Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[Koldo]

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.

It has power enough for me to consider it a god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

The Bible is the most widely read, loved, most influential book and guide to humanity in the history of mankind, spanning continents races and millennia.
Perhaps it would have done far better if written by women? I doubt it.

Perhaps we are the freak result of a giant mystical random lotto tumbler, in which case you are probably right- there is no afterlife. But we have no indication of such an assumption- to put misplaced trust in the uncaring nature of a hypothetical invisible mechanism.. might be unfortunate at best!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another non-sequitur. Why would it be required that God must have a relationship with man.

Because it's human beings who came up with the term.

The only reasonable model for God, deism, is just that and for a rational purpose, self-aware derived free will.

If something as inherently irrational as deism is the most reasonable model for God, then that's a pretty sad commentary on theism as a whole.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Bible is the most widely read, loved, most influential book and guide to humanity in the history of mankind, spanning continents races and millennia.
Perhaps it would have done far better if written by women? I doubt it.

The Bible started fragmenting during the Ages of Enlightenment and Reason, and has been accelerating along those lines ever since. Theology as we know it may not survive the century.

Perhaps we are the freak result of a giant mystical random lotto tumbler, in which case you are probably right- there is no afterlife. But we have no indication of such an assumption- to put misplaced trust in the uncaring nature of a hypothetical invisible mechanism.. might be unfortunate at best!

Either a God created the universe or not, but if so, that's a reasonable hook on which to hang the idea of a Hereafter, which is the purpose for this test involving moral free will.

Because it's human beings who came up with the term.

The term yeah, and maybe even the idea unbidden, but not the possibility. That's suggested by the universe and what if any purpose it might might serve.

If something as inherently irrational as deism is the most reasonable model for God, then that's a pretty sad commentary on theism as a whole.

Deism is irrational, and theism is not more so? If deism is irrational, then so is atheism, but I'm not chasing that rabbit down that hole you just dug.

 

[StopS]

This is so wrong!
How can anyone ask a question about something undefined or - even worse - ill-defined?
Believing x does not exist is totally different from not believing x exists.
Believing something without evidence or ignoring evidence to the contrary is what I call faith.
Logically, a god as is understood by most theists is an impossibility.
It is highly improbable that gods exist, no matter what the definition, as the minimum requirement is a super-natural being.
Making a knowledge statement about this is frivolous. It's emotional and sheer wishful thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Deism is irrational, and theism is not more so?

Deism is a type of theism.

If deism is irrational, then so is atheism, but I'm not chasing that rabbit down that hole you just dug.

Deism asserts that God exists while also asserting that no rational justification for belief in God can exist. That's irrational... and not a problem that atheism has.

Edit: there are plenty of theistic beliefs that flow logically from their premises; they're just (IMO) mistaken on those premises. Deism, OTOH, is internally inconsistent and refuted by its premises.

 

[Cephus]

You have no demons ratable objective evidence that I have no demonstrable objective evidence, but that stop you from making a claim.

Then present it. Put up or shut up. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This is so wrong!
How can anyone ask a question about something undefined or - even worse - ill-defined?
Believing x does not exist is totally different from not believing x exists.

You're saying, believing God does not exist is totally different from not believing that God exists? Turn that around and it's: Believing God exists is totally different from believing that God exists. You're just sticking the "not" in there at different places. And I for one define God as the possible conscious force that caused the universe as opposed to the other possibility that no-God is the possible unconscious force that caused the universe. There's absolutely no evidence for either one, and the question is not about the existence of God, directly, it's about what caused the universe.

Believing something without evidence or ignoring evidence to the contrary is what I call faith.

Yes, and there's no evidence for either scenario....at all. Everything else science examines has some evidence available, but not the Big Bang, so just because you can say there's no evidence that God caused it, that doesn't allow you ignore that possibility and go straight to claiming that the Big Bang was a spontaneous event, without any evidence.

Logically, a god as is understood by most theists is an impossibility.

Exactly. A revealed, supernatural, miracle causing God, while not impossible (God could have chosen to be that way I s'pose), is 100% lacking in evidence for it. The only two scenarios that fit the evidence is no God or a laissez faire God.

It is highly improbable that gods exist, no matter what the definition, as the minimum requirement is a super-natural being.

Being as there's no evidence either way, it'd be 50-50.

Making a knowledge statement about this is frivolous. It's emotional and sheer wishful thinking.

Yes and No. There's no evidence to assume whether there's a God or not, no.....but....it is fair to speculate about the nature of God IF It created the universe. Determining how the universe came to be is indeed impossible; and the strange thing is that may be by design so that we don't know that It exists which would interfere with our free will. But we can't assume that because we can't assume the lack of evidence as evidence. Yet......

