I Know That God Does Not Exist

Thanks xongsmith, I did not know such specifics of "Spinoza's God."Sounds really good, actually. I am pure love.I really like that part.
That's what I've always thought.If God is pure love... then Love is God. And we know Love exists, most of us experience (at least parts of) it every day.
And if we know Love is there, and understand Love - there's no need for God, because they're the same thing.If they're not the same... if some part of God is not Love... then that part of God isn't worthy of following/understanding anyway.And, again, we come down to: understand, follow and fill your life with Love. No mention or understanding or following of God is necessary.
For all things.

I have no issues sounding like I believe in God or agreeing with scriptures.
Some definitions of God, and His scriptures, are very nice and attractive. I would like to be associated with such things, so thank-you for doing so. If love had a being, I would follow it/him/her/they (because I follow love.)
If a Divine Being existed, and it embodies love, then I think we should all want more of this Diving Being in my life (because I want more love in all lives.)But if I already follow love, and a being happens to exist that embodies that love... nothing about my life would change.
I would already be following that Divine Being, without even knowing it, just by following love.So, again, the idea of such a Divine Being, regardless of whether or not it actually exists, is superfluous until such a time that this being is shown to exist, and can expound on our ideas of what love is. But... I haven't rejected anything.
I am perfectly willing, open, and desire a connection with any being that can help show Love.
That being can be as small as any mundane creature of this world (sometimes even a house-cat can teach us things we don't know about Love.)
That being can be as large as a Diving Being.
I am interested in anything that can teach us about or show Love.Of course, as far as Gods are concerned... until one is actually shown to exist: I Know That God Does Not Exist.
And, lucky for me, I can still follow Love as much as possible anyway. You too!

I'm not sure you can do either. That's not true.
Lots of things exist without being created. Like you and I and fish and rocks and trees and wind and snails. This definition is wrong. What do you think physical means?
"Subatomic electromagnetic energy waves" sounds pretty physical to me. Those are all physical.
Angstroms and just as physical as miles.
Sound is based on physical waves.
Synapses are physical things within your physical brain within your physical body. Maybe that's all you are.
That doesn't sound very nice.I'm much more. I'm physical, with the ability to create thoughts and have emotions. Sometimes I want to make my life more enjoyable, and other times I want to make it more challenging. Sometimes I don't want anything at all. The universe is not "(0) nothingness."
The universe is filled with many things. Many alive, and many inanimate.
Some can create other things, others cannot. Some simply are. This isn't true since the universe is not "nothingness." Sure.
Except for when it does. Probably.
But maybe not.I don't know any different, anyway. Nah.I'm a consciousness that sometimes changes, and sometimes remains static.
I experience a perception of reality, but I just do it... I don't do it for any particular reason.
I discover my own purpose in life - and it's stronger than trying to not be boring. Or, at least, it is for me.I don't think any of this has to do with knowing if God exists or not, though.
But after reading it, I do think you could use some more Love in your life.Which means, I still know that God does not exist.

Yes, I agree.I don't find it important, but I do find it interesting.Just like when I play video games - I don't find them important, but I do find them interesting.In this topic, I wanted to explore the claim "I know God does not exist" and see how valid it was.
Turns out, almost 3000 messages in, I still find the claim to be sufficient for how I understand the word "know" to be used for basically everything else in life.Sometimes there's rebuttals like "you don't know God doesn't exist - prove it!"
And I don't think there's any reason to run away from such a challenge.The proof is the same for proving all other negatives - the complete lack of evidence to be found after over-reasonably searching for such evidence.It then becomes a "standing theory" to "know God doesn't exist" just as we know all sorts of other imagination-only things don't exist.The "possibility for being wrong" about knowing such a thing is exactly the same for all other things we also "know" - that the current standing theory is based on solid facts and knowledge, and it can be completely and immediately overturned by any identified evidence to the contrary in the future. Of course, if such a future never happens... then the current standing theory grows stronger and stronger...

