I Know That God Does Not Exist

So every imagined deity, fairy, phantasm is to be considered viable, albeit to a vanishingly small degree, because no one can show it doesn’t exist? We are required to give it some modicum of credence because we cannot prove a negative?I disagree. The standard for even the smallest consideration is some evidence of viability, not the lack thereof.Unknown? Unknowable? Until there is an effect upon this universe the phantasm does not exist.

What kind of thing is a mainstream god? Naw, I'm not going to do you that way.I see no difference in any imaginary phantasms.Is there something special about Shiva or Cthulhu or Yahweh versus Tinker Bell or Puck or Morgan le Fay?

Only because their creators are lost to history and cannot attest to their genesis? Is that your standard?We are still left with un-evidenced, unknown, unknowable phantasms that have no effect on anything in this universe.Again, I ask, is such an idea to be considered viable just because no one can show it doesn’t exist? Are we to give such ideas credence only because logic does not allow proof of a negative?There should be a stronger standard for our intellectual considerations than just an inability to show/deny efficacy. Our considerations should be reserved for those ideas that have shown their efficacy as more than creative imagination.I prefer a positive reasoning for our considerations. We have seen where negative reasoning is not productive. It is no better than merely hoping on an emotional whim.Any idea that has no effect on this universe is non-existent by definition. A non-interventionist deity is such an idea. Any idea that cannot show evidence of efficacy, or a reasonable probability of efficacy, should not be given any level of serious intellectual consideration. Such is only a play toy for our imaginative amusements.Your mileage may vary.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I am not meaning to curtail curiosity to search and explore. I am meaning to question the assigning of intellectual legitimacy to imaginative speculations based on the idea that we cannot disprove them.

You are not alone in this.Gotta love this place.

Oh, I’ve repeated Stiles’s results. Others here have repeated Stile’s results. You, yourself repeated Stile’s results, unless you can show us different. Billions of people over how many millennia cannot show us anything other than Stile’s results. There is not one reliable demonstrous instance of anyone anywhere obtaining anything other than Stile’s results. In science, that’s pretty reliable, ringo.

Really? So they can show us these gods. Where?

So now you’re saying there have *not* been any successful searches and Stile’s null result still stands.Bummer. We were ready to fire up the MRIs and the CATscans. My issue here was your statement to Stile:

quote:

---

Your failure to find God is not objective because your results can not be repeated reliably.

---

...which is not correct since Stile's result has been repeated by me and many billions of others.

So they found gods!Great. Let's see one.

So no real physically embodied gods.All in people's heads, emotions, acculturation.Just the kind of supposed evidence of reality that science rejects.Stile's null result still stands. So does his conclusion.

Because I've seen experiences of others I know what mental disconnects and illusions can do. I would like to think I would be rational enough to analyze the situation and discount my own senses. If not then it really doesn't matter what a crazy old man said he saw.I'll let you know if it happens ... if they let me use the internet.

No. The crazy old man would *think* it was real. That's one of the symptoms of "crazy". Just like those who see ghosts or gods or wonder woman in their bedrooms at night.We know the human brain is a powerful device. We also know that when it goes wrong it goes powerfully convincingly wrong.

Actually a rather juvenile argument.He wants to be a scientist so he can prove his (acculturated) pre-existing pre-determined desire. Wrong start.The absence of spacetime is pure gravity. No. The curvature of spacetime *is* gravity. Without spacetime there is no gravity, there is no universe. And he goes on being wrong about black holes, outside the universe and singularities.Cute kid, but he needs training in logic, physics and philosophy in place of the religious straight jacket his poor smart brain is being entrapped within.Sad. Such a mind is a terrible thing to waste.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So they haven't found any gods. Just accumulated more null results.Stile's results stand.And within the customary equivocation required for all things science so does his conclusion. We know the gods do not exist.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Quite the contrary. In this instance "in progress" means a whole slew of null results. Can't find it here, look there. Can't find it this way, try that way.So far it's null results all the way down.I'm sure some are still looking for the Michelson-Morley version of the luminiferous aether too, which we can also say "we know" is not there for the same reason as gods.