Deism is a type of theism.[/quote

Technically, yes, but its is the only God that's totally hands off the universe. With deism there's no revelation, no answered prayers, no personal spiritual connection, no supernatural disruption of the natural universe anywhere, and despite what the early deists believed, there would be no divine providence. Our fate is completely in our hands and in the the hands of luck'

Deism asserts that God exists while also asserting that no rational justification for belief in God can exist. That's irrational... and not a problem that atheism has.

That's not an accurate statement. It does not assert that there's no rational justification for belief in God. The universe is here, and God is a possible cause.

Edit: there are plenty of theistic beliefs that flow logically from their premises; they're just (IMO) mistaken on those premises. Deism, OTOH, is internally inconsistent and refuted by its premises.

Your premise is mis-attributed--the source being equally likely to be atheists or theists--probably the latter a couple of centuries ago when they were making up the clockmaker definition that got put into all the dictionaries back then.

 

[Shad]

You're saying, believing God does not exist is totally different from not believing that God exists? Turn that around and it's: Believing God exists is totally different from believing that God exists. You're just sticking the "not" in there at different places. And I for one define God as the possible conscious force that caused the universe as opposed to the other possibility that no-God is the possible unconscious force that caused the universe. There's absolutely no evidence for either one, and the question is not about the existence of God, directly, it's about what caused the universe.

The Null Hypothesis is to hold a view as unproven until otherwise. Which is different from putting forward a view that X does not exist. This is the difference between rejecting a claim and putting forward a claim.

"I do not believe you own a bridge" verse "I know you do not own a bridge" One is a rejection, the other is a claim

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Null Hypothesis is to hold a view as unproven until otherwise. Which is different from putting forward a view that X does not exist. This is the difference between rejecting a claim and putting forward a claim.

"I do not believe you own a bridge" verse "I know you do not own a bridge" One is a rejection, the other is a claim

The Big Bang, Creation, whatever you want to call it is completely different. Every other hypothesis we can examine with science involves events within this universe by gathering data within this universe. Everything in the universe is involved is in a chain of quantum transactions; chains which lead us back to the BB or singularity--a single point beyond which we are completely blind. A null hypothesis or any other hypotheses, rules about hypotheses and the scientific method, for us now, end there. Nature, and thus reason, end there. Nature may go "beyond", or supernatural law may supplant natural law, or there may be nothing. Science has never faced anything like this before. Everything is regressed down to that one point. <<<<<<<<< ? >>>>>>>>>>

 

[Shad]

The Big Bang, Creation, whatever you want to call it is completely different. Every other hypothesis we can examine with science involves events within this universe by gathering data within this universe. Everything in the universe is involved is in a chain of quantum transactions; chains which lead us back to the BB or singularity--a single point beyond which we are completely blind. A null hypothesis or any other hypotheses, rules about hypotheses and the scientific method, for us now, end there. Nature, and thus reason, end there. Nature may go "beyond", or supernatural law may supplant natural law, or there may be nothing. Science has never faced anything like this before. Everything is regressed down to that one point. <<<<<<<<< ? >>>>>>>>>>

It is no different. Both are claims regarding a concept or idea, X exists. The Null Hypothesis applies to any claim. Since God is a "defined" concept there is data which we can evaluate. This data is flawed, ill-defined and incoherent. You conflate not have discovered or "I do not know" with a claim. Neither of those are a concept. God is a concept regardless of how poorly defined it is. You have excluded the possibility that we can not discover anything beyond the BB thus your argument is a God of the gaps, nothing more.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I do know he doesn't exist, and I do know that there is just existence, no one lording over it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Technically, yes, but its is the only God that's totally hands off the universe. With deism there's no revelation, no answered prayers, no personal spiritual connection, no supernatural disruption of the natural universe anywhere, and despite what the early deists believed, there would be no divine providence.

... and therefore no justification for the assumption of God.

That's not an accurate statement. It does not assert that there's no rational justification for belief in God. The universe is here, and God is a possible cause.

By asserting that God doesn't intervene in the universe, deism implies that nothing has occurred that might serve as justification for belief in God. All that it leaves as an option is a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.

Your premise is mis-attributed--the source being equally likely to be atheists or theists--probably the latter a couple of centuries ago when they were making up the clockmaker definition that got put into all the dictionaries back then.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.

And I'm not sure why you're so down on the watchmaker argument; historically, it was the basis of deism: the original deists didn't question the watchmaker argument; they just considered a watchmaker whose watch runs accurately forever to be a better watchmaker than one who constantly needs to adjust his watch.

 

[`mud]

I wonder how many people have died on this planet ?
And of course, how many of them have come back, except Jesus of course ?
Strange isn't it, none of them have written any words, not even Jesus !
That's why I don't believe in ghosts, angels, zombies, pink unicorns, or any 'gods'.
Not one word, or song, or poem, not one transmission of thought.
Billions upon billions, not a peep !
Oh well......Jesus is coming, be forwarned !
~
'mud

 

[Willamena]

Then present it.

There is none, that's what we're talking about.

PS, sorry that word replace mutilated my last post. I didn't notice it earlier.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is no different.

