Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, no.

To see that, ask yourself the question. Does the sentence "scientific knowledge" make sense to you?

Ciao

- viole

Actually, no. I'm pretty simple. I know I am in front of a computer. I'm typing on it now as we speak. I know I am chatting with someone that is not a robot, even though I am uncertain the details of whom I'm conversing with. Things that I can verify and test are things that I know. Also, things that can prove a negative, as in the God-evidence, can let know if He exists.

On the other hand, I believe that you are a male, but I am not certain. I do not know. I believe that what I am saying is understood completely by you; I don't know.

If I am certain (know without a doubt) that God exists, there is no room in my knowledge (my logic) that He could not because I know He does. (As an example) If I believe God exist, then there could be a possibility that He does not. Belief and knowledge/certainty are two different things.

If you know God does not exist (without a doubt) and then you are uncertain about it, wouldn't that be doubt? If you believed God does not exist, you can get away with being uncertain because believing does not make God exist or not. If you know God does not exist, then that claim takes away all uncertainty. There is no room for God to exist in a claim that says He does not.

 

[viole]

Actually, no. I'm pretty simple. I know I am in front of a computer. I'm typing on it now as we speak. I know I am chatting with someone that is not a robot, even though I am uncertain the details of whom I'm conversing with. Things that I can verify and test are things that I know. Also, things that can prove a negative, as in the God-evidence, can let know if He exists.

On the other hand, I believe that you are a male, but I am not certain. I do not know. I believe that what I am saying is understood completely by you; I don't know.

If I am certain (know without a doubt) that God exists, there is no room in my knowledge (my logic) that He could not because I know He does. (As an example) If I believe God exist, then there could be a possibility that He does not. Belief and knowledge/certainty are two different things.

If you know God does not exist (without a doubt) and then you are uncertain about it, wouldn't that be doubt? If you believed God does not exist, you can get away with being uncertain because believing does not make God exist or not. If you know God does not exist, then that claim takes away all uncertainty. There is no room for God to exist in a claim that says He does not.

Are you really 100% sure you are typing on a computer? What makes you 100% sure that you are not a brain in a vet imagining all these things? You see. You are allowed to claim knowledge of these things, but 100% certainty is hardly attainable for anything.

But you are not addressing my question. Does the sentence "scientific knowledege" make sense to you? Are we allowed to say things like "I know the sun is a star which is about 150 million kilometers from us", or "I know spiders are not coming from the Andromeda galaxy", etc.? Or should we claim agnosticism for all these not 100% certain things?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But you are not addressing my question. Does the sentence "scientific knowledge" make sense to you? Are we allowed to say things like "I know the sun is a star which is about 150 million kilometers from us", or "I know spiders are not coming from the Andromeda galaxy", etc.? Or should we claim agnosticism for all these not 100% certain things?

Actually, no. I don't know anything about scientific knowledge. I'm pretty much simple. To try to answer your question, though, basically. If you are not certain of something, then that's just doubt. I guess it could be agnostic. From a outside view, it seems agnostics doubt the existence of God...they leave it open that He could exist yet will say, without proof, He does not.

I am kind of confused where you going with this.

I am 100 percent certain/I know that I am typing on a computer. (Unless we can philosophize and say "what if it's all in the mind?" or things like that) but without going through the exclusions or philosophizing and saying things like "what if we were just ants in a jar"). I'm just making a statement (not claim) I am on the computer.

I am not certain that you are a male or female. I believe that you are a male (which wouldn't matter in the conversation; point purposes only), but my belief doesn't make anything true. So, I can believe in something and still not be certain because belief is not claiming certainty.

On the other hand, knowledge is. It is saying I Know that you are a male. There is no room for uncertainty in that statement. (We can philosophize about it; but that's not my point) Is it true? If I know something, then yes it is true. It's a statement not a claim.

If I said "I believe you are a male and I don't know/uncertain" those two go together. It doesn't make sense to say "I Know you are a male and I am uncertain." Which is it, do you know or just making an assumption, belief, or claim? Are you certain or are you not? Type of thing.

It's not philosophy or what-ifs. Just saying that to state you know something is true means you are certain. To state you believe something is true does not always mean you are certain it is one hundred percent.

Makes sense?

But you are not addressing my question. Does the sentence "scientific knowledege" make sense to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with everything you said here except for the idea of "god" or "gods" being somewhat limited. My original point was that the term "god" is so vague that it is not falsifiable.

I agree that the term is often vague... sometimes to the point of incoherence. However, despite this vagueness, there are inherent qualities in the idea of a god: things like relationship and significance, and these qualities point to the fact that we don't need to look THAT hard to satisfy ourselves that gods don't exist.