The same as knowing that Santa doesn't exist.The magic and wonderful and amazing qualities that are hoped for... but simply do not exist... makes me sad.I'd say... about a 1.
I think the world would be waaaaaaay better if an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-humanly-compassionate/benevolent God existed.
But, alas, it is not true.Of course, because it isn't true, the importance of wanting it to be true is also on the same level of Santa... about a 2.Much better to focus on the things we can change... like living good lives and spreading love to those around us.

The same thing we do with all things we're told.
If it's not too important... accept it, or don't, and check it out if it ever does become important.If it is important... check it immediately.
And, since we've looked for God - and never, ever found Him - I know that God does not exist. Yup.
The same with biology - if we find structures that look and act just like all the other naturally evolved structures we've seen, then we know no builder is required for biological structures. Our ability for self reflection - which is something that developed naturally as our brains developed into more social and complicated biological structures.

You still don't seem to understand a consistent usage of the word "know."You didn't reply to me way back in Message 525 so here's the summary again:

quote

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existence we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it to know more and more.

How do we "know" negative statements about the existence of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false. Once we get lots and lots of evidence about how McDonald's runs their company (compiled from people all over the world) we can rationally, reasonably, confidently say that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu without even checking in that moment.

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

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 existence" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existence. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.

---

Here's a larger message that spells it out a bit more: Message 372
-this message discusses the subjective judgement each and every one of us uses whenever we use the word "know" while discussing anything.
-I'm simply using a much more consistent, rational subjective judgement when I say I "know things" then you are when you say I can't know that God exists.Summarized by this small quote from Modulous: For your own personal, subjective reasons - when discussing God you've decided to move the goalposts for the word "know" into some sort of irrational, hopeful area of your mind that you hold for reasons only you will ever know and you don't apply this standard to any other time you use the word "know" (or else... you would never be able to say that you know anything at all.)For me, I use a more consistent, rational sense of the word "know" when discussing God and this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that I Know That God Does Not Exist.

No, my argument is that evidence of absence is evidence of absence. Why wouldn't it be?If I can say I know there are no keys on a table when I look at a table and there's nothing on it at all... then I can say I Know That God Does Not Exist when the vast majority humans throughout history have looked for God everywhere we possibly can and never find Him.Can you think of a way God exists and we haven't found Him yet? - Sure, just as you can think of a way Sharkfin soup exists on McDonald's menu even though it never has and all evidence points to that it's not moving in that direction.Which is the meaning of the word "know.""Know" doesn't mean for-sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake. If it did, you could never actually say that you "know" anything.
There's always some level of tentativity/doubt when using the word "know."
The word "know" simply means that you do have evidence, and it's reasonable/rational to follow that evidence to the conclusion you're drawing.If you want to use a different level of tentativity/doubt when using the word "know" about God then you do about everything else... then that's up to you.For me, I am going to try and stay consistent, and this leads me to an unavoidable conclusion that I Know That God Does Not Exist.

It's a good counter-argument, perhaps the best one. But I think it fails when you add in a level of consistency.You can call it "levels of contentment" or "finished looking" or "finished believing/accepting"... it all seems to be about the same thing... when to personally (subjectively) accept that "knowing something" is tentative and you're confident (again, subjectively) that you've done "enough."I can look at a table with nothing on it.
I can say "I know my keys are not on that table."But is this not simply my own level of contentment?
Have I not simply decided that I'm done looking?
Didn't I simply accept that my "knowing" is tentative and I'm confident that I've done "enough?"After all... perhaps there is some physics trick-of-the-light where my keys are perfectly blending into the table with excellent camoflauge.Maybe I need to swipe my hand across the table?
Is that "enough" to say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?But, then again... what if my brain is having issues... I move up to the table and swipe my hand across it and feel nothing... but in reality I didn't actually lower my hand onto the table and I only thought I did?
...if I don't know that, and I think I truly did swipe my hand across the table, and also see no keys on the table... can I say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?It gets worse, though.Let's say I do tests to guarantee no trick-of-the-light is occurring and my vision is fine.
Let's say I have many people swipe their hands across the table and none of us are having brain-issues.Isn't it possible that God Himself may be hiding my keys from us? And my keys really are on that table.
What if it's not God? What if it's Loki or Dr. Strange or Satan or a Demon or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or an Elf or a Satyr?After all my tests... can I say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?The point is... in order to say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table... there is always a level of tentativity. A level of doubt that's accepted. A level of "I'm done looking now" even though we haven't looked everywhere. This is how it is whenever we use the word "know." With anything and everything.Understand that... and apply the same level of tentativity/doubt/done-looking to God's existence with all the evidence of absence we have on God and no evidence of existence; not even a required motive for existence... over basically all of human history... and the conclusion is unavoidable: I Know That God Does Not Exist.

