Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't really care about your personal beliefs or about engaging with your insults. The bottom line for me is this: since deism is fundamentally and inherently irrational, I see no need to worry about it being correct.

They aren't insults, merely statements of facts. You wanna say black is white, I can't stop you. If deism is irrational so is atheism, but they aren't. You're so busy defending your side at all costs, including chucking reason out the window, it makes irrational look like a walk in the park--a very dark park.

BTW, thanks for the unintended inspiration. I like that beef stew in the woods analogy I'm going to use it to start another thread. But I can see why you'd not want to respond to it, but I'm sure that if your pressed, you'll dethink of something.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I dont understand where you going with the second comment about college people. Progres in God being true or progress that science is shifting to show God-belief is old fashion?

It is so easy for atheists to assume that because they can so easily discredit revealed theism, that they don't have to give a second thought for a rational fit with the facts model like deism. And the Big Bang, while technically still a theory, like relativity, a purely rational universe and evolution, they are virtually proven--with massive amounts of evidence for and with none against. And they make intuitive common sense. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just so atheism can have the stage to itself, even though you can't come up with any evidence to support it, especially if you discount the fact that the universe had a beginning.

 

[`mud]

Enjoyable....sitting here watching the betting on Pascal's roulette wheel.
It's would be nice to be amongst the winners !
Anyway.....I prefer the throw of the dice...when never thrown !
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

Religion=Belief=Fear
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just so atheism can have the stage to itself, even though you can't come up with any evidence to support it, especially if you discount the fact that the universe had a beginning.

I have. What type of evidence are YOU looking for? I cant give you evidence that nothing exists. I can give you psychological points that make His existence not even rational.

I am not your typical atheist. I dont believe that science, big bang, evolution, is a fact. Not my point.

No. You are incorrect. I do see the theist position of Gods existence. I was an "supposed" theist myself. I realize that God did not exist a part from my mind. So, I chose not to believe this mind-god is a separate perfect entity. It does not make sense To Me. Rather, God is everything and everyone. Its a fancy a d popular word to describe life.

In that context l, I do believe in God. In abrahamic view, I do not. Please do not put me in the athiest category with whom like to "prove" God's non existence. I just stated my observation and links to provide God is a mind belief. It is not a fact.

I do find it odd that people say God is a facf yet they need faith to believe this fact. That is contradictory. If it is a fact, you dont need faith. You know. It is not a belief anymore.

Many reasons and ways to proove God does not exist. There are ALSO many ways to proove He does.

The former lies in psychology, culture, and sycrinicity.

The latter lies in gut feelings, saying the pschology of superstition (I hit my head, oh that must be God warning me [though it was something they triped on instead which does make a person fall]). Proof of Gods existence lies in using justification for their beliefs based on what is in holy books.

Its all psychology AND that does not mean God does not exist as a belief. As a fact, no. AND thats okay.

 

[Thief]

So, you can know something and not be able to prove it.
How about nobody can prove it.. not you, not anyone. Still "know" it?

Can you give us an example of that OTHER than some supernatural "knowledge"?
How does it work to say you know something for which there is no proof?



A scientific hypothesis isn't a belief. Science is a method. a body of knowledge. it can NOT believe in anything.
So, Could you rephrase that for me so that it makes sense?




No, you don't start with a PROOF for something, you start with a theory or a hypothesis, or some evidence.
But never a proof. Proof is something you get at the END of a research, not at the beginning.

If you make a hypothesis.. say, that a god exists, THEN you try to prove it somehow.
You say you know something ( you didn't way what ) .. if you have no proof for it, then what you say you know is less certain. If you have no reason or evidence for it, your claim that you KNOW that thing.. is spurious.

sooooo many go on as you do.
Not sure on your own and won't let anyone else say they are.

science is sure there is more to the universe they we can detect.
they are sure of it.
just can't prove it.

 

[Thief]

Religion=Belief=Fear
NuffStuff
~
'mud

not so fast.....
I believe fear can be at hand, just out of reflex.

