The problem with your argument is that you aren't aware that it's basically a representative Black-Swan fallacy.
If you personally "know God doesn't exist", you can only go from your lack of knowledge as a personal matter, which is different from empirically proving knowledge or logically arriving at a sound conclusion. So then, yes, in a way you "know God doesn't exist" in the sense that God isn't part of your own reality, but only your own experience, since you argue based on that, largely.
This is the problem, you state yourself in your argument that we, "look for the thing" where it is supposed to be or the effects it is supposed to leave, etc...and your problem is that you are only looking at your own experience in not getting any data where others have. But that may well mean that you and those others will only accept a false standard of persuasion, because of psychological bias.
Therefore, I know that God does not exist. I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existance" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existance
Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you and those like you have, "looked for God" according to your own God-like arrogant definition and, "not found God". Because a portion has not found Him doesn't mean others haven't, and if it is a case of ignorance versus knowledge then you represent the more unreliable. By analogy if I say, "open your fists" having close your hands, and there is nothing in them, and many others ask me to open their fists, they and all like them might conclude that "some ERGO all", which is an inductive error, that because a portion has empty hands, all do.
The biggest problem with unbelief is it doesn't give you knowledge. So to say, "God doesn't exist" having seen no effects, and God hasn't satisfied your own personal demands, is a weak argument, if others have experienced God and God's effects (which we have) based on God's agenda and will. This makes you ignorant, and so you aren't really arguing from knowledge but ignorance where others aren't ignorant.
Secondly to state there is no data to indicate God's existence, as an assertion, is not only absurd intellectually but it is TOTALLY based again, on you playing God and only defining such evidence as that which you yourself would say counts. That way you basically define everything that exists as, "not God".
That is a RUBBISH way to define evidence for God. I prefer the sound way, by logically and correctly qualifying evidence of a Creator as that which would usually "follow" if a creator exists, namely created things. What are created things and what do they contain? We can see this from things we know to be created by creators, (humans).
So then there is plenty of consistent evidence which is more indicative of God existing and it is a logical contradiction to say for example, that such evidence is, "no data", for that is the same as saying that a painting is, "no data" that a painter exists/existed.
According to the USUAL definition of a creator, (rather than the definition used by atheists, of, "nothing that exists", LOL) there is plentiful evidence of God, in all things which have order, specified complexity, genius solutions in nature, such as the aggregate eye obeying several very complex physical laws, neat formulas physicists largely tell us indicates theism rather than not, in other words, it is more reasonable to expect from a Godless world, a random chaotic mess, and where we find beautiful design, order, a well laid plan riddle with contingencies, whatever the usual designer thing is, we find evidence consistent with God.
Now note I didn't affirm the consequent, I did not say, "this is evidence of God therefore it came from God", but rather I am attacking the absurd notion that there is "no data" consistent with God existing. I am afraid that notion, only belongs to biased unbelievers that simply want to assert that any possible consistent evidence of God, is not evidence of God.
Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist." This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim.
Why? Invisibility is not only shared with false things but also with true things. A higgs boson was believed, not "known", for a long time. In the same way we see the effects of a creation but not the required creator. The comparison to santa claus is problematic because it only focuses on the elements God and Santa share. It can be shown logically that invisible things, can either be false things or true things. I cannot presently see oxygen? So then for a long time oxygen couldn't be detected, or germs, does that mean we would compare them with santa? So then why do atheists choose to compare God to santa but never to things which would be invisible, but are possible existent?
Thus it is begging-the-question fallacy, a subtle one, but all the same that fallacy, because your hidden assumption is that we must only compare God to things either which seem absurdly false to us or we know to be false, rather than to compare God to things which may be true but may share some elements with God.
So then, "santa" and, "multi-universes" or "bosons", all share SOME elements with God. The question is, do we, "know" all of the elements?
Answer; no. There are some things we don't know, technically. Intellectualy speaking, if God exists then it would just mean it is possible to have an invisible supernatural entity exist, that shares elements with a fantasy-figure. Why then, is the true question, do they share the elements?
The answer is because our imagination can create false things because false things can be invisible, therefore it is a tautology, that anything you can think up can be equal to God in God's invisibility.
I don't believe you have thought such things through.
Re: Unbelievers do not have the capacity to understand spiritual things
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.
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.
A "believer" as in the born-again-genuine spiritually born believer Faith knowledgeably talks about, is something the bible specifically describes in many places. I can certainly quote the passage Faith is referring to so how can she have "created" what you call, "spiritual crap", and call the Christian bible, "spiritual crap" if you are a born again Christian?
And how can we make the bible in our own image and blaspheme the Holy Spirit for if we invented the bible then we invented the Holy Spirit so how can we do something wrong against something we invented if we invented it to say those things we say are correct?
That's like saying this; "Jar you have created the gospel of Jar and you blaspheme the gospel of Jar by saying creatards are stupid."
(I just use the word, "creatard" as a best guess of what type of word the likes of Jar would use if he wrote his gospel, given the history of his brainless, rhetorical propaganda at this forum).
But of course what you more likely meant was that we are reading into the bible something about the spiritual and natural man. But I am afraid the verses that refer to it are UNEQUIVOCAL, meaning that can only mean one very clear thing, that those born of the spirit have the life of God and can discern the spiritual things and the natural man not born of the spirit, cannot.
