Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

I know this is gonna sound picky, but I think it's important to be precise. There is no basis at all to claim certainty (knowledge) that God does or doesn't exist. To believe something is to express an opinion about the likelihood of that something, but that opinion should be based on some evidence no matter how small--otherwise you're just throwing a dart at a dart board. With the concept of God, the only rational (non-hearsay) evidence that brings the question up is the Big Bang and existence of the universe. But as I'm often characterized the Big Bang, it's a firewall "before" which we haven't and apparently won't be able acquire any information--unless it's just that there's a previous Big Bang which wouldn't help at all.

So, since I have no basis for belief, I say instead that I hope there is a God. For us in this universe, the only two reasonable probabilities (atheism and deism) are the same and have no effect on our everyday lives except for whatever we manufacture, and one other thing, hope. We can say we hope there is a God or hope there's isn't, and derive whatever comfort or (...?...) we can from that.

One thing, if I'm wrong and my hope was misspent, I'll never know it. And if I'm right, I can claim bragging rights for all eternity or whatever. For atheists, that alone could be hell.

Aaaw. I actually believe believers, at least christians, rely on hope (faith) for God to be real; and the impersonification of their feelings towards the God they hope exist helps Him to exist to them. The bible is also a good objective (their view) way to know their feelings are justified.

I dont see it bad at all. If atheist want to hope God (maybe deism makes a little more sense just doesnt seem as comforting), I find it healthy if that belief helps them. What Id see different is at least the atheist to an extent knows they wont believe and dont care. Its an honest devotion when one is aware of their emotions, needs, etc.

As for knowledge, its just saying you have full certainty or you know for a "fact" Not belief or hope that God exist. I dont believe my cell phone exists, I Know my cell phone exist. Yet, I believe you are a male but I dont know that you are even if I look at your profile and talk to you online.

As for me, I say I know. There is far too much implied, sorry to say, evidence that God has something to do with human thought, wants, and needs. I never see Him a part from this. Inhavent heard of deism until I came on RF. It makes a tad more sense. I just dont have any sense of being created.

As for objective evidence of Gods non existence, its all based on witnessing thr "results" of others experiences with God. Listening to testimonies. Finding criteria to identify people as saints. Watching honest people cart wheel in church ailes (and push me down while I seize trying to "get the holy spirit from me"). The human needs and wants as a whole is objective evidence to proof something false. That doesnt make the experience false. Its just not a fact, as in literal and true for all not for some.

 

[Thief]

The existence or non existience of a god is not testable so as far as I am concerned, it is impossible to know 100%. You can only reach a conclusion.

No conclusions allowed.

This goes on ....forever

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So when somebody says "the painting is beautiful", then the question whether or not this love for the way the painting looks is real, can only be answered by choosing it. Either conclusion that the love is real or not real would be logically valid

I cant talk about choice from a philosophical standpoint. Some of the way sentences are phrased makes understanding the content and context like interpreting a foriegn language to finally realize, hundred posts down the line, its something that is simple and can be expressed for the elementary kid in one or two sentences.

It would be far to say (not made up) that if I were given a choice, I can only be given it (the action) if I have options between one thing or another. If Indo have two or more option, I can make the decision to act on that choice. How this relates to the universe, I have no clue. What I said was basic stuff nothing philisophical.

EDIT
Choice | Definition of choice by Merriam-Webster
Unless you mean something else, this is how I define choice in a sentence or two.

On that note,

Choosing the painting out of love and beauty for it makes the love real?

EDIT

If so, why not say: love is real based on the choices we make; those choices dictate what is ugly and what is not. The painting is not anything a part from our choice and feelings around it.

If I am correct, the universe is not beautiful or ugly in itself. It doesnt make choices. It does things in pattern not by choice. In other words, it doesnt think, analyze, process information to where it has options to pick from. We see a pattern and we think, "oh there must be a God" and I think (everyone is different) no, there mustnt be. I find it remarkable in and of itself the pattern of life. To attribute it to a deity is "extra."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The existence or non existience of a god is not testable so as far as I am concerned, it is impossible to know 100%. You can only reach a conclusion.

It's impossible to know at all, because there's no evidence at all, not even enough to make a guess or believe. You can flip a coin, or hope.

Unless your deist god forgot to install the AfterLife 0.1 firmware...