Now if you sit and ponder toward Something Greater....and that pondering brings fear....
it's not really a problem.
just a natural reflex.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have. What type of evidence are YOU looking for? I cant give you evidence that nothing exists. I can give you psychological points that make His existence not even rational.

We don't know from what the universe sprang. It may be irrational or supernatural. We only know that rational, natural, is contained within the universe.

I do find it odd that people say God is a facf yet they need faith to believe this fact. That is contradictory. If it is a fact, you dont need faith. You know. It is not a belief anymore

I agree. But it's just as much a matter of faith to disbelieve that a super intellect was involved. They're both equally impossible, yet here we are.

Many reasons and ways to proove God does not exist. There are ALSO many ways to proove He does.

The latter lies in gut feelings, saying the pschology of superstition (I hit my head, oh that must be God warning me [though it was something they triped on instead which does make a person fall]). Proof of Gods existence lies in using justification for their beliefs based on what is in holy books.

Once again, you're only arguing against the easy target, revealed religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Em.

We don't know from what the universe sprang. It may be irrational or supernatural. We only know that rational, natural, is contained within the universe.

Why do we need to know? I mean, thered be no universe if no stars, moons, planets, atoms for that matter, existed. Boggles my mind, yes. Not to the extreme need for a creator. Nothing "beyond". Its rational to the believer. Objectivetly, no. I can only speak for anamorphic gods. Pantheism and things like that makes more sense to me. Deism is pushing it.

I agree. But it's just as much a matter of faith to disbelieve that a super intellect was involved. They're both equally impossible, yet here we are.

Yep, here we are.....and?

Once again, you're only arguing against the easy target, revealed religion.

Easy target? As in the abrahamic God? Thats all I know to speak intelligently about. Hindu, Lukumi, deism even, I dont know how they view God. Is it literal, metaphorical, a feeling, I dont know.

From the links I gave, I found the second one quite interesting. Its not a problem to believe in God. I just find it illogical to call a belief, fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Numbers play out.....then fail....
Have you ever really listened to what theoretical physicists say?

I have heard one popular fellow pronounce....theoretical physics has a 'problem' with infinity.
He spoke as much having demonstrated an equation that ends with...infinity plus infinity plus infinity.....infinitely.....

What are you referring to specifically with the "problem with infinity"? I've read a lot on this, and much progress has been made since the early 80s when the issue was recognized popularly.

Also, why do you think that the problem with infinity in Quantum Physics makes what Hawking said implausible?

 

[Pudding]

At the point of creation....choose...

Spirit first?....or substance?

What follows you choice is then your reasoning.
I say....Spirit first, as dead things don't beget the living.

I have no any supernatural experience with any creator that lead me to believe that everything is create by him.

How your question have any relevance to whether i believe any creator exist or not?

Spirit exist first or substance exist first?
I don't know the true answer, i can only guess.
Btw if i guessing the answer, my guessing doesn't give me any true answer.

For me, absence of supernatural experience to any creator in me lead me to disbelieve to any creator.

 

[`mud]

Could Thief's thoughts reflect Hawking's thoughts:
Beyond eternity lying within infinity contained by nothingness,
could be an explanation of a theist god.
But the question is.....................why ?
~
'mud

 

[Pudding]

Could Theif's thoughts reflect Hawking's thoughts:
Beyond eternity lying within infinity contained by nothingness,
could be an explanation of a theist god.
But the question is.....................why ?
~
'mud

Are your reply is refer to me?

 

[`mud]

hey Pudd,
open to anyone....just trolling..and thnx for the like.
~
'mud

 

[Pudding]

hey Pudd,
open to anyone....just trolling..and thnx for the like.
~
'mud

Okay, maybe not refer to me.
Your welcome.

 

[Blastcat]

sooooo many go on as you do.
Not sure on your own and won't let anyone else say they are.

I am ASKING how you know.
I am not preventing anyone from knowing.

I am not pretending to know what I don't actually know.
just because you say you are sure, doesn't mean you know something for real.

