Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[viole]

"Can you name me something about the world that you know to be true?"

I exist, and I know that is true.

Are you really sure. Before assessing that you must define what you mean with "you".

Science has multiple meanings, if we mean science to mean 'studies on various things', then scientific knowledge would just be the knowledge of the various things which were studied.

Ok, then. Do you know something about science? For instance, do you know that the Universe had a beginning?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

Logically speaking, not religiously, but logically.

If there was a creator who created the universe and all that is in it, then this creator has the power to make itself known to its creation in any way, shape, or form. So when it comes down to 'knowing absolutely', it is very possible...in a logical sense.

So those 12 people, it's a 50/50 chance they are being dishonest or telling the truth.

On the other hand, those who voted that they know for sure that there is no creator, there's no way to absolutely prove that.

I stand by the logic I presented unless refuted.

No, no there isn't. There's a huge chance that those people are simply deluded or mistaken, that they hold a belief for no good reason other than emotional comfort. You're using a lot of wiggle words here that don't help your case. "If" there was a creator, then it "has the power", etc. You're not saying anything definite. Knowledge, as opposed to faith or belief, requires some rational basis in fact, something demonstrable that can be offered to show that they actually do know what they claim to know and, at least to my experience, nobody has ever presented anything objective that proves the factual existence of any god. None of those 12 people have shown that the thing they "know" exists is actually real, nor offered any tests to which this thing can be put so that others can "know" that it exists. They aren't arguing that it's logically possible, they're arguing that it's absolutely true and now it rests on their shoulders to prove it.

As for knowing there is no creator, yes, in the generic sense you're right. There are lots of formulas for gods that are logically contradictory and we can be certain those don't exist because they violate the laws of logic. Otherwise, yes, there is no way to be certain, to have "knowledge", and rational people don't claim that they do either way.

 

[Greta]

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

True, but that's only religion. Except there' a lot more to philosophy than religion, and at least one other reasonable option besides atheism concerning God.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sure I KNOW that there is no God. I just don't claim 100% certainty.

The logical fallacy behind the statement blows all the other fallacies out of the water. Glad to see you're looking to exert a maximum effort, albeit at the complete expenditure of whatever cred you might have been nurturing under a mattress somewhere. I trust you sleep like a baby in any case.

 

[Bunyip]

The logical fallacy behind the statement blows all the other fallacies out of the water. Glad to see you're looking to exert a maximum effort, albeit at the complete expenditure of whatever cred you might have been nurturing under a mattress somewhere. I trust you sleep like a baby in any case.

Makes perfect sense - no knowledge is certain.

 

[Whiterain]

I know in this whole universe somewhere there is a bad *** mother mashoogna mashooogna. Somewhere out there, in that void and Jewish speaking.

The only sacred language.

The Elite one abides.

It's all about mentality, you got your cowards square. God feareres. Nay, Thou shalt not fear God, but commend him.

Nobody wants a powerful leader anymore. They scared.

Absolutely, out there, in the void of the cosmos there is bound to be a bad ***.

But Odin is right here right now. Maybe not for you, Maybe not for me.

 

[OurCreed]

No, no there isn't. There's a huge chance that those people are simply deluded or mistaken, that they hold a belief for no good reason other than emotional comfort. You're using a lot of wiggle words here that don't help your case. "If" there was a creator, then it "has the power", etc. You're not saying anything definite. Knowledge, as opposed to faith or belief, requires some rational basis in fact, something demonstrable that can be offered to show that they actually do know what they claim to know and, at least to my experience, nobody has ever presented anything objective that proves the factual existence of any god. None of those 12 people have shown that the thing they "know" exists is actually real, nor offered any tests to which this thing can be put so that others can "know" that it exists. They aren't arguing that it's logically possible, they're arguing that it's absolutely true and now it rests on their shoulders to prove it.

As for knowing there is no creator, yes, in the generic sense you're right. There are lots of formulas for gods that are logically contradictory and we can be certain those don't exist because they violate the laws of logic. Otherwise, yes, there is no way to be certain, to have "knowledge", and rational people don't claim that they do either way.

"There's a huge chance that those people are simply deluded or mistaken, that they hold a belief for no good reason other than emotional comfort."

That is why I said 50/50. I'm not going to step into someone's life and say that they did not receive communication from the creator. I said that assuming the creator exists, the creator will have power to manifest His existence to His creation, so that's why it is alright to have a poll option to vote that you know for sure there is a creator. But for the opposite, knowing that there isn't a creator, there is no way to prove such a statement.

"You're using a lot of wiggle words here that don't help your case."