It is. Once you leave the universe, no one can make any claims about anything because there is a total absence of evidence.

Yes I do know he doesn't exist, and I do know that there is just existence, no one lording over it.

And the theist is equally certain that God does exist. Blind faith by any other name.......

... and therefore no justification for the assumption of God.

Except for the birth/existence of the universe. What justification do you have for assuming a spontaneous cause?

By asserting that God doesn't intervene in the universe, deism implies that nothing has occurred that might serve as justification for belief in God. All that it leaves as an option is a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.

Nothing, except the beginning of the universe. Deism does claim the belief that God initiated the universe (technically at time zero, when the universe was in an incipient limbo so to speak, my words) but has not interacted with it since. The Big Bang is the Big Impenetrable Question Mark.

And I'm not sure why you're so down on the watchmaker argument; historically, it was the basis of deism: the original deists didn't question the watchmaker argument; they just considered a watchmaker whose watch runs accurately forever to be a better watchmaker than one who constantly needs to adjust his watch.

The watchmaker analogy is fine on it's own, but the continuation of it, even in dictionaries back then, was that God then walked away? Absurd! Why would God abandon the universe and not care? It was the demagoguery of the church (and still is) to imply that a non-interactive God is a non-caring God--since all theists know that God is a personal/interactive God.

 

[viole]

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?

Well, my point is that knowledge is not the same thing as absolute certainty. The latter can entail the former, but the vice-versa is not necessarily true.

If the two things were equal, it would not make sense to speak of things like scientific, hystorical, etc. knowledge, since science, for instance, is not in the business of certainties. After all, nobody would say that humanity acquired a lot of "beliefs" in the last centuries. Everybody uses the word "knowledge" in case of science without a problem althought only very few, if any at all, of our progresses in understanding reality qualify as absolute certainties.

Incidentally, it follows from simple logic that if we declare ourselves agnostic about God, then we should be agnostic about the (literal) God of the Bible, too. Ergo, we should be agnostic about the earth being 6,000 years old, which sounds kinda weird.

So, no, I do not believe that angels do not carry planets around. I know it, althought I cannot give you absolute certainty that angels do not indeed carry planets around. As implausible as it can be, the angels carrying planets scenario is still possible. Same with God, basically. Implausible, but still possible. But that does not prevent me from asserting to know that God does not exist.

Btw, what makes you believe that I am a male?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except for the birth/existence of the universe.

This is the argument from ignorance that I mentioned earlier: "I can't figure out what caused the universe, therefore God must have done it." You're committing a logical fallacy.

What justification do you have for assuming a spontaneous cause?

What makes you think I hold such an assumption?

Personally, I'm not even sure the word "cause" can even apply to an event that happens outside of spacetime (or "event" or "happens", for that matter).

Nothing, except the beginning of the universe.

Right: logical fallacies about the beginning of the universe. "I can't figure it out, so Goddidit."

Deism does claim the belief that God initiated the universe (technically at time zero, when the universe was in an incipient limbo so to speak, my words) but has not interacted with it since.

And there's the problem. Other belief systems can attempt answers to the question "why believe in God/gods?" Those answers vary depending on the religion - e.g. revealed scripture, prophets, miracles, etc. - and while I disagree that any of them are actually rooted in God, for many of them I can concede that if those basic claims were correct, then the belief system would logically flow from those claims and be true as well.

Deism has none of that. You have no revelations or miracles to point to; you only have your unjustified assumption that God must have created the universe.

Deism is just conventional theism with the unsupported bits stripped away, but by stripping them away, you undermine your own foundation and justification. The god you posit is no more justified than Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

The watchmaker analogy is fine on it's own, but the continuation of it, even in dictionaries back then, was that God then walked away? Absurd! Why would God abandon the universe and not care? It was the demagoguery of the church (and still is) to imply that a non-interactive God is a non-caring God--since all theists know that God is a personal/interactive God.

The Problem of Evil suggests that any God is a non-caring God. Whether God is hands-on or hands-off is irrelevant to that question. Whether God knowingly commits a series of small acts or committed one big act from which all other acts flowed, the implications for God's goodness are the same.

 

[viole]

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.

Well, if we are really intellectually honest, it does not apply equally well. No matter how small the odds are, you cannot claim certainty for basically any non-analytical proposition.

So, do you believe that Saturn does not have a core made of Swiss cheese, or do you know it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[`mud]

Do I know that 'God' exists......no.
Do I know that 'gods' exist.......no.
Do I believe that 'God' exists...no.
Do I believe that 'gods' exist....no.
~
Do I believe a single entity created the Cosmos...no.
Do I believe our Universe is all of the Cosmos.....no.
Do I believe 'God' created the Cosmos......no.
Do I believe 'gods' created the Universe....no
~
That's all I am aware of at this moment in 'time'.
~
Except....Life is Stuff...yes.....and I need some more coffee !
~
'mud