I Know That God Does Not Exist

And what is the observation that leads us to believe that God might be found there?Again, the pattern of observations for God being found in places we didn't look before is that, once we look - God is not found.
So - what is your rational reason to overturn that current pattern?If you don't have one, then the rational conclusion that "I know God does not exist" stands - until you can produce a rational reason to suggest it contains more error than is already-assumed by any conclusion of any rational analysis. Yes, we have been there and we have done that.
You dismissing them for no reason is irrevlant.Unless you have an objective, consistent method for testing things that describes why these God tests are not included and others are - you're out of (rational) luck. Exactly!
Almost there!
You're just forgetting the one step above this - until we have a rational reason to even try and have a "God test" in the first place - we can say we know God does not exist as there's nothing to link the imagination of God to reality.Just as we do for Santa, and Chimeras and Luminiferous Ether and any other only-in-imagination philosophical idea.

We have been through this - if, at that stage, you are unable to say "I know that water passages do not exist."
Then, at this current stage, you also can't say "I know ringo can bake cakes."Because both are only doubted by the possibility of future information overturning currently-known information.
And there's nothing but imagination to suggest that such future information will actually ever be found. We have been through this - they were tests for God. And God wasn't found. And then the definition of God was irrationally changed so that they are only things God is supposed to have done.
Just like Luminiferous Ether. Some people have irrationally changed the definition such that the Michelson-Morely experiment does not apply - they still (irrationally) think Luminiferous Ether may exist.Yet you and I disregard these irrational ideas for Luminiferous Ether - because there's no link from their imagination to reality that suggests their new definition actually exists.
I also disregard these irrational ideas for God for the same reason.
You seem to accept them for God - being inconsistent - for what reason? We have been through this. This doesn't change the fact that based on our current rational information - I know that God does not exist.
I am in full support of you (or anyone interested) to do irrational searches - searches based on only your imagination that thinks God might exist - or searches for the sake of "searching" just to see what you'll find.Doesn't change the current facts or their current rational, objective, unavoidable conclusions.

And we have observed that God does not exist as much as we have observed that ringo can bake cakes.
...everything we know of confirms these two things.
...it is possible that something that we don't-yet-know-of can overturn them. Correct.
Good thing this has nothing to do with God's existence!We have observed God not existing.
Everywhere and anywhere we've ever looked.
If you don't agree - just say where we've observed God existing. We don't have a lack of knowledge, we have positive, objective, factual observations that God does not exist.
As much as we do for knowing cars aren't there so we can turn left.
As much as we do for knowing ringo can bake cakes.
...all the information we're currently able to identify says such things are so. Yes, they were.
All you're repeating is the currently-changed-to-definition such that the previous tests are no longer applicable.
Others equally do the same thing in order to convince themselves that there's a "reasonable chance" that Luminiferous Ether still exists.Both are wrong.Neither are "absolutely wrong" - our knowledge claims don't prescribe reality.
Maybe God exists and our current observations are wrong.
Maybe Luminiferous Ether exists and our current observations are wrong.Both are, though, "wrong according to our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge."
Our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge says such irrational ideas can be discarded and do not cast doubt on the current conclusion.That's how we're able to know Luminiferous Ether does not exist - no matter how many people "may believe" that it still has a chance.
That's how we're able to know ringo-can-bake-cakes - no matter how many people "may believe" it's actually incorrect.
That's how we're able to know God does not exist - no matter how many people "may believe" He actually does.Rational analysis.
You're still simply not being consistent.
I can continue to point out your inconsistencies over and over as long as you wish - you're mixing "rational analysis" and "philisophical wishes" together as you see fit.
That's just fine for ringo.
That cannot be called a "rational analysis."You're not judging things consistently according to our best-known-method-for-identifying-knowledge.Your choice to do that, but the inconsistencies are objective and easy to identify.

True, but irrelevant.
I'm not "not observing God."
I'm getting a positive observation of "not God" everywhere we're able to check. Exactly. All the various things people have attributed to God.
All of them tested, all of them conclude: no God. Yes, there was.
Plenty.
You just changed the definition after.I'm sure the people who've changed the definition of Luminiferous Ether will also say "There never has been a definition of Luminiferous ether that is adequate for testing it's existence."If you can say "Luminiferous Ether does not exist" - then you can also say "God does not exist."
More tests/searches for God have occurred, for a longer portion of our history, than those done for Luminiferous Ether.