I'm sure a God capable of creating the universe wouldn't forget ythat. And if there was/is such a deist God, then I can't help but wonder, why would God go to all this trouble? It could have done anything else instantly. This is where you could chime in, "Such a God would have to work in mysterious ways"....or, "The Lord Helps those who help themselves","God will never give you more than you can bear".

Aaaw. I actually believe believers, at least christians, rely on hope (faith) for God to be real; and the impersonification of their feelings towards the God they hope exist helps Him to exist to them. The bible is also a good objective (their view) way to know their feelings are justified.

Hope doesn't equal faith. Faith, as revealed religions use it (blind faith), is equivalent emotional thought without reason. Thinking the Bible is objective is the problem. There is some history in it, and even some wisdom, but all revelations and other miracles are pure 100% hearsay.

I dont see it bad at all. If atheist want to hope God (maybe deism makes a little more sense just doesnt seem as comforting), I find it healthy if that belief helps them. What Id see different is at least the atheist to an extent knows they wont believe and dont care. Its an honest devotion when one is aware of their emotions, needs, etc.

Atheism and deism are the only two reasonable positions on the existence of God. They're absolutely equally unverifiable.

As for knowledge, its just saying you have full certainty or you know for a "fact" Not belief or hope that God exist.

Yes, but it's impossible to say that except on pure blind faith; and I think a lot more people than will care to admit it, know that.

As for me, I say I know. There is far too much implied, sorry to say, evidence that God has something to do with human thought, wants, and needs.

Not the first bit of evidence from God Itself. All supernatural from all religions can claim nothing more. If God came to you and told you something divine (which God wouldn't do), you'd have no basis to show it wasn't all in your head. Why should anyone believe you, and today, almost nobody would. Not long ago, most people would.

I never see Him a part from this. Inhavent heard of deism until I came on RF. It makes a tad more sense. I just dont have any sense of being created.

You wouldn't, you evolved, one reason being so you couldn't have any such sense.

As for objective evidence of Gods non existence, its all based on witnessing thr "results" of others experiences with God. Listening to testimonies. Finding criteria to identify people as saints. Watching honest people cart wheel in church ailes (and push me down while I seize trying to "get the holy spirit from me"). The human needs and wants as a whole is objective evidence to proof something false. That doesnt make the experience false. Its just not a fact, as in literal and true for all not for some.

For none, that don't turn off their reasoning, and turn on their feel good blind faith.

No conclusions allowed.

This goes on ....forever

Yes, there's a conclusion, it's 100% unknowable or unbelievable either way.

I cant talk about choice from a philosophical standpoint. Some of the way sentences are phrased makes understanding the content and context like interpreting a foriegn language to finally realize, hundred posts down the line, its something that is simple and can be expressed for the elementary kid in one or two sentences.

Like I've just done.

It would be far to say (not made up) that if I were given a choice, I can only be given it (the action) if I have options between one thing or another. If Indo have two or more option, I can make the decision to act on that choice. How this relates to the universe, I have no clue. What I said was basic stuff nothing philisophical.

You have no choice, it's 100% unknowable.

Choosing the painting out of love and beauty for it makes the love real?

Beauty is purely subjective, knowledge is purely objective--and and justice are in between/both.

If so, why not say: love is real based on the choices we make; those choices dictate what is ugly and what is not. The painting is not anything a part from our choice and feelings around it.

If I am correct, the universe is not beautiful or ugly in itself. It doesnt make choices. It does things in pattern not by choice. In other words, it doesnt think, analyze, process information to where it has options to pick from. We see a pattern and we think, "oh there must be a God" and I think (everyone is different) no, there mustnt be. I find it remarkable in and of itself the pattern of life. To attribute it to a deity is "extra."

There's a theory going around that the universe is in effect a giant quantum computer. Who's to say a computer that powerful and that large doesn't support an conscious self-awareness.

 

[dgirl1986]

No conclusions allowed.

This goes on ....forever

You can reach your personal conclusion, which differs from evdience based conclusions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh. Que sera sera.

Hope doesn't equal faith. Faith, as revealed religions use it (blind faith), is equivalent emotional thought without reason. Thinking the Bible is objective is the problem. There is some history in it, and even some wisdom, but all revelations and other miracles are pure 100% hearsay

I actually never agreed with blind faith. In the bible, (I know), it says faith is the things 'hoped for' yet unseen. So they go hand in hand. I have faith that my mother loves me (God loves his creation as written), that she created me (as God did believers), that she takes care of me (as believers know by their very existence), and because of this faith I am faithful to my mother (as believers are to their God).

