I Know That God Does Not Exist

He likely would attribute it to a natural extraterrestrial cause. Intelligent skeptics are far more likely to believe in *anything* which can be "evidenced"...I think it is because their minds can conceptualize it whereas their minds cannot and will not conceptualize God. Its not simply a mind issue...its a heart issue...but to be fair, many have been disillusioned by organized religion and the behavior thereof.The Bible itself says that a fool believes there is no God, and also that many will experience a strong delusion because they have no love of the truth.Many want to simply keep their own ability to critically evaluate anything they dont understand and regard "surrender" to a belief as a sign of weakness and gullibility. At least thats my assessment.

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.

But the crazy old man WOULD know it was real even if he couldn't make anyone else believe him, and it WOULD matter to the crazy old man even if he thinks it wouldn't. But sure, that's OK until it actually happens which it probably won't.

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.

Post after post, year after year you make the same mistakes. Rational people do not believe in things that can be evidenced; things that can be evidenced do not require beliefs. You know this, can't disagree with it but still you repeat it. What's left of your rational mind has all its shields up all of the time now. Then you think wrong. You make the same wrong assumptions over and over and no amount of correction changes anything. It's utterly pointless trying to explain anything to you because you can't leave your bubble. Everyone can conceptualise god - it's really really easy, that's why there's been so many of them. What's hard is trying to understand our need to believe in things that are only imaginary.And before you object, you think the same of believers in flat earths and Vishna as I do but can not apply that same logic to your own belief. It's only a mind issue; hearts pump blood. You routinely use these pulpit phrases like they have some real meaning in the real world. Yet when I ask you to tell us what they mean, you never do.

Perhaps.But our current best-known-method restricts itself to rational analysis.
If rational analysis cannot identify the things you're talking about... then (according to our best-known-method) - my conclusion still stands.I agree that my best-known-method is not perfect, and could be wrong.
It could be replaced with an even-better-method at some point, one that possibly includes the items you're talking about.
If that ever happens - then my argument will fail, and I'll have to change it at that point.It just doesn't change the facts of what is our current best-known-method right now, what that method entails, and how that method only describes the conclusion I'm arguing."Knowledge" is never a claim to absolute reality.
"Knowledge" is always a claim of 'what-our-best-methods-tell-us-we-should-be-thinking-about-reality-to-have-our-best-chances-at-being-correct-about-reality'
Which is, basically, why doubt is always involved to some degree.

Are you saying that there is no *rational* way to identify the reality of minds? Human minds? And what does "rational" mean in this context?My point was that a mind is nonphysical and science only has means to recognize physicality. If human mental activity produces some form of energy, electrical energy perhaps, since our minds are intimately connected to our physical brains in this physical universe, that activity might be detected, but the mind itself won't be detected. And if God is Mind (Spirit is also nonphysical) since He doesn't need a brain for His mental activity, not being Himself physical, I don't see how there could ever be a scientific means to detect God.The Bible suggests that the only way we can know God is through our own spirits.* We were originally designed to know God. The Fall interfered with that so that mostly our spirits are now dysfunctional. Some of us may be able to detect the spirit world of angels and demons, but not God Himself.** Regeneration through Christ, or being born again, is the beginning of the recovery of our original spiritual sense though it won't be perfected in this life. Many who are born again also have a heightened awareness of the spirit world but since it's considered to be dangerous since demons are enemies of humanity and seek to deceive us, attempting to cultivate it is strongly discouraged.This isn't a scientific point and I'm not proposing discussing it beyond this. And all a scientific orientation could make of it anyway is that we are *crazy.*---------------
* We know another human mind through our own minds too, right? We don't detect another's mind through any physical medium, but directly by communication with their minds. Right? We can talk in cyberspace because words are how we communicate, but words have no physicality either except in the literal sense of being marks on a page or in cyberspace: that is, what words really are, which is communication of concepts, is unknowable by all means except through the recognition of our own minds. And we know it's imperfect too, but nevertheless there is no other way to know another's mind except through such communications.** As I was exploring some Buddhist concepts recently it kept being impressed upon me that Buddhist practitioners may know the spirit world of angels and demons but they are very clear that they do not acknowledge a Creator God. I take this as evidence that God is not knowable through our fallen spiritual faculty.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't say anything about popularity. But no, it is not irrational to look for a consensus. No. I'm saying that if everybody you look at happens to hold their breath while you're looking, that doesn't mean nobody breathes. I don't think I've said that. I've been saying that you can not demonstrate a negative with the same level of confidence that you can demonstrate a positive. You can be fairly sure that something doesn't exist based on a lot of observations but you can be a lot more sure that something exists based on a lot less observations. The reasonable conclusion would be that no cars existed in the places you looked at the time you looked. It is unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times. There was no rational indication that the Northwest passage would be found either. Just like there was no rational indication that the Great Lakes or the Mississippi would be found along the way. Just like there was no indication that a central passage would be found. Just like there was no indication that a water passage through the Andes would be found. You can't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking. If we did that, we'd never find anything. But your "explanation" was stupid. It relied on conspiracy theories or time travel. The fact that I can bake a cake is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth. The pattern of no God is like the pattern of no water passages. You can't consider it reliable until you're finished looking.

They haven't given up looking. They don't pretend to "know" there aren't any.

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.

"In progress" is not a null result.

It is reasonable *if* Who and What you are looking for has been defined as existing in all places and at all times. Again, I will say that your need at finding such a Deity goes a long way towards determining how many places you will bother looking before you give up and conclude otherwise. I agree that Stile is being premature at declaring his knowledge, though that is his choice and reflects his position. AZPaul3 also claims to know. I would only suggest that we know what we want to know and what we can define as being knowable. Perhaps the argument should be framed in the idea of when (if ever) it is appropriate to stop looking.

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.

The "luminiferous aether" was considered to be a physical thing though, wasn't it? You can do experiments to verify or falsify something that is physical if you know something about its properties and behavior, which would be predictable. But if "gods" -- as opposed to the one Creator God -- are purely spiritual beings, like minds, there might be no way to detect them by any physical tests whatever. If they have some degree of physicality -- though the Creator God does not -- perhaps a test could be devised to detect them. But it would have to take into account that they are thinking creatures that move around at will and would do their utmost to defeat your tests. Take all that into account and good luck.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.