence about beings that in fact do not exist? Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?

Edited by subbie, : Tyop

Edited by subbie, : Doh!

If we use their definition of "knowing" (because it feels right... because it happened to me... because I don't think I was under a delusion... because I've heard of similar things... etc) we would be forced to include a whole whack of other things that would then also be "known" that wouldn't make any sense (like the idea that the world is flat - some people feel that is true; and also round at the same time - other people feel that is true).

Not only that, but many vast collections of multiple beliefs that are all mutually contradictory.

subbie writes: Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?

ringo writes: Yes.

But you don't. You don't actually maintain an agnostic position on the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a real person. You might pretend to for purposes of an academic discussion on the nature of reality and knowledge (and I'm not necessarily saying that such a position isn't defensible), but you know, in your heart of hearts, that he doesn't really exist.