We both didnt have blind faith. Just our hope and expression of love, though we cant prove it only the results/experiences, is what keeps us going. Its not blind. I just think for some believers it is misplaced logically speaking (just as I cant prove my mother loves me, I can take her word for it), but subjectively or personally, it totally makes sense.

Not the first bit of evidence from God Itself. All supernatural from all religions can claim nothing more. If God came to you and told you something divine (which God wouldn't do), you'd have no basis to show it wasn't all in your head. Why should anyone believe you, and today, almost nobody would. Not long ago, most people would

That would be odd. What would I go by to know what communicated with me is God? Especially, when God cant be depicted in images (another evidence it is more mind related rather than independent of)

You have no choice, it's 100% unknowable

When I hear "God exists" it is only a claim to me. Claims dont exist on its own. Until the characteristics of the claim is seperate from our mind and builds legs to walk, it does not exist. Its not that we dont know. Its it doesnt exist for us to even test its existence. Yet, people do. (Ex RF site)

There's a theory going around that the universe is in effect a giant quantum computer. Who's to say a computer that powerful and that large doesn't support an conscious self-awareness.

Like a person type thing, doesnt make sense. Metaphorical, maybe. Fancy language for the universe having set pattern to us but in realitg is unexplainable in itself. No pattern. In the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Koldo]

I'm sure a God capable of creating the universe wouldn't forget ythat. And if there was/is such a deist God, then I can't help but wonder, why would God go to all this trouble? It could have done anything else instantly. This is where you could chime in, "Such a God would have to work in mysterious ways"....or, "The Lord Helps those who help themselves","God will never give you more than you can bear".

Why go through the trouble of installing AfterLife 0.1 ? It makes no difference on the OS itself. The system runs as stable without it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God appeared to me in a dream and said he sick and tired of his existence being questioned. So he is going on extended sick leave to another dimension where annoying humans don't exist. He said it's too short notice to find a suitable replacement so we'll just have to muddle through by ourselves for a while.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Eh. Que sera sera.
I actually never agreed with blind faith. In the bible, (I know), it says faith is the things 'hoped for' yet unseen.

Yeah, that passage from Paul (Heb 11:1) has some widely varying and even some confusing translations. If this is what he was saying, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see", I think that's unusually accurate for him. It's a pretty good example of blind faith, though religions don't like using that cynical phrase, however accurate it is.

So they go hand in hand. I have faith that my mother loves me (God loves his creation as written), that she created me (as God did believers), that she takes care of me (as believers know by their very existence), and because of this faith I am faithful to my mother (as believers are to their God).

With your Mother, you have a lot of evidence on which to base your faith. With God, there is only hearsay, and 2000+ year old hearsay at that. When a prophet gives false authority to what he's saying by prefacing it with, "Thus sayeth the Lord", where we have to take his word for it. Why d'you suppose God doesn't do It's own talking, except for allegories like Genesis and Job?

That would be odd. What would I go by to know what communicated with me is God? Especially, when God cant be depicted in images (another evidence it is more mind related rather than independent of)

Particularly when there's so many different versions of revealed gods out there.

When I hear "God exists" it is only a claim to me. Claims dont exist on its own. Until the characteristics of the claim is seperate from our mind and builds legs to walk, it does not exist. Its not that we dont know. Its it doesnt exist for us to even test its existence. Yet, people do.

Thus blind faith.

Like a person type thing, doesnt make sense. Metaphorical, maybe. Fancy language for the universe having set pattern to us but in realitg is unexplainable in itself. No pattern. In the eyes of the beholder.

Yes, I think so much of the Bible was originally intended to be allegory, metaphor and parable, yet taken literally based on it's ancientness and being in print as "scripture" alone. (I hate that word.)

Why go through the trouble of installing AfterLife 0.1 ? It makes no difference on the OS itself. The system runs as stable without it.

Hope, and thus comfort--and it's not a false comfort for us, if we're honest with ourselves--it's just an unknown.

God appeared to me in a dream and said he sick and tired of his existence being questioned. So he is going on extended sick leave to another dimension where annoying humans don't exist. He said it's too short notice to find a suitable replacement so we'll just have to muddle through by ourselves for a while.

That' not a reasonable scenario, but humorous nonetheless--humor being a reminder that we not take ourselves too seriously.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree with most of what you said. Here are my thoughts.