Yes - this is the (subjective) acceptance of tentativity that we all make whenever we use the word "know." Whether we consciously acknowledge it or not.My point is that if we look at the level of acceptance we use for the word "know" on all sorts of other things we confidently say we know all the time: keys not being on a table, safe to drive through an intersection, other people on the other side of the internet... and then apply this to "Does God exist?" Then the reasonable, consistent conclusion is that I Know That God Does Not Exist.But not being consistent isn't necessarily a bad thing.When I want to know I'm going to buy a house - I'll read all the fine print in the contract.
When I want to know I'm going to use some freeware software - I'll click past the "I Acknowledge" screens during installation.These 2 items are inconsistent for a reason: A house is a lot of money and I want to put a higher level of confidence on my knowledge. Freeware software may or may not work, and I likely don't really care... so my level of confidence on my knowledge doesn't need to be as high.So... why am I using a consistent level of knowledge for God and you're using a high level of knowledge?
Because you think God is a more important aspect of life than I do.Maybe you think God is important for the afterlife.
-I'm confident in taking responsibility for the decisions I've made in my life... if someone wants to judge me as evil or bad and condemn me to an afterlife of pain and agony... I'll take that so that I'm able to say I lived a good life helping people and those I love as best I know how.
-So I don't think God is important for the afterlife.Maybe you think God is required for a good/safe life here and now.
-I'm confident that no God has ever had a hand in my life or anyone else I love or care for. I do have a good/safe life here and now, and I'm confident that it's because I've made good decisions as well as had help from many family and friends who've greatly helped me along my way. Mostly because I deal in reality and not imagination when getting into serious decisions on how to live my life.
-So I don't think God is required for a good/safe life here and now.Maybe you think we owe God something for creating us.
-I'm confident that didn't create us. But even if He did, I'm confident that a good God would want us to become independent. That's what I'd want for my own children - to be able to take care of themselves and lead a life they can find personal fulfillment within. In such a view, the created never owes anything to the creator, and such an idea that something was actually owed would be repulsive to a good creator.
-So I don't think we owe God anything.The draw of this chain of 3000 messages is to get people to look ("Free Beer!" ... "I Know That God Does Not Exist!")
But the reason for this chain of 3000 messages is to get people to think about how they know things... and think about how that applies to everything they think they "know/believe/accept."Understanding that we "know nothing" is the first step.
Understanding a really good way to "know things" is the next.
Understanding what we actually "know" is the next.
Applying these concepts to all other concepts is the next.
This will lead to a very well-grounded foundation - from which people can go anywhere.It can even lead to a strong belief in God... it will help you understand the aspects you "really know" and the aspects you "actually only accept" and which of those are really important to you and which can be shrugged into the "don't care" pile.The proper answer to "I Know That God Does Not Exist" is not "Nuh-uh! You can't say that!!"... This merely identifies the answer-er as someone who doesn't understand what knowledge is and is therefore at a great disadvantage in almost all aspects of life.The proper answer is "Oh... cool for you... I have my own subjective reasons why I'm going to an inconsistent level of tentativity so I'm not willing to say such a thing, and I'm good with that."
-if you can truthfully, really say this... then it shows that you understand what "knowing" something is all about and if you apply this to all the things you know... then it's a lot easier to make better decisions for all other aspects of life.