We don't need to look everywhere to say with certainty that there is no King of France (maybe he's hiding in a basement in Nice that we haven't checked... maybe he's at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or on the dark side of the moon). All we need to do is confirm that France is a republic and we can say with certainty that the King of France does not exist. Even if there is some poor SOB hiding in a basement in Nice, he's not the king.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None if it doesn't really exist. But if it were to exist, then it would have such a power, and that suffices for me to call it 'god'.

But you said that you made it up. Therefore, it doesn't really exist.

By nature, I mean 'universe'.

I don't think that anything you made up controls the universe.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree that the term is often vague... sometimes to the point of incoherence. However, despite this vagueness, there are inherent qualities in the idea of a god: things like relationship and significance, and these qualities point to the fact that we don't need to look THAT hard to satisfy ourselves that gods don't exist.

We don't need to look everywhere to say with certainty that there is no King of France (maybe he's hiding in a basement in Nice that we haven't checked... maybe he's at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or on the dark side of the moon). All we need to do is confirm that France is a republic and we can say with certainty that the King of France does not exist. Even if there is some poor SOB hiding in a basement in Nice, he's not the king.

how would the same apply to God?

 

[Pudding]

and my claim.....after looking around me...

too complex to be an accident.

Someone is responsible.

God.

There're many religions and many Gods.

Between many religion to religion, they cannot agree with each other that whose God is the true God. Many of them only believe their own religion's God to be the true God.

I look around me, i don't know why it's so complex, but it's not so important i guess.
As i have no supernatural experience with any God, i don't conclude that any God is the responsible for everything.

 

[leibowde84]

and my claim.....after looking around me...

too complex to be an accident.

Someone is responsible.

God.

how do you explain that huge leap in logic? you jump from complexity right to the necessity for God. all it takes is a quick read Stephen Hawkins to see that line of reasoning is flawed.

 

[Magic Man]

Are you really 100% sure you are typing on a computer? What makes you 100% sure that you are not a brain in a vet imagining all these things? You see. You are allowed to claim knowledge of these things, but 100% certainty is hardly attainable for anything.

I don't think this is a valid distinction. "I know" and "I'm 100% certain" are synonyms. Technically you're right that we can never be 100% assured of anything, due to things like the "Matrix" situation. But that applies equally to saying you know and to saying you are 100% certain.

 

[Koldo]

But you said that you made it up. Therefore, it doesn't really exist.


I don't think that anything you made up controls the universe.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at.

Do you consider something's existence required to call it a god ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

how would the same apply to God?

If a thing is utterly unknown to humanity, then we know that it doesn't have a relationship with humanity, and therefore isn't a god.

IMO, the idea of the "significance" of a god is more useful: as an analogy, consider we were talking about "X, the staple food of country Y". If we go to country Y, do a cursory survey, and find that nobody eating X and none of the mainstream stores or markets serving X, then we can stop looking; X (as we've defined it) doesn't exist. Even if we find some tree growing wild in the hills of rural Y that grows a fruit that matches descriptions of X, we know that it isn't X, because it isn't a staple.

In a similar way, we don't need to worry about things like images of the Virgin Mary in toast; if life would be no different for the vast majority of believers whether God (or some pantheon of gods) existed or not, then God is largely irrelevant... and an irrelevant god is not a god.

You said that God is unfalsifiable; an unfalsifiable god is so insignificant that we can't tell whether it exists or not. Such a god is not - cannot be - a god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure what you are trying to get at.

Do you consider something's existence required to call it a god ?

I already told you what it would need to qualify as a god. Right now we're talking about the qualification you gave, and I'm saying that not only does your "god" fail my criteria; by what you've told us, it also fails by yours.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If a thing is utterly unknown to humanity, then we know that it doesn't have a relationship with humanity, and therefore isn't a god.

IMO, the idea of the "significance" of a god is more useful: as an analogy, consider we were talking about "X, the staple food of country Y". If we go to country Y, do a cursory survey, and find that nobody eating X and none of the mainstream stores or markets serving X, then we can stop looking; X (as we've defined it) doesn't exist. Even if we find some tree growing wild in the hills of rural Y that grows a fruit that matches descriptions of X, we know that it isn't X, because it isn't a staple.

In a similar way, we don't need to worry about things like images of the Virgin Mary in toast; if life would be no different for the vast majority of believers whether God (or some pantheon of gods) existed or not, then God is largely irrelevant... and an irrelevant god is not a god.

You said that God is unfalsifiable; an unfalsifiable god is so insignificant that we can't tell whether it exists or not. Such a god is not - cannot be - a god.

The deist god seems pretty irrelevant, but he's still a god. It would be possible for an irrelevant god to be a god nonetheless.

 

[Koldo]

I already told you what it would need to qualify as a god. Right now we're talking about the qualification you gave, and I'm saying that not only does your "god" fail my criteria; by what you've told us, it also fails by yours.