Yeah, that passage from Paul (Heb 11:1) has some widely varying and even some confusing translations. If this is what he was saying, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see", I think that's unusually accurate for him. It's a pretty good example of blind faith, though religions don't like using that cynical phrase, however accurate it is

We both have are different opinions. I believe "some" people who say things like this may not accept the Bible says what it does and we cant change it. When the Bible says "hope for things unseen" one can have blind faith in making that hope reality. Taking an abstract and maki g it literal. Although it may be the same in how you retranslate it; blind faith can still be extracted from whats written already.

With your Mother, you have a lot of evidence on which to base your faith. With God, there is only hearsay, and 2000+ year old hearsay at tha

If I picked this a part, I actually do not. I have hearsay. She has told me she loves me. She showed it (or what I commonly associate as acts of love, rather). The rest of my family says likewise. However, because she is not me, I do not know her 100 percent. Parents have disowned their children years later (say because the child is gay) yet showed love way up until then.

Likewise, but even more odd, believers hear hearsay from what is written. If I never knew my mother and my grandmother gave me a book about my mother, Id have to depend on her and the book to make the best description of my mother. Thats the best I can love her is through secondary means.

Its the same as believers. What "some" atheist misunderstand that what I said is all their is. Their focus on an invisible entity blinds them from seeing the logic behind wanting hope, love, etc. If there was a real person in place of God it would be understandable to them. Since there is isnt, for some reason they see it differently.

Yes, I think so much of the Bible was originally intended to be allegory, metaphor and parable, yet taken literally based on it's ancientness and being in print as "scripture" alone. (I hate that word

Whats intesting is half the other easteen faiths dont take their faith literal. That small percentage do. We focus on that percentage not realizing christianity is an eastern faith. Id agree its supposed to be metaphorical. I agree with Catholicsx however, that the metaphorical approach softens the truth of their belief system. It is not literal as we know it but it is to them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If I am correct, the universe is not beautiful or ugly in itself. It doesnt make choices. It does things in pattern not by choice. In other words, it doesnt think, analyze, process information to where it has options to pick from. We see a pattern and we think, "oh there must be a God" and I think (everyone is different) no, there mustnt be. I find it remarkable in and of itself the pattern of life. To attribute it to a deity is "extra."

Come on, there obviously is freedom in the way things turn out in the universe. You called it spontaneity. Well spontaneity is the fundamental meaning of decisionmaking. You have another understanding of choosing, which involves weighing options and whatnot, but that is obviously a highly complicated way of choosing, and not the simple fundamental meaning of it. When an electron can end up on one of many different positions around an atom, one moment to the next, then it is a decision.

You should just focus on the issue of what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does (called agency of a decision). Jack can go left or right, Jack chooses right, then what was it that made the decision turn out right in stead of left? Just try to focus on the agency and chew on what it is.

If you are going to regard this issue as a matter of fact issue, then maybe you would focus on the brain as what in fact did this job of making the decision turn out the way it does. Then you can further focus on what exactly inside the brain agency would be. And then you can see how useless it is to focus on any material as what chooses.

In stead love, hate etc. do the job of choosing, and they cannot be measured at all, it is just opinion that they exist.

 

[leibowde84]

You failed to realize your questions are not pivot points.

Go back and read it again.

"Pivot points"? I asked a straight forward question. You answered it, partly. But, my follow up question is why would God "allow" there to be a qualifying factor that would make it so that some wouldn't "gel"?

 

[leibowde84]

Partly from usage I've observed, partly from normal definitions... for instance:


God | Definition of god by Merriam-Webster

Where are you getting the idea that gods aren't necessarily worshipped?

I don't disagree that there are definitions out there that require worship for God, but certainly not all of them do. (see below). And, since we should go with the most inclusive definition, it certainly does not seem "necessary" for a God to be worshiped. In other words, a being can rightly be considered "God" without having to be worshiped under the below definition.

God
ɡäd/
noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (no mention of a requirement of being worshiped).

So, I think your definition is flawed in that it is overly specific, which serves your purpose of proving it false. But that is merely a specific definition of the word "God", not God in general.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What would any "God" ever want or desire, when it already controls everything ?

~
'mud

Love

And that must be out of your control to exist at all.

 

[Koldo]

Hope, and thus comfort--and it's not a false comfort for us, if we're honest with ourselves--it's just an unknown.