You would have to demonstrate that what you CLAIM to know is real.
If you can't give a reason why you say you know something, then your knowledge claim is unfounded.

science is sure there is more to the universe they we can detect.
they are sure of it.

Unsupported opinions are not the same as facts. You misrepresent how scientists work.
Science.. has theories and hypotheses about what they can't detect.

Nobody is pretending to know. No reputable scientist makes a claim to know what they don't actually know.

just can't prove it.

Scientists are hard at work trying to prove all sorts of things.
What's your point?

 

[Shad]

NOT assertions, speculations, of which there are only two.

You are not speculating, you are asserting that your view is the correct one.

So you reject the anthropomorphic vision of God adopted by most of the revealed religions, and decide to put your/my blind faith in a unicorn. Is that a male or female?

I reject God on philosophical grounds, rejecting the anthropomorphic version is just icing on the cake. However my point was that to believe ill-defined concept is irrational. My contrast was to provide an example of a defined by rejected object, unicorn, due to lack of evidence. God has neither a proper definition nor evidence.

You're in the woods and you come upon a pot of beef stew boiling over a fire. There's no one there and no evidence that anyone had been there. A camcorder happens to be aimed at it and you rewind and watch it. One instant it's not there and then it is. Let's assume you have the expertise to tell that nothing tampered with the recording. So is it reasonable to take the stance that it was uncaused? You can't tell if natural law was violated or not, it's just there.

This example is hilarious. One the pot is not a natural object, it is a known to be constructed object, this is evidence of a person. The beef is ill-defined. If it is a cut of beef then this too is an example of a person since beef is not natural cut nor found in pots. It reasonable to conclude that the camcorder is malfunctioning. You failed to discount the reliability of the tool, you failed to consider the objects observed, how these form, in what form these were observed and how external examples of these objects have been observed. You make the same mistake made by everyone that makes these fallacious arguments. You go straight for confirmation bias rather than a process of elimination, falsifiable and conclusion formation.

Cosmologists and theoretical physicists say we know nothing before t=0--but it appears that you want to assert your theoretical physics as fact, never mind that it's unaccepted by any actual scientists--unless you have a Creationist hidden in a closet somewhere.

Nope, I never made such a claim. In fact your argument has refuted your own conclusion since you are the one asserting that at T=0 God created the universe but failed to consider what an act is. An act is something within time. There is a time before the act, during the act and after the act. You are only counting after the act while ignoring the basic principles of during and before. I am merely pointing out your errors.

OK then, let's have a reference, from somebody besides Pat Robertson that is.

I just demonstrated how it was fallacious in this comment. This argument is taught and refuted in basic philosophy classes. However since you never took these courses so are ignorant to this fact.

If you need sources here are a few. Is Hume enough for you, a man more qualified than Robertson will ever be. Is an online lecture from a philosophy department enough? It not like this idea is an example of a horrible argument or anything....

Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Paley, "The Teleological Argument"

 

[Thief]

What are you referring to specifically with the "problem with infinity"? I've read a lot on this, and much progress has been made since the early 80s when the issue was recognized popularly.

Also, why do you think that the problem with infinity in Quantum Physics makes what Hawking said implausible?

He conceded a long standing discussion with a rival.
I got it.
Did you?

You can't refer to mathematicians as your back up.

Equations can't be used on God.

 

[Thief]

I am ASKING how you know.
I am not preventing anyone from knowing.

I am not pretending to know what I don't actually know.
just because you say you are sure, doesn't mean you know something for real.

You would have to demonstrate that what you CLAIM to know is real.
If you can't give a reason why you say you know something, then your knowledge claim is unfounded.



Unsupported opinions are not the same as facts. You misrepresent how scientists work.
Science.. has theories and hypotheses about what they can't detect.

Nobody is pretending to know. No reputable scientist makes a claim to know what they don't actually know.



Scientists are hard at work trying to prove all sorts of things.
What's your point?

You know God by reasoning.

Reason away from Him....and all you gain is distance.

 

[Blastcat]

You know God by reasoning.

Reason away from Him....and all you gain is distance.

Then please demonstrate your reasoning.