I Know That God Does Not Exist

Fair enough. It is philosophical as was much of what Lewis believed.

If it is obvious then tell me. What is the non-intelligent process that began the evolutionary process? Just give me one process without me even asking where that process came from. I don't claim to be able to. A timeless deity was not about answering that question and of course doesn't explain it at all. It is faith. As Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody".

I asked a question to which you give no answer at all. This thread isn't about the morality of a deity but about whether God exists at all. You and others keep saying that there is objective evidence to support Stile's opening question. What is that objective evidence? The only way morality plays into this is that conscious intelligent creatures have resulted from the evolutionary process.I am merely saying that whether we choose an intelligent root cause for life as we know it or a non-intelligent root is entirely subjective and can be argued only on a subjective basis. You guys keep saying that there is objective evidence for Stile's claim. What is it? Please explain the leap from space time to conscious life to me. That is quite a breath-taking leap. As a matter of fact that kind of leap, subjectively speaking, sounds very god-like. ..but what you quoted was my subjective position. I claim no objective evidence to support it. My view is simply that if God is outside of time and not subject to change the way we experience it, then the question of who what created God becomes moot.

What is the objective evidence for Stile's claim? In that case I can claim that there is a God because there is an objective lack of evidence for non-intelligent origins to life or the evolutionary process.AbE Happy Canada Day. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

That' is what fundamentalism can become.. It becomes about despising those who disagree with you which is completely at odds with Jesus' "love your enemy". Sure we hate the things some people do but we go still go on loving them. A good example of that in action was in the case of Dale Lang which I mentioned earlier in this thread, who was a guy who visited and counselled the young man who had murdered his son.

Well firstly I disagree that there is no evidence for a creative intelligence but that isn't the point. However, to the point, I agree with it being objective, but lack of evidence isn't conclusive, so Stile cannot "know" that God doesn't exist.There is also lack of evidence to show that the natural processes that are available for us to study today resulted from other pre-existing natural processes. We are searching for truth so there is no default position. It is either A or B; God or no God. Occam is a philosophical approach and not a scientific one and is hardly objective evidence.

That is a total cop-out Stile. In claiming that you know God does not exist then you are claiming to be an expert.When I claim that an interventionist God intervenes as a meme in human hearts you, as an expert, reject that.Tangle asked the obvious question and you simply tried to duck it.

Sure, but Stile says He "knows" which IMHO asserts that his evidence is conclusive. What evidence is that, and is it subjective or objective? For that matter ultimately there has to be either an intelligent or a non-intelligent root for that string of processes regardless of how far back you want to go. But there is evidence for a creative intelligence. Intelligent life itself is subjective evidence.There are also the Gospel stories. We have the objective evidence that they exist and we subjectively decide whether or not to believe them. But it certainly doesn't allow Stile to be correct in saying he knows that "God" doesn't exist. For that matter is the simplest solution, a virtually infinite number of untraceable lucky processes or the concept of theirebeing a pre-existing intelligence that is responsible for life?

Well then with that understanding, as I said earlier, I declare that I "know" God exists. The definition that comes up for "subjective evidence" is this.

quote:

---

Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it. Testimony of the parties to a contract is subjective evidence.

---

Again, what evidence points only to natural causes? When you are talking about an intelligent first cause then you are talking about the reason that the natural processes that we can evaluate exist.I subjectively claim that the fact that conscious intelligent life emerged from mindless particles to be unnatural. That is just evading the question by asking another question. My point is, that if you want to raise the issue of an infinite regression of gods then I am simply pointing out that you have the same problem with an infinite regression of natural processes. The only intelligence that we have knowledge of is human. I freely admit that human intelligence would be inadequate to create a process of bringing conscious intelligent beings out of mindless particles. The fact that intelligent life exists is objectively known by all of us. We then can form our own subjective views of why intelligent life exists. No, private evidence needed. We objectively know that Treasure Island exists but it is clearly meant as fiction. The Gospels, (I suppose you can argue it if you want to), were clearly meant to historically talk about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. We can subjectively conclude what we personally believe to be historical, allegorical, embellished, in error, made up or a combination of any or all of those possibilities. The accounts though, however we view them, are evidence. On that we will simply disagree.

Just one thought on that. I have one foot in the church world and one in the secular world. I have many friends and contacts in both. The percentage of those people in the church world that are prepared to spend their resources of both time and money for the benefit of others, far exceed what I experience in my secular world. Certainly there is an overlap but on average the gap is huge. I am not talking about proselytizing, but about feeding the hungry, visiting prisoners, clothing the naked etc.

I'd suggest that there is. How about even comparing the US or Canada with any other nation on Earth.Here is a study in the US
Christian vs Secular giving in USIn our area here there were a number of groups formed to bring in refugees from Syria. I was involved in 3 of them. Every group that I know of in the area were church based. It involved not only contributing financially but helping them to settle in an entirely new to them culture, including having to learn a new language.AbE Incidentally this is not just my experience where I live now, but was also my experience when I lived in the Montreal area and the the Toronto area.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

quote:

---

According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.

---

From this source
We have scientific evidence of the this quote. We now have the world that we know with humans possessing consciousness and intelligence. That is quite a leap from one to the other.Paley had the right idea with the human eye. His problem was that he didn't go back far enough. Science has demonstrated a way in which the eye could have evolved. However, what Paley should have asked, and might if he were alive today, is how could a mindless process come up with an incredibly complex evolutionary process that produce a single living cell let alone an eyeball.I don't claim that argument is conclusive but I do claim that it is highly suggestive of an external intelligence. We form our subjective opinions based on the objective evidence we have. Wouldn't you say that belief in string theory is based on subjective evidence? Just how is that an explanation for deciding to believe that we are solely the result of processes driven by blind chance? ...just like piling process upon process adds turtles to the stack. I've given one speculative explanation for not requiring an infinite regression of gods. You propose a network. Can you explain what that looks like and where it came from?

..sure and why do all those rules and processes you talk about exist and work. You make my case for me.

No. However ultimately the world had to come from "neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos." to conscious intelligent life. I can't prove conclusively that this happened without any external intelligence, but I can't muster up enough faith in the possibility to consider the idea "worthy of merit".

OK Here is a Canadian StudyAlso, we aren't talking about charity that is derived from government. We are talking about what individuals, either on their own or as part of a defined group, do to spend their time and financial assets for the benefit of others. I'm not at all clear about what point you are trying to make here.