That's assuming the afterlife isn't worse than our current life...
It is better to seek comfort and hope elsewhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't disagree that there are definitions out there that require worship for God, but certainly not all of them do. (see below). And, since we should go with the most inclusive definition, it certainly does not seem "necessary" for a God to be worshiped. In other words, a being can rightly be considered "God" without having to be worshiped under the below definition.

You can also see the idea of worship in non-literal usages of the term "god". If someone told you that someone was a "guitar god", which would you think they mean:

- he's saying (hyperbolically) that the person's guitar skills are so impressive that they're worthy of worship
- the person is the "moral authority" on good and bad guitar technique
- the person is the source of the guitar... i.e. he invented the instrument

God
ɡäd/
noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (no mention of a requirement of being worshiped).

So, I think your definition is flawed in that it is overly specific, which serves your purpose of proving it false. But that is merely a specific definition of the word "God", not God in general.

Do you think that "Christianity and other monotheistic religions" don't worship their gods?

 

[`mud]

hey Guy,
If a 'god' would desire 'love' from one that it created,
why didn't the 'god' instill the emotion to start with ?
Why does the created have to generate the 'love',
why is it not present in the entity of the created ?
As to 'controls', the creator has to be blamed for that, doesn't it ?
Or what about free will, does the created get credit for any of that ?
Why is the created doomed to death because of the lack of 'love' ?
Seems to be circular once again !
And it seems to be the 'death factor' given to the created by this 'god',
seems like a condemnation short of 'love' in reverse, doesn't it ?
Somewhat circular again !
~
Sorry....more salad, no olives !
I guess it's the dis-belief that causes the lapses,
one can't believe in something that doesn't exist to start with !
~
'mud

 

[leibowde84]

You can also see the idea of worship in non-literal usages of the term "god". If someone told you that someone was a "guitar god", which would you think they mean:

- he's saying (hyperbolically) that the person's guitar skills are so impressive that they're worthy of worship
- the person is the "moral authority" on good and bad guitar technique
- the person is the source of the guitar... i.e. he invented the instrument


Do you think that "Christianity and other monotheistic religions" don't worship their gods?

I think in the guitarist example, God, which would not be a literal descriptor, but nonetheless, would mean "master".

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Love

And that must be out of your control to exist at all.

Yes, and for it to be out of God's influence, the ones being tested mustn't know they're being tested.

That's assuming the afterlife isn't worse than our current life...
It is better to seek comfort and hope elsewhere.

Why would the next life be worse? Of course it takes courage to face the unknown rather than to drown oneself in materialism.

hey Guy,
If a 'god' would desire 'love' from one that it created,
why didn't the 'god' instill the emotion to start with ?

God, if It exists, has made it so we can't know that It exists. So, it would be illogical to expect us to love or worship something for which there's no evidence. If God exists, I expect that It expects us to love or at least be moral to each other. No way we can even like, much less love, everybody, but we can at least be civil unless they're trying to violate our rights..

Why does the created have to generate the 'love',
why is it not present in the entity of the created ?
As to 'controls', the creator has to be blamed for that, doesn't it ?
Or what about free will, does the created get credit for any of that ?
Why is the created doomed to death because of the lack of 'love' ?
Seems to be circular once again !

God is irrelevant for us in this universe. And our free will is only how moral, or not, we choose to be. There can be only one reason God would have created the universe, to spawn self-aware creatures with moral free will. Anything else It could have done instantly.

And it seems to be the 'death factor' given to the created by this 'god',
seems like a condemnation short of 'love' in reverse, doesn't it ?
Somewhat circular again !

Yeah, but only if we just live, die, and that's all there is.

one can't believe in something that doesn't exist to start with !
~
'mud

True, but only if you knew to start with that it didn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think in the guitarist example, God, which would not be a literal descriptor, but nonetheless, would mean "master".

... whose mastery has reached the point of being "worship-worthy".

In any case, you've failed to make a decent case that there is such a thing as a unworshipped god.

... and it's not that important, anyhow: conceptually, when someone asks me "do you believe in God?" I can ask them "what do you mean by 'God'?" and get some sort of explanation.

We can go a step beyond this and ask ourselves "what does anyone and everyone mean by 'god'?" If we explore this a bit, we'll come up with a whole range of answers, some conflicting. We'll also identify holes where we aren't sure how some people define "god".

... but there's one thing we can be sure of: every single concept of "god" that anyone has ever had is something that can be conceived. Anything that is completely beyond the knowledge or perception of humanity is not - and cannot be - what people refer to when they say "god", because such things are completely, utterly unavailable for people to refer to at all.