I'm making my case as clear as it is for anyone to understand. If there was a creator of the entire universe, then it definitely has the power to manifest His existence to what it creates. Obviously the creation has to have some sort of consciousness to recognize His existence, and we humans possess that. Is it that hard to understand?

"None of those 12 people have shown that the thing they "know" exists is actually real"

It's just a poll, nobody is asking anyone to prove why they believe what they believe. It's just a simple poll asking where people stand, or think they stand. Your desire for reason are irrelevant. I'm am here only to show that one of the poll choices are flawed and I gave my argument which hasn't been refuted yet.

"They aren't arguing that it's logically possible, they're arguing that it's absolutely true and now it rests on their shoulders to prove it."

This is just a poll thread, nobody has to prove what they believe in, you just choose what you believe in and vote.

 

[OurCreed]

I can write a book showing how much logical fallacies, errors, and misunderstandings have been spoken by that one comedian within 10 minutes.

Only a good few atheists are smart and intellectual, the majority of them, and I use this word seriously, not jokingly, are the retarded type.

But then again, most doctrine/religion followers are no different.

 

[Cephus]

That is why I said 50/50. I'm not going to step into someone's life and say that they did not receive communication from the creator. I said that assuming the creator exists, the creator will have power to manifest His existence to His creation, so that's why it is alright to have a poll option to vote that you know for sure there is a creator. But for the opposite, knowing that there isn't a creator, there is no way to prove such a statement.

First off, you can't assume that a creator exists when the case has not been made. Secondly, there is a difference between someone believing they had communication from the creator and them actually doing so. People who claim they have done so have no way of actually verifying that it really happened and isn't a delusion or brain aberration. Because of that, there simply is no way to know for sure, or even to any degree of certainty, that you had this experience because it is beyond the ability to rationally test. People believe they get abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean they actually do.

I'm making my case as clear as it is for anyone to understand. If there was a creator of the entire universe, then it definitely has the power to manifest His existence to what it creates. Obviously the creation has to have some sort of consciousness to recognize His existence, and we humans possess that. Is it that hard to understand?

You are just making up a bunch of characteristics for an entity that you have zero evidence for. It's the same kind of thing that the religious have done for thousands of years, when they can tell you everything about their gods. It's all just an overactive imagination.

It's just a poll, nobody is asking anyone to prove why they believe what they believe. It's just a simple poll asking where people stand, or think they stand. Your desire for reason are irrelevant. I'm am here only to show that one of the poll choices are flawed and I gave my argument which hasn't been refuted yet.

But you just said it yourself, it's a belief, it's not knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge requires some objective basis in fact. It is simply unreasonable and irrational to claim knowledge of something that you can demonstrate no actual knowledge of.

This is just a poll thread, nobody has to prove what they believe in, you just choose what you believe in and vote.

Then it's not knowledge, it's faith. Thanks for admitting my point.

 

[OurCreed]

First off, you can't assume that a creator exists when the case has not been made. Secondly, there is a difference between someone believing they had communication from the creator and them actually doing so. People who claim they have done so have no way of actually verifying that it really happened and isn't a delusion or brain aberration. Because of that, there simply is no way to know for sure, or even to any degree of certainty, that you had this experience because it is beyond the ability to rationally test. People believe they get abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean they actually do.



You are just making up a bunch of characteristics for an entity that you have zero evidence for. It's the same kind of thing that the religious have done for thousands of years, when they can tell you everything about their gods. It's all just an overactive imagination.



But you just said it yourself, it's a belief, it's not knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge requires some objective basis in fact. It is simply unreasonable and irrational to claim knowledge of something that you can demonstrate no actual knowledge of.



Then it's not knowledge, it's faith. Thanks for admitting my point.

"First off, you can't assume that a creator exists when the case has not been made."

For the sake of argument, yes you can, and that's exactly what I did. I'm not proving to you that there is a creator, I'm proving to you that IF there was a creator, this is how everything should be. Assuming there is a creator, it would have the power to manifest itself and so on and so forth. No if's and's or but's.

"Secondly, there is a difference between someone believing they had communication from the creator and them actually doing so. People who claim they have done so have no way of actually verifying that it really happened and isn't a delusion or brain aberration. Because of that, there simply is no way to know for sure, or even to any degree of certainty, that you had this experience because it is beyond the ability to rationally test. People believe they get abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean they actually do."

I partially agree with you here, but not absolutely. Even if people can be deluded in their own way, it is still possible to know. Miracles happen over and over again, and they keep happening until a person is forced to believe that whatever is happening is not a coincidence anymore. It's like winning the lottery 50 times in a row. It's not a coincidence, it's planned, and we humans possess the mind and intelligence to figure that out when it happens.