According to my qualifications, I don't require a god to exist to call it a god. In other words, whether it actually exists is not relevant to me. It has conceptually some enormous power over nature, and that suffices to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The deist god seems pretty irrelevant, but he's still a god. It would be possible for an irrelevant god to be a god nonetheless.

The deist god supposedly created the universe. The universe is pretty relevant to me.

I have other issues with deism, anyhow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to my qualifications, I don't require a god to exist to call it a god. In other words, whether it actually exists is not relevant to me. It has conceptually some enormous power over nature, and that suffices to me.

Your imagination has "enormous power over nature"?

 

[Koldo]

Your imagination has "enormous power over nature"?

No.
Let me give you an example: Zeus has an enormous power over nature. I believe Zeus doesn't actually exist. Still, I consider Zeus to be a god, simply because of how powerful it is... conceptually.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If you had that power, if you could plant a chip in somebody's brain to force them to love you, would you do it?

Excellent point, and one I've used often to expose the absurdity of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God creating angels. In fact, I even wrote this little divine comedy about it:


***BIG BANG!***


<<><>><<><>>


<<><><><>><<><><><>>


<<><>The Universe Begins<><>>




God (Voiceof James Earl Jones) : Gabriel, isn't this a beautiful universe I created?
Gabriel (Voice of Sylvester Stallone): Yes Boss.
God: (Sigh). Adam, what about you, what do you think of the universe?
Adam (voice of Eddie Murphy): Oh, it’s absolutely delightful. I particularly like those sparkly little galaxies, and you just can't beat a brilliant sunset by the ocean or a thunderstorm over the Grand Canyon. I won't even go into women, you hit the jackpot with that one. But those black holes are a holy terror. And WHY is everything SO----FAR----APART. Man-o-man, the nearest star is 4 light years away. What were you thinking? And couldn't you at least do something about those damn mosquitoes. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but if I'd have arranged things......
God: (Sigh)………(Smile)

Tempting perhaps, but you would soon realize that you would destroy any possibility of love by doing this yes?

Love, yes, or achieving any justice, knowledge or beauty--all of which we could sum up as Truth.

hey Guy,
Other than the words of humans writing in their scriptures,
we have no indication of the existance of any or all 'gods' !
We also have the indication that nearly no women write these words.
It seems to be a chauvinistic trait, maybe self praise in a reflective attitude.
Having 'love' or any emotion for these ghosts of imagination,
would be foolish endeavors at best, or insanity at the worst !
These imaginations exist only in the minds of forlone people,
those that wish that their 'souls' will float to some heavenly rest.
I have mentioned, didn't I, that everyone will become a memory,
all people should wish that memories of them will be remembered.
Love from loved ones will be intensly more important,
than any 'love' for an invinsible 'god'.
But....go ahead and 'worship' and 'love' your 'gods',
I can only hope that you will be remembered fondly as well.
~
'mud

If, as is likely, the universe is a giant quantum computer, it would be recording every quantum transaction since the Big Bang, including those that involved our thoughts. And each group of individual experiences could be run, ostensibly without a body.

I think you are equivocating knowledge with absolute certainty. If you equivocate the two, things like scientific knowledge would become an oxymoron, to be replaced by scientific agnosticism, which sounds silly.

Scientific knowledge is that portion of objective Truth, or facts, which science has deduced or discovered. It emphasizes the fact that, while art may be an aspect of Truth, it is not objective knowledge--a genuine such oxymoron if you will, which still serves a purpose, to remind us that Truth is more than the objective, while knowledge is not.

I know god does not exist in the same way i know that the planets are not carried around by invisible angels.

Absolute non-sequitur combining two false assumptions.

Am I 100% certain that planets are not carried around by invisible angels? Nope.[/QUOTE]

RE: angels above.

This, of course, all depends on the definition of "God" you're using. If you mean the standard theistic god who created the universe and has been intimately involved in it the whole time, then I am 100% sure it does not exist.

Well, there's 0% rational evidence for it.

There are other definitions of "God" that either do or could exist, though. However, I don't particularly like using that term for them.

I equate Truth with God, and we worship that God via the pursuit of Truth; that is, knowledge, justice, love and beauty. Wherever that Truth leads, whatever it is, that is God, even if it isn't a sentient super-spirit being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.
Let me give you an example: Zeus has an enormous power over nature. I believe Zeus doesn't actually exist. Still, I consider Zeus to be a god, simply because of how powerful it is... conceptually.

I thought you said that you consider "nature" to mean "the universe". Zeus wasn't considered to have that much power over the universe.

I think there may be some communication issues here.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If a thing is utterly unknown to humanity, then we know that it doesn't have a relationship with humanity, and therefore isn't a god.

Another non-sequitur. Why would it be required that God must have a relationship with man. The only reasonable model for God, deism, is just that and for a rational purpose, self-aware derived free will.