Not their level of knowledge... but their level of tentativity/acceptance... absolutely. As it should be.I would expect my level of tentativity/acceptance on if a certain character build in Destiny 2 is good to use is higher than yours.
Because I play Destiny 2 - I'm interested.
I'm guessing you don't play Destiny 2 - so why should you care?The level of knowledge is also kind of along these same lines (why would someone know a lot about something they're not interested in?)... but this isn't as direct of a link, it's more coincidental/functional. You think it isn't?Have you never heard someone say "I know I can beat you in a race!" and then go on to lose that race?
Some people throw the word "know" around as if it means "hope."
Others reserve the word and hardly ever use it all.. preferring to say "I think..." or "Probably.."
Most just use it as we all do - when something is personally considered to be a fact."Personally considering" something to be a fact... is the very definition of "relative to the individual."It is not possible for us to actually know something... anything... 100%.
What would you compare it to in order to verify?
Do you have an answer book for the questions of life?Why do think science never "proves" anything and only works on evidence and confidence?
Because that's all any of us can ever do.Years ago Science "knew" Newton's description of gravity.
Later, Science "knew" Einstein's description of gravity.
Now, we know more.
What will we know about gravity in the future?If Science... the very best method we've ever come up with in "knowing things" never actually claims to know/prove things... and only works in evidence and confidence... what does this tell you? Heh... I'm not even sure reality itself is objective and absolute in the context you're asking here

For me it's the pantry.I swear things only pop into existence after Wifey tells me it's exactly where I just looked...

I understand you mean this in the context of your explanation - that the word 'proof' simply shouldn't be considered as a part of 'doing science.'
And I agree with you 100%.But my ramble isn't on that, it's going to jump off and go into the far left field of nuance (my favorite place for rambling!)
And, it does not have a target audience other than "anyone interested in a ramble about science and proof."Your chosen example... that surgery is not part of a driving a bus... is excellent for showing that they are disconnected.However... it is still clear that surgery is "a thing" and there are people (doctors) who would be good at doing surgey.
This aspect... if anyone else's mind is going there... does not align with "proof" and "science."That is, science doesn't prove anything... but it's not like "proof" is still a thing and there are others that actually can prove such things and science simply doesn't do it because it's not skilled in that area.
Well, in the sense of mathematics this is true... mathematicians prove things, in the context of mathematics that are made-up/developed by humans and using our imagination to create symbols/rules/axioms.If we're dealing with "describing reality" though, things that aren't created/imagined by us... the things science deals with... the word "proof" doesn't simply not exist for science... it doesn't exist for anyone at all.
There is no "other specialized group" that actually can "prove" things when describing reality.
Proof requires answers for comparison to know if you're right... and there are no answers to "describing reality." Only tests that can be confirmed or denied... but not "full answer" that is "100% correct."Science doesn't stay away from proving things because they don't know how to do it, or others do it better, or it's not within their scope, or they don't have time...
Science stays away from proving things because it's not possible to prove things about describing reality.
Or, at least, not a single human in the history of humanity has ever been able to describe a method that proves things about reality.Science stays away from proving things because it's currently impossible.
If it ever did become possible... science would be the first to adopt the strategy and begin proving anything and everything it could.In the context I'm describing, it would be closer to say something like this:Asking if Science proves anything is like asking if a bus driver can ride a unicorn.
-no they can't, it has no bearing, and it's not possible for anyoneOh yeah... that's a good ramble. Scratched that itch

