Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

No you don't understand how any choosing works. As a matter of logic one can only reach a conlcusion about what it is that chooses by choosing the conclusion.

Remember that if you disregard the existence of God, which is perfectly logically valid, people may also disregard your emotions, which is also perfectly logically valid. It is the point of subjective issues, that the conclusion is reached by choosing it, and that the conclusion refers to what chooses.

Do you mean God exists or dont exist based on the positive (beautiful) or negative (ugly) emotiond we have which gives us what option to choose from? His existence versus non existence?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No you don't understand how any choosing works. As a matter of logic one can only reach a conlcusion about what it is that chooses by choosing the conclusion.

Remember that if you disregard the existence of God, which is perfectly logically valid, people may also disregard your emotions, which is also perfectly logically valid. It is the point of subjective issues, that the conclusion is reached by choosing it, and that the conclusion refers to what chooses.

Also...how does disregarding God and disregarding emotions relate? Unless you mean that 'by' disregarsing God, one disregards believers emotions and not emotions themselve?

 

[Koldo]

God usually have characteristics that mirror peoples interest. God of Abraham is of love; people want love.

What...?
Love ?
Are you sure you read the old testament ?

 

[Koldo]

I am not sure how to reply to this poll.
There are certain gods that I don't know if exist, others that I am sure that don't, and others that I don't call gods.
What option should I pick ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What...?
Love ?
Are you sure you read the old testament ?

Yes, why?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, why?

Where did you get 'God of love' when reading the old testament ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Do you mean God exists or dont exist based on the positive (beautiful) or negative (ugly) emotiond we have which gives us what option to choose from? His existence versus non existence?

I mean you have to investigate how choosing actually works, learn it like you learn things in school, and not make stuff about it while you are writing your posting. Investigate the structure that people use when they talk in terms of choosing things in daily life.

And then you will find that what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion, which means you have to choose the answer what it is. If X can go left or right, and chooses right, then by logic the question of what made the decision turn out right in stead of left, can only be answered by choosing the answer.

To maintain the freedom in the concept of choosing, the question of what the agency of a decision is must be arrived at in a free way. We cannot have evidence force to a conclusion on the question what the agency of a decision is, because by introducing the force of evidence, the freedom in the concept collapses, and the concept does not function anymore.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Where did you get 'God of love' when reading the old testament ?

Its implied. When a husband and wife have a child, that creation is the love they have for wanting a child, the act of having the child, and taking care of him or her.

Likewise, in Gensis says God created man. He gave them what they needed to live with Him. That is love.

The common christian thought is that like parents who displine their child, so does God. It is done out of love, they say.

Love can also come from husband and wife relationship. As a wife is obedient to her husband (in some faiths) so as a person to God. That relationship is a form of love.

The holy spirit is love itself. Therefore, the devotion each prophet had to their God, in christianity, they were filled with thebHoly Spirit--the Love for God..the devotion to their faith "as a result" God loves them back in both OT and NT by giving Isrealites land being the chosen people. Abraham receieved what christians say the love from God by acting in obedience to sacrifice His own child.

Look at it from the Believer's perspective and not your own. There is love in the OT from the believers view AND that does not mean you and I experience it the same as believers to call it that.

EDIT
God's love in the OT
Loved by God, Loving Others: God's Love in The Old Testament

Love in the OT.

It makes sense from THEIR perspective and Not my own.

 

[Cephus]

Why not?

Because there is no demonstrable, objective evidence either way.

On what fact do you base this claim?

Because likewise, you have no demonstrable, objective evidence. If such a thing existed, this whole question about God would have been settled long ago.

 

[Willamena]

Because there is no demonstrable, objective evidence either way.



Because likewise, you have no demonstrable, objective evidence. If such a thing existed, this whole question about God would have been settled long ago.

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

 

[Thief]

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

too complex to be an accident.

Someone is responsible.

God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I mean you have to investigate how choosing actually works, learn it like you learn things in school, and not make stuff about it while you are writing your posting. Investigate the structure that people use when they talk in terms of choosing things in daily life.

And then you will find that what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion, which means you have to choose the answer what it is. If X can go left or right, and chooses right, then by logic the question of what made the decision turn out right in stead of left, can only be answered by choosing the answer.

To maintain the freedom in the concept of choosing, the question of what the agency of a decision is must be arrived at in a free way. We cannot have evidence force to a conclusion on the question what the agency of a decision is, because by introducing the force of evidence, the freedom in the concept collapses, and the concept does not function anymore.

Youre making the subject of choice too complicated. I just know we make decisions or choices and my choices affect others. I know to make a choice, you need options to choose from. That is simple for me.

The universe does not make choices. It does not have a "brain" to where it can "intentionally" choice one option over another. Hence, why it is spontaneous in nature.

However, humans do make choices (as well as animals). Our choices can be whether to have a child or not. The universe does not make a "decision" to create....that takes thinking, analyzing, comparing, and contrasting. Animals do so when they decide which animal to kill for prey. Basic instinct. We do based on a lot of factors which this post would be too long if described and listed.

If you said God is an entity and person, than by that logic, He can make choices. As the universe, no He cannot.

Life is predestined. X will happen regardless of Y. We dont know How, when, why, what we just know. Death is a perfect example.