Not at all.You said so yourself "Not observing A is not the same as observing (not A)."I said "we have observed that God does not exist..."
I did not say "we have not observed God..."I am "observing (not A)."
I am not "not observing."Because I am not "not observing..."
Your original statement is true, but irrelevant... because I'm not doing what is true in your statement. Of course there is.
It's what we call "observing (not A)."
It's how we know we can turn left because "no cars are coming" and therefore it's safe.
It's how we know there are no keys on the table if we look, and there are no keys."Not observing" would be turning left without looking.
Or claiming keys are not on the table without checking first.I am "observing (not A)."
Looking for God everywhere and anywhere in all of our available information and getting a positive conclusion of "observing (no God)." I don't know. Maybe one of them did.
But who cares?
I'm doing a rational analysis - based on facts.
Not a rigorous scientific test.And the rational analysis tests of looking for God and never, ever finding Him, is enough to put the "tests for God" on par with the "tests for Luminiferous Ether" in the sense of rational analysis.I agree that the tests for God likely do not come to scientific par with the tests for Luminiferous Ether - but who cares?
No one's requiring scientific testing.
Only rational analysis. Nope. Never happened.You're the one flip-flopping about on what's "doubt" or "no doubt" or when knowledge is "absolute" or not or when "only imagination" is good enough to sway a rational analysis.
You do one thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether... and then you do another for God. For no rational reason.I do the same thing for cakes and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God.

If you cannot positively identify that no cars are coming before you turn left - you should never drive.
The rest of us do it quite safely, and quite often. Why would you say that?
I've shown you all the rational tests that have been done.Looking for God, pretty much everywhere, and never finding Him.Positive observations of God's non-existence. The "same thing" I do for cakes, and NWP's and Luminiferous Ether and God is: rational testing according to our best-known-way of knowing things.
Scientific testing is not required, although scientific testing also incorporates this way of knowing things.Your red herring is still irrelevant.

You're allowed to be in whichever camp you desire.The point of this thread would get to your thoughts like this:1) You counting your subjective experience as evidence is fine for you personally - but not for "knowing" God if we define "knowing things" as we use the term in everyday life: facts that are supported by tests against reality. Your subjective experience does not qualify for these types of facts.2) You needing God, and therefore believing in God, can be part of a very healthy lifestyle. It just has no impact on facts, or knowing things.And, yes, having people agree with us (about anything) is always 'positive feedback' for people on any idea.
But, again, "having people agree with us" has nothing to do with facts tested against reality in order to suggest knowing God exists or not.

Huh...

quote:

---

Of course spiritually regenerated people object to reality, and it's always reality they object to. Reality killed whole tribes of people due to their ignorance. The spiritually regenerated hate that of course, but, in reality, shit happens. We are to learn from it that ignorance is a terrible offense that will be severely punished by reality.

---

Interesting.

Observations, eh?Seems similar to this:

quote:

---

mike the wiz was always someone on the precipice of intellectual maturity but because of his own personal ignorance he has not progressed and is still on what reality would call, "immature" as an adult, mixing the philosophies and opinions and beliefs of men with reality.

---

I understand your point.
My point wasn't intended to be so much a contradiction to yours as it was meant to be a contrast.Your point is that it takes spiritual discernment in order to understand and learn from such events.
My point is that it takes the testing of reality in order to understand and learn from such events.You seem to imply that those without "spiritual discernment" will never be able to understand such events.
I imply that anyone who tests reality can understand such events.It's just a contrast.

Anything we've ever learned. Exactly. I agree as well. Such "practical things" are exactly the things we've learned from testing reality - how to remove our ignorance and make progress.Since you agree that such things exist to be learned as "reality" as opposed to God's judgements... what is your answer?What are the things that can be learned through "spiritual discernment" that cannot be learned without such spiritual discernment? What is?
"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom?"
"The wages of sin is death?"
"Death and disease and all kinds of disasters entered the world from The Fall?"
"...the events themselves are produced by the Moral Law?"It seems to me that these are things you just say.
Things that are written in the Bible.
Things that are known to be wrong, or known to be off, or known to be... lacking in detail to the point of being useless.Things where testing reality has made much more progress.Like how schools and trades and apprenticeships use testing against reality to pass wisdom down from one generation to the next. Fear of God is not required and can even be a hindrance.Like how medical leaders test against reality to learn how a human body works, and that death occurs when the environment prevents such workings. The wages of sin are extraneous and never seem to have any impact at all.Like how death and disease and all kinds of disasters have always been on Earth as testing reality shows they are a much a part of Earth as humans are. The Fall was never required and likely never happened.Like how the events themselves are produced by physical laws of motion and fluid/matter dynamics as testing reality has grown our understandings of weather and volcanoes and tropical storms to the extent of being able to begin to predict their occurrences. This "Moral Law" doesn't seem to have any impact, nor does it help us predict anything to any useful level of detail.What has spiritual discernment taught us, again?
Anything more than feelings that can equally be obtained without "spiritual discernment" anyway?
Anything that can't be equally (or better) taught to us by testing reality?