I was raised Catholic, and I had a Confirmation. Here's what I remember about my (very generic/average/Canadian) way through it, 30-ish years ago:Canada has two types of government-funded schools: Public and Catholic.
-and interesting side bit, if you have questions...
-for now, let's basically say that the two are pretty much the same thing (provide the same basic education/opportunities) but the Catholic one includes "Religion" courses every year as well that are not included in the Public curriculum.
-as well, you need to be Catholic to go to the Catholic school... basically go to a Catholic church and pay... funds... I forget what they call it (not tithing...)While attending a Catholic school, everyone around "that age" (Grade 8, I think?) goes through Confirmation. It's basically a part of the school curriculum (although not a legal requirement for completion.) I remember the entire class getting ready to go through Confirmation...1. We made these over-the-shoulder felt sashes with our "confirmed" name on them.
-my chosen name was Daniel (yes, chosen by me... pretty much "whatever name you wanted from the patron saints or already existing in the Bible."
-so my "new name" was: FirstName, MiddleName, Daniel, LastName (although I don't remember seeing this written anywhere official... but it certainly was a thing we were taught.)2. We were all given Bibles to read/study (ours to keep forever.)
-the Bibles we were given were these small, red versions. I don't remember what version specifically... but I'm pretty sure they were New Testament only, not the entire Bible.
-there were times provided in class where we would spend them reading this provided Bible3. I don't remember any lessons on how to critically think and choose about joining the religion or not.
-I do remember that Confirmation is when we decide "as adults" (we were 12/13 years old...) that we personally wanted to "choose" and "continue" in the Catholic religion
-what was I to do? I had grown up going to church every Sunday - not a choice, but a mandate from my parents
-I believed in God at this point, I was even a devout Alter Boy (gave me something to do during Mass instead of just sitting, kneeling, standing with everyone else - I would make sure the proper wine/water was brought to the alter at the proper times... light candles at proper times... things like that.)
-everyone in class (all my friends) were excited about choosing a new name (I don't remember any critical-thought discussion on if we should be following or not... we were 12/13 years old.)4. I had to find a "Sponsor" (and it can't be a parent/guardian) within the Catholic Church to guide me
-I was friends in the neighbourhood with a boy who was 1 grade older than me... we played together often; I asked his father, who I knew fairly well5. There was a planned Mass one Sunday where everyone in my grade who attended the same Catholic school I went to (there were more churches than schools at that time...) would be Confirmed.
-Mass occurred as normal
-at one point we all went to the front with our Sponsor behind us with their hand on our shoulder
-Priest came by one-by-one and said something and I'm sure we responded positively
-all happened fairly quick because Mass was still only 1 hour long (families without anyone being Confirmed would still attend this Mass and expect to go home 1 hour later.....)So, yeah... pretty much like that.A lot of "built-in" peer pressure:
-entire class doing it
-Sponsor is likely a family friend who also expects you to go through with it
-family has likely been going to Mass every Sunday with an expectation that this will continue (or else!) for the fore-seeable future
-in front of entire congregationI don't remember any sort of actual, direct peer-pressure.
But I don't really remember thinking on it any more than "I believe in God? Yeah... Catholic Confirmation!"

I would say it was caused by fear and ignorance.
But the hallucinations would have exasperated the fear and ignorance... so, yeah, kinda the same thing. I'm not sure exactly how to take this statement.
It all relies on the answer to the question: Do you still think a demon was responsible for your sleep paralysis?The following assumes your answer to that question is "no."
However, if your answer is "yes" - then the following will likely not apply:Do you understand the analogy this forms?Phat does not believe demons cause sleep paralysis, even though Phat experienced intense feelings during the event. Phat understands that such feelings can occur because all studies and evidence show that demons are not necessary for such an event.
Many others do believe demons cause sleep paralysis, because they insist that the intense feelings must be because the demon was there and talked to them. If the demon wasn't real, then the feelings wouldn't have been that intense. The situation wouldn't have felt that real. Besides, demons are beings and can avoid being detected by studies and evidence.Stile does not believe God exists, even though Stile experiences intense feelings as a human. Stile understands that such feelings can occur because all studies and evidence show that God is not necessary for such events.
Many others (including Phat?) do believe God exists, because they insist that the intense feelings must be because God is there and talked to them. If God wasn't real, then the feelings wouldn't have been that intense. The situation wouldn't have felt that real. Besides, God is a being and can avoid being detected by studies and evidence.Feelings cannot be trusted to form important conclusions about reality. They're just usually wrong about such things.
Things that actively, always avoid detection from studies and evidence... act exactly as if they didn't exist at all.
No need to stop searching, if it floats your boat... you might expand knowledge.Maybe one day, someone will discover how demons really are behind sleep paralysis. Or perhaps they're just wasting their time, as the evidence shows they are.
Maybe one day, someone will discover how God really does exist. Or perhaps they're just wasting their time, as the evidence shows they are.Until at least some study or evidence is shown... I know demons do not cause sleep paralysis.
Until at least some study or evidence is shown... I know God does not exist.