I Know That God Does Not Exist

Perhaps if one does not believe that God exists then the Bible does not have an intended purpose. Its like Stile *knowing* that God does not exist. He accepted the evidence and thus allows himself to know.

Lots of people believe in God but not in the Bible. You'd have to believe in a particular myth about God to believe that the Bible has one specific purpose.It would also be possible for an atheist to believe that the Bible has one specific purpose, though he would have no vested interest in it. Well, the evidence suggests that the Bible does not have a single purpose, so I don't see the parallel.

But then, of course, you have to answer the question of how this "intelligent agency" came to exist. At least, you have to wonder if the agency could develop from non-intelligent origins.But if it could, then why couldn't a simpler thing, a universe without intelligence (but with neutrons, protons, electrons, etc), develop out of non-intelligent origins?

What universal consensus? I didn't know there were other than human opinions.Are you in cahoots with the dolphins? Well, in this thread it's "I Know That God Does Not Exist".

I was using protons, neutrons and electrons making up the Periodic Table as an example of complexity (the chemical properties of the Periodic Table) that one would not expect from descriptions of elementary particles that make up the atoms. There's no reason to think the complexity you spoke of is not the result of some deeper level, as protons, neutrons and electrons are at a deeper level than the chemicals they make up.Complexity is not evidence of intelligent origin. If it were, intelligence itself would have to have an intelligence existing before it to develop it, which is a contradiction.

It is only a contradiction if you assume as fact the idea that human intelligence is the origin of creativity and definition.

I didn't specify any particular intelligence.I just said if you have to have an intelligence in existence before intelligence can develop you've developed yourself a contradiction.

well if so, that answers the argument of Who Made God. People always ask where God came from. God Himself could say that such a question assumes a necessary contradiction.

That's a pretty good assumption since there is no evidence of anything to the contrary.

I'm not contending that it is. I am however contending that most of the complexity you mentioned doesn't come from a deeper level of simplicity, but a deeper level of incredible complexity. I mean if your picture of atoms is based on something like the Bohr model that presents atoms as little solar systems, then yes you wouldn't expect it. However if your picture of protons is the one from quantum field theory where the experimental properties of one proton are beyond the power of a supercomputer why wouldn't you expect that complexity? It's not complexity from a simpler layer There is a deeper level, but it seems to be even more complex, possibly incomprehensibly so. So rather than complexity arising from simpler levels below it's actually complexity built atop increasing complexity.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : Quote correction

I guess I was a bit obtuse. The point was simply that you had accused me with using an argument from incredulity. Fair enough, but the argument that I hear against the belief in an intelligent agent responsible for life, is also an argument from incredulity. I used as an example the use of Santa Claus to make the point. Obviously an adult belief in Santa Claus in an incredulous belief and so the inference is that belief in a deity is also incredulous.Hope that helps.

My claim the I know God exists is simply a way of saying that I "know" that God exists using the same definition and understanding of what it means to know something that Stile used. Neither of us actually "knpw" that our positions are correct.The NASA quote was simply to make the point of the contrast of the early universe to the arrival of conscious sentient life. My only point is that there are subjective beliefs within science as well. I'm inclined to think that if someone spends their working life trying to prove a hypothesis then they subjectively believe in it. Are you saying that because we can show that heat is necessary to boil water by a natural process that all natural processes are the result of mindless origins? How did this "network" bring about an evolutionary process out of the initial materials of the universe? But we have scientific evidence that at one time within our universe which is subject to time and entropy there was no cellular life and in fact no planets at all.

I pay taxes as well. Obviously what we are talking about is what we do with what we have left after taxes. We are also talking about what we do with or time. It isn't about the amount but the comparison between those who as Christians are active in their churches and those with no religious affiliation. You made the claim that there was no difference. I've simply shown you that what you claimed was well off the mark using secular sources.

OK, Got it.Even though you cannot prove an external intelligence is responsible you push that thought because your emotional makeup doesn’t want to accept the other possibility. That is incredulity.The other argument to be made is that the wholesale lack of even the most minimal evidence in favor of a god proposal, after thousands of years and so many brains and so much activity in looking for any at all, has become its own set of data points against the proposal.Carl Sagan wasn’t wrong when he said “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” when it comes to other life in our galaxy. The numbers and processes in proposing such other life are too strong to be ignored and support considering such a speculation. Not the same with a god speculation where there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such a speculation. You're right, both are incredulous and for the same reasons - there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such speculations.

Our universe as we experience it is restricted in time by only having one time dimension. Certain scientific theories, as I with something below minimal understanding of, propose having more than one dimension of time.Science also tells us that we are only able to perceive 4.5% of all that is. I subjectively believe that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and that God is not restricted to one dimension of time, and as a result God is not restricted in time as we are.