So you are either a liar or have simply never bothered to read that part of the bible. it is written in 1st Corinthians chapter 2;
What Faith says EXACTLY LINES UP with what the bible says, and it was written thousands of years before she was born;
What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[c] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”[d]
But we have the mind of Christ.
Conclusion: Have you got anything smarter to offer for debate than some feeble epithets and lies?
Faith is absolutely correct, bang on. Phat was always someone on the precipice of spiritual maturity but because of his own personal issues he has not progressed and is still on what the bible would call, "milk" as a Christian, mixing the philosophies and opinions and beliefs of men with the bible. I remember his SNAKE FASCINATION with me when I struggled in I think the year 2006, with my own faith and told myself I was an agnostic, and I had become an agnostic. Did you know what happened? Phat became my best friend all of a sudden, he was all over me like a rash. Then when I got over my year of doubt it was like I didn't exist again. He has this fascination with people, and is compelled by them, even people that are very overtly against Christianity.
I do believe deep down Phat does believe, and I am as ever, very fond of him as he is a harmless and affable person, but I think he has definitely been DUPED into accepting a lot of the world's trash, such as evolution theory. He is basically accepting evolution or saying he is, because of group peer pressure from evolutionists on EvC. He wants their acceptance.
No offence meant by any of this Phat. I just observe things I can't help but observe.
I'm not sure what you would count as a positive word, Thugs. Not sure what you mean at all. I tend to think you think too highly of unbelievers' opinions but I can't change your mind about that. I would never reduce the Flood the way you do as if God had no good reason for it and as if the unbelievers' complaints about everything God does by way of judgment matter at all. I really don't know what you want to me to say that's positive, but I suppose this isn't it. Sorry.
It would be very obtuse of me to put it down to coincidence that you pretty much say with these words, and echo my thoughts almost exactly.
Not that it's my intention to pick on Phat, or judge him either, but I have noticed these traits.
The word, "thug" comes from, "thuggy", which was a band of people in I believe India who would strangle people to death so as to offer all of their blood to a god they believed in. Arguably the biggest cult to ever exist, whom allegedly killed thousands over the centuries.
I don't connect that meaning to Phat of course, as that would be a very crude attempt at a genetic fallacy indeed. Just wanted to explain where that word originated, if my source information is correct of course.
Personally I think Phat has this fascination with people, it could even be (though I don't accuse him) a sort of worship of people, a snake fascination, especially with non-believers. I see this in the world a lot with celebrity worship too.
Ultimately I can never know why Phat believes he has to accept the unbelievers arguments. It could be what I used to suffer from in the early noughts, the belief I had no intellectual counters to offer so I had to accept defeat, for a long time I had not reached the intellectual capacity to find out any incorrect claims the opposition were making, I had no skills, felt bullied and felt I had to "accept the science".
I think a lot of young believers feel that way and the evolutionists see it and USE IT against them knowing they have spent years being studious of evolution and can basically bamboozle/discombobulate them.
Not all evolutionists of course, many are honestly duping themselves that they are correct about everything.
Re: Unbelievers do not have the capacity to understand spiritual things
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.
But if that is all the bible is, then there is no foundation for any claim. You can then make the bible mean anything. So what are you a believer in?
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.
But that's a historical claim. Even if they did do that is God incapable of providing the truth through the bible? If we cannot take ANYTHING the bible says about God, to be true then the claims of spiritual knowledge would not be experienced like me and Faith have experienced them. the things the bible says follows true belief in Christ, would not occur.
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.
Well, you're half right but I know someone that has read the english, the Aramaic and Hebrew, he was someone that experienced pretty much all forms of religion, and he said all of the purported contradiction only exist because of the translation into english. Have you studied the original texts?
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.
Exactly. So it is misleading for you to say you are a believer when Faith described the belief the bible refers to. We don't believe Jesus Christ is an invention, we know the Lord for real, we experience answered prayer, obey the gospel, believe Christ rose from the dead, experience His hand in our lives, we are not, "guessing" but we are as true witnesses AFFIRMING that the part of the bible I quoted is true from our own experiences.
That you call our true experiences, "marketed propaganda" is to SUPERIMPOSE a false motive onto us.
It's a guilt-by-association fallacy, all you have to do is LUMP us in with all those people who truly are running around with those dark motives you describe, then pretend we are the same.
That's not proof of anything except a cynical mind.
It's also a problem if you go with "any god is God" because then we really can put words in God's mouth. After all Jar do you believe I want my family to perish in hell for all eternity as well as my friends since they all do not believe? Obviously not, so then how can I be writing into the bible or seeing something into the bible I am putting there?
No but rather I would simply believe in universalism if I had my own way - meaning there MUST be an objective meaning to the bible, and the New Testament letters. There is an UNDENIABLE theme to it, showing the selection is not based on the motives you described. It says Christ came, the Messiah, to pay for sin, rose again, then the commission in acts, to spread the gospel, or good news message that by faith in Christ we are saved and the whole theme of the New Testament describes how the law of the spirit of life through Christ saves us from the law of sin and death, and how by faith in Jesus Christ we are saved. It matches up also with Christ's own unequivocal words; "nobody comes to the Father except through me", and that "he who believes in me shall never die".
There is a consistent spiritual theme, and you yourself with your own words have defined yourself as the natural man by admitting 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".
So then according not to Faith, nor me, but to Corinthians itself, you cannot understand that the Lord truly exists because you are the natural man, chasing your own desires, which is HATE of Christians, true ones like us, not false ones like you that pretend to be Christian.