The only thing is that these can only be personal experiences. Meaning that if one person knows, they won't be able to convince another person unless the other person has had their own experiences. And assuming there was a creator who created all things, then this creator must possess the power to be personal with its creation.

"You are just making up a bunch of characteristics for an entity that you have zero evidence for. It's the same kind of thing that the religious have done for thousands of years, when they can tell you everything about their gods. It's all just an overactive imagination."

Nothing is being made up. It is called logical deduction. You start off with a set of ideas and you go on from there, and you must remain consistent with the set of ideas.

A) Let's say Henry is a boy who likes chocolate, and if Henry doesn't get chocolate, he will always get upset.

B) Now picture a situation where Henry is sitting in the kitchen and his mother comes home from the store and she bought chocolate. She stores the chocolate away only after Henry sees it.

What happens next? According to premise A, since Henry gets upset every time he does not get chocolate, what MUST happen next in premise B is that Henry will get upset.

This is the logical deduction method. It is based off only logic, coming to reasonable conclusions based on from the primary set if ideas. And that is exactly what I did with the concept of the creator.

If there is a creator, that means it created the entire universe. If it created the entire universe, it means it possesses all the power that there is, why? Because it created the entire universe.

And if it possesses all power, it has the ability to do anything it pleases within the universe. If it has the ability to do whatever it pleases, it can establish contact with what it creates.

Where is the flaw in this? These characteristics are all derived with the logical deduction method. This isn't religion making things up, it's pure and sound logic.

"But you just said it yourself, it's a belief, it's not knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge requires some objective basis in fact. It is simply unreasonable and irrational to claim knowledge of something that you can demonstrate no actual knowledge of."

Semantics. I meant belief as in point of view, where they stand on the matter. It's not my say on what people KNOW. My message still stands.

"Then it's not knowledge, it's faith. Thanks for admitting my point."

There is no knowledge without faith. And there is no faith without knowledge.

 

[Cephus]

For the sake of argument, yes you can, and that's exactly what I did. I'm not proving to you that there is a creator, I'm proving to you that IF there was a creator, this is how everything should be. Assuming there is a creator, it would have the power to manifest itself and so on and so forth. No if's and's or but's.

Only if you make a lot of unsupported assumptions about the characteristics of the creator. There are plenty of creation stories worldwide whose creators would not fit into your definition.

I partially agree with you here, but not absolutely. Even if people can be deluded in their own way, it is still possible to know. Miracles happen over and over again, and they keep happening until a person is forced to believe that whatever is happening is not a coincidence anymore. It's like winning the lottery 50 times in a row. It's not a coincidence, it's planned, and we humans possess the mind and intelligence to figure that out when it happens.

The only thing is that these can only be personal experiences. Meaning that if one person knows, they won't be able to convince another person unless the other person has had their own experiences. And assuming there was a creator who created all things, then this creator must possess the power to be personal with its creation.

No, the person believes, they do not know unless they have tested the experience objectively to find out if it really happened the way they claim it happened. To use the stereotypical drunk seeing pink elephants example, no matter how strongly the drunk is convinced they saw an actual pink elephant, they did not. It was a chemical reaction in the brain that made them think they saw something that they didn't actually see. It is only through objective testing that we can determine the true cause of the "experience". All anyone can do is tell you how they interpreted a particular experience. Someone in the dark woods sees a light and interpret it as a UFO. They hear a noise and interpret it as Bigfoot. They can claim knowledge of these things all they want, they just don't have it, they only have a subjective interpretation.

Nothing is being made up. It is called logical deduction. You start off with a set of ideas and you go on from there, and you must remain consistent with the set of ideas.

A) Let's say Henry is a boy who likes chocolate, and if Henry doesn't get chocolate, he will always get upset.

B) Now picture a situation where Henry is sitting in the kitchen and his mother comes home from the store and she bought chocolate. She stores the chocolate away only after Henry sees it.

What happens next? According to premise A, since Henry gets upset every time he does not get chocolate, what MUST happen next in premise B is that Henry will get upset.

This is the logical deduction method. It is based off only logic, coming to reasonable conclusions based on from the primary set if ideas. And that is exactly what I did with the concept of the creator.

That's horribly simplistic. Unless there is something severely psychologically or mentally wrong with Henry, he is not going to be upset all the time that he doesn't have chocolate.

If there is a creator, that means it created the entire universe. If it created the entire universe, it means it possesses all the power that there is, why? Because it created the entire universe.