If that were true, it would have been learned by now.How long has God's judgement been around? Since the beginning of time?
Same with the idea of testing against reality to learn about reality.Yet - no nation has ever built better bridges, or lowered the deaths of babies (born or unborn) after attempting to "conform to God's law." Not ever. There has never been a prosperous nation that "conformed to God's law."
And - many nations have built better bridges, and lowered the deaths of babies (born or unborn) after attempting to "test against reality."
There have only ever been prosperous nations that "tested against reality."Also, testing against reality has taught us that collapsed bridges have reasons why they collapse - inappropriate materials, inappropriate design, or prolonged/inappropriate usage.There is no connection between a bridge collapsing and murdering millions of unborn babies.
Just as the bridges in Nazi Germany didn't all collapse during/after the murder of millions of Jews.You're lacking too many details.
Saying "bridges collapse due to God's judgement of millions of unborn babies dying" is the same as saying "disasters happen eventually - but I'm personally attributing them to these reasons because I feel it fits."Which has been proven to be a very bad, and false, way to think about reality.
It prevents progress, doesn't fix any bridges, and worse - doesn't save any babies.

Take your time, health comes first.Yes, it would have been learned by now.
If "conforming to God's law made a nation prosperous" was true - it would have been learned by now.
Every nation would have a large and growing prominent section devoted to "understanding and applying God's law."
Details would be chased after.
Specifics would become clear.
Questions would become increasingly minute.Just as "learning" works for every other subject.Because people always do what works.
And when it doesn't work - it fails.Like bridges built with inappropriate materials - learned by testing against reality.
Like mental health sustained with appropriate tools - learned by testing against reality.Like the US, under "so many variations of Christianity" - prospered by the industrial revolution - learned by testing against reality - not by conforming to God's law.
Like Britain, under Anglican Christianity - prospered by it's wealth and navy - learned by testing against reality - not by conforming to God's law.
Like China, not under the Christian God at all - prospered by the technical revolution - learned by testing against reality - not by conforming to God's law.
Like Rome, under the Roman Catholic church - prospered by it's army - learned by testing against reality - not by conforming to God's law.They all prospered as they tested against reality, regardless of attempts to "conform to God's law" or not.
They were all surpassed by another nation that's better at testing against reality - not any nation "conforming better to God's law."Name a nation that prospered by conforming to God's law and not testing against reality.
Name how it was surpassed by another nation that's better at conforming to God's law, regardless of attempts to test against reality.Why is it that all prosperous nations have their major reason for being prosperous tied to testing against reality and not "conforming to God's law?"
Has no one ever tried to conform to God's law?
Is God's Law not useful enough for a group of people to get together and conform to it in order to build a prosperous nation?
Is God's Law not strong enough to keep a group of people together to out-perform other nations?
Is God's Law not smart enough to foresee future issues and deal with them before they become a problem?Testing against reality can do all of that.
And, although it can be used to foresee future issues and deal with them - it doesn't prevent a different nation from testing against reality better and gaining an upper hand - as history shows.

No.
I don't think any of those can be explained according to God's judgements.
I don't think anything at all can be explained according to God's judgement - as you've offered nothing that has ever been explained by God's judgement that doesn't have a better or equivalent explanation from testing against reality.I think "God's judgement" is an old tradition carried over that simply means "I don't know - but here's something I attribute it to so that it doesn't look like I don't know to anyone who doesn't stare too long."Which, amusingly, if the honest phrasing was used - more progress would even be made as certain people would be quicker to identify the issue, test against reality, and actually find a real solution to make real prosperous progress.

Thanks Phat, I liked that link.I think it does a really good job taking a large subject and explaining a lot of important aspects of it.My one contention is the entire article (except for maybe a small part near the end?) seems to take on this whole: "This is really important to me... therefore something similar is really important to everyone!!" vibe... which I don't like.Example:

quote:

---

Society at large focuses on shallow things, so it doesn’t stress the need to take real growth seriously.

---

Here he's implying that "real growth" is necessarily "religious/spiritual/mental/state-of-mind."
Although I agree that such growth is extremely important (and one of the most important things to me personally) - I would never call it "real growth" in the sense that it "must" apply to everyone.People vary so much... to assume that anything applies to "everyone" is, well, missing the point of what he's talking about throughout most of his own article.This is, also, just me being nit-picky.
Like I said - he does make some mention to this at the bottom in his entire "What Are You?" final section.
Here he talks about figuring it out for yourself and it could be anything at all - which is really good stuff.But, then he falls back into the trap again with his last sentence of "I hope I’ve convinced you how important this is. Don’t wait until your deathbed to figure out what life is all about."And seems to forget that it's entirely possible for someone to not think this is important at all, not need this to be important at all, and is perfectly happy (perhaps happier than him, even?) without considering it in the slightest.Other than that - I like his ideas very much and really enjoyed reading over them - so thank-you.