Its not complicated. I dont talk in philosophical terms and say things like:

"If we made a choice, our choices are predestined to fall under unpredicatable situations to which we would not have if the choice had not been made."

That does not make sense; but, the way it is phrased and the multiple use of the same woed makes comprehension almost impossible for me.

Keep it simple and please dont question my intelligence.

 

[Koldo]

Its implied. When a husband and wife have a child, that creation is the love they have for wanting a child, the act of having the child, and taking care of him or her.

Likewise, in Gensis says God created man. He gave them what they needed to live with Him. That is love.

The common christian thought is that like parents who displine their child, so does God. It is done out of love, they say.

Love can also come from husband and wife relationship. As a wife is obedient to her husband (in some faiths) so as a person to God. That relationship is a form of love.

The holy spirit is love itself. Therefore, the devotion each prophet had to their God, in christianity, they were filled with thebHoly Spirit--the Love for God..the devotion to their faith "as a result" God loves them back in both OT and NT by giving Isrealites land being the chosen people. Abraham receieved what christians say the love from God by acting in obedience to sacrifice His own child.

Look at it from the Believer's perspective and not your own. There is love in the OT from the believers view AND that does not mean you and I experience it the same as believers to call it that.

EDIT
God's love in the OT
Love in the OT.

It makes sense from THEIR perspective and Not my own.

It is not implied in any way. This is not to say that the god of Abraham felt no love whatsover.
It is not until the new testament that this 'god of love' appears.

This is a relevant point because the term 'God of Abraham' refers to the god of 3 different major religions and two of them don't have a 'new testament'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is not implied in any way. This is not to say that the god of Abraham felt no love whatsover.
It is not until the new testament that this 'god of love' appears.

This is a relevant point because the term 'God of Abraham' refers to the god of 3 different major religions and two of them don't have a 'new testament'.

I dont know about Jewish and Muslim view. What I gave you was a christian perspective (not mine) that God is of love. By the verses I gave and my explanation, I "understand" how they see God that way. Understand, yes. Agree, no

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nobody "knows" that God exists or does not exist, knowledge requires some rational basis in fact. You also cannot prove a universal negative, hence there is no way to disprove universal gods. You can only dismiss gods that are irrational or inherently contradictory in their construction as non-existent..

Based on fact there is no question on who's 100% accurate this far in the game.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Keep it simple and please dont question my intelligence.

I don't question your intelligence, but you don't have a schoolish attitude to try to accurately copy the structure people use when they talk in terms of choosing. In stead you have an attitude to creatively make stuff up about how choosing works.

The possibility or option, is in the future of the object. The act of making the option the present or not is the decision. Or there are alternatives in the future of the object, and the act of deciding is to make one of the alternatives the present. Then you get the result of the decision and the consequences.

Then there is the issue of what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. And this issue of what it is can only be resolved by choosing the answer what it is.

There is no thinking or weighing in the fundamental definition of choosing. Which means if the weather can turn out several different ways, if there is freedom in the way it turns out, then it is fully a decision.

You might see that there is categorical difference between facts about the size and weight of the moon, and opinions whether or not somebody likes icecream. You might see that you must use entirely different rules for facts, than for opinions, and that you must never confuse those rules. To obtain a fact then the rule of cause and effect applies. The moon is the cause, and the facts about the moon is the effect of that cause. The fact that the moon is round comes from the moon itself as a cause of that fact.

For opinions the rules apply that the conclusion must be chosen, and the conclusion must be in reference to what chooses.

Applying the rules for opinion, as before, "the painting is beautiful". This conclusion must be chosen, from available options like ugly and beautiful. The word beautiful must be in reference to what chooses. "Beautiful" refers to a love of the way the painting looks, the love is what chooses.The existence of the love must be a matter of opinion, for beauty to be an opinion, otherwise the word ugly could not have been chosen.

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.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am only curious of how many people on RF state that they 100% KNOW God does not exist.

I am gleaning from new knowledge I learned from RF of what atheism and theism compared to agnosticism and gnosticism.

The former pair focuses on belief. Therefore, God "could" exist even though atheist disbelieve it.

Meanwhile, gnostics Know God does Not exist. There is no room that He "could" because He does not.

I know. I know. It would be ignorant for someone to say God does not exist. However, just because a theist claims He does, does not mean there is or should be reasonable doubt it is true.

This is not to debate God's existence. I am just curious of who Believes God does not exist with those who Know He does not.

NO strings and exclusions attached.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am only curious of how many people on RF state that they 100% KNOW God does not exist.

I am gleaning from new knowledge I learned from RF of what atheism and theism compared to agnosticism and gnosticism.

The former pair focuses on belief. Therefore, God "could" exist even though atheist disbelieve it.

Meanwhile, gnostics Know God does Not exist. There is no room that He "could" because He does not.

I know. I know. It would be ignorant for someone to say God does not exist. However, just because a theist claims He does, does not mean there is or should be reasonable doubt it is true.

This is not to debate God's existence. I am just curious of who Believes God does not exist with those who Know He does not.

NO strings and exclusions attached.

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.

 

[dgirl1986]

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.

 

[Koldo]

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.

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