That's certainly not a given at all. Maybe from our perspective, this creator is all-powerful but that doesn't mean that it actually is. That's like saying that an alien that creates life in a test tube is all-powerful, but it really isn't. To the creation, that might be the impression, but only because it is so far removed from the creator. This is really where theists go off the reservation, they don't understand the subjective nature of their own philosophy.

Semantics. I meant belief as in point of view, where they stand on the matter. It's not my say on what people KNOW. My message still stands.

Sure it is. Words mean things for a reason. If you're just going to call anything that anyone beliefs strongly knowledge, then the word is essentially useless.

There is no knowledge without faith. And there is no faith without knowledge.

Then there is no difference between faith and knowledge, why use two words when you mean the same thing?

 

[Bunyip]

"First off, you can't assume that a creator exists when the case has not been made."

For the sake of argument, yes you can, and that's exactly what I did. I'm not proving to you that there is a creator, I'm proving to you that IF there was a creator, this is how everything should be. Assuming there is a creator, it would have the power to manifest itself and so on and so forth. No if's and's or but's.

"Secondly, there is a difference between someone believing they had communication from the creator and them actually doing so. People who claim they have done so have no way of actually verifying that it really happened and isn't a delusion or brain aberration. Because of that, there simply is no way to know for sure, or even to any degree of certainty, that you had this experience because it is beyond the ability to rationally test. People believe they get abducted by aliens too, that doesn't mean they actually do."

I partially agree with you here, but not absolutely. Even if people can be deluded in their own way, it is still possible to know. Miracles happen over and over again, and they keep happening until a person is forced to believe that whatever is happening is not a coincidence anymore. It's like winning the lottery 50 times in a row. It's not a coincidence, it's planned, and we humans possess the mind and intelligence to figure that out when it happens.

The only thing is that these can only be personal experiences. Meaning that if one person knows, they won't be able to convince another person unless the other person has had their own experiences. And assuming there was a creator who created all things, then this creator must possess the power to be personal with its creation.

"You are just making up a bunch of characteristics for an entity that you have zero evidence for. It's the same kind of thing that the religious have done for thousands of years, when they can tell you everything about their gods. It's all just an overactive imagination."

Nothing is being made up. It is called logical deduction. You start off with a set of ideas and you go on from there, and you must remain consistent with the set of ideas.

A) Let's say Henry is a boy who likes chocolate, and if Henry doesn't get chocolate, he will always get upset.

B) Now picture a situation where Henry is sitting in the kitchen and his mother comes home from the store and she bought chocolate. She stores the chocolate away only after Henry sees it.

What happens next? According to premise A, since Henry gets upset every time he does not get chocolate, what MUST happen next in premise B is that Henry will get upset.

This is the logical deduction method. It is based off only logic, coming to reasonable conclusions based on from the primary set if ideas. And that is exactly what I did with the concept of the creator.

If there is a creator, that means it created the entire universe. If it created the entire universe, it means it possesses all the power that there is, why? Because it created the entire universe.

And if it possesses all power, it has the ability to do anything it pleases within the universe. If it has the ability to do whatever it pleases, it can establish contact with what it creates.

Where is the flaw in this? These characteristics are all derived with the logical deduction method. This isn't religion making things up, it's pure and sound logic.

"But you just said it yourself, it's a belief, it's not knowledge. There is a difference. Knowledge requires some objective basis in fact. It is simply unreasonable and irrational to claim knowledge of something that you can demonstrate no actual knowledge of."

Semantics. I meant belief as in point of view, where they stand on the matter. It's not my say on what people KNOW. My message still stands.

"Then it's not knowledge, it's faith. Thanks for admitting my point."

There is no knowledge without faith. And there is no faith without knowledge.

All you have is a suite of pretty outlandish assumptions - not an actual argument. You leave us nothing to refute.

 

[Blastcat]

I already gave a simple answer to your misunderstandings. The 'CONCEPT' of God is beyond the scope of the universe. Therefore, NO HUMAN BEING can for 100% certainty claim that they know how everything is beyond the scope of universe. I don't have to PROVE anything, it's just logic.

Logic that isn't based on reality isn't good logic. We can make things up all day long as say it must be so. Well, we can say whatever we like. But thinking does not make something true JUST because you happen to like the idea.

You have a fantasy you think makes sense. Ok.. But that isn't proof that the fantasy is REAL.

 

[Blastcat]

How can you be not certain of what you know does not exist?

If you are not certain of something, you can disbelieve that something does not exist; but, as long as you are uncertain, you cant say you know it doesnt exist.

And the same goes for the believer. If you are only claiming to know something for certain, but have NO PROOF NOR ANY EVIDENCE to support the claim, then you can't say that it DOES exist. In effect, your claim to certainty of the god's existence would be bogus.

Def. Certian: "Known for sure; established beyond doubt."

If you know God does not exist you are certain of this fact. If you are not certain, you dont Know just disbelieve.

Just saying.

If you make a claim that you KNOW a god exists, but offer NO PROOF, NOR any evidence, then the belief is NOT A FACT. You might be CERTAIN but that certainty isn't justified at all.

 

[Blastcat]

True, but that's only religion. Except there' a lot more to philosophy than religion, and at least one other reasonable option besides atheism concerning God.

That really depends on how you use the word "reasonable".

I don't think it's reasonable to believe in something for which there is NO proof and NO evidence.. but hey.. that's just me.

 

[Blastcat]

I already gave a simple answer to your misunderstandings. The 'CONCEPT' of God is beyond the scope of the universe. Therefore, NO HUMAN BEING can for 100% certainty claim that they know how everything is beyond the scope of universe. I don't have to PROVE anything, it's just logic.

WOW .. you can know things that are beyond the very scope of the UNIVERSE!!

We have a concept "god". It's extremely vague, so vague as to be practically meaningless. BUT you seem to "know" that "the concept is beyond the scope of the universe".. somehow. It's beyond the scope of the universe, but you know what is beyond the scope of the universe to report this "fact" about god?

You claim that the concept is BEYOND the scope of the UNIVERSE, and YET.. you make truth statements as IF you knew what WAS beyond the scope of the entire UNIVERSE?

You are amazing... you know about things that are beyond the scope of the universe. Kinda like a god, in your knowledge, aren't you?

I'd like a little proof that you have this ability to know things that are beyond the scope of the universe, and NOT just take your word for it.

But hey.. that's just me.

 

[Blastcat]

I can write a book showing how much logical fallacies, errors, and misunderstandings have been spoken by that one comedian within 10 minutes.

Only a good few atheists are smart and intellectual, the majority of them, and I use this word seriously, not jokingly, are the retarded type.

But then again, most doctrine/religion followers are no different.

I can write a book about theists who make bold statements and NEVER back them up at all.
How about you pick your BEST Carlin quote from the video, and explain to ANYONE how it's logically flawed?

How about you back up your bold statement ?

Personal attacks about how atheists are the "retarded type" is YOUR IDEA OF a good logical argument?
If you TRULY believe that atheists are RETARDED, and you are serious about that belief, you are SERIOUSLY bigoted towards atheists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And the same goes for the believer. If you are only claiming to know something for certain, but have NO PROOF NOR ANY EVIDENCE to support the claim, then you can't say that it DOES exist. In effect, your claim to certainty of the god's existence would be bogus.




If you make a claim that you KNOW a god exists, but offer NO PROOF, NOR any evidence, then the belief is NOT A FACT. You might be CERTAIN but that certainty isn't justified at all.

I understand that. I was stating the question to those who say they do not believe in God. I asked do they Know or disbelief God does Not exist. I Know God does not exist. Some people say they dont Know, they just disbelief in the claim. I guess they dont want to put themselves in the shoes of saying something is true like believers do.

Thats the difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers claim their belief is a Fact. Non believers settle with disbelief and not claim its a fact.

Why are the two claims different? Just because one disbelieves in God doesnt mean it is not true. To state it is a Fact/knowledge of disbelief, then the theist and atheist can meet eye to eye.

This has nothing to do with theists and evidence. They have evidence for their BELIEF only. Thats from person to person. The sun rising is not a belief, its a fact.

With or without evidence

It is a fact.

As long as beliefs depend on the believer (subjective) it will never be fact/universal.

With or without evidence.

I was wondering...believers can say 100 percent their belief is a FACT. Why cant atheist say the same?

 

[Blastcat]

I understand that. I was stating the question to those who say they do not believe in God. I asked do they Know or disbelief God does Not exist. I Know God does not exist. Some people say they dont Know, they just disbelief in the claim. I guess they dont want to put themselves in the shoes of saying something is true like believers do.

Maybe we don't want to be in their shoes because their LOGIC isn't sound.

But HOW did you arrive at the KNOWLEDGE that a god doesn't exist?
What METHOD did you use?

If you used a very good method, it should be repeatable, and then I could use it, because right now, I cannot for the llfe of me know how I would CLAIM to know that some supernatural thingy in heaven DOESN'T exist.

Thats the difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers claim their belief is a Fact. Non believers settle with disbelief and not claim its a fact.

But aren't YOU saying that the statement "God does not exist" is a fact?
How do you KNOW that this is a fact, and a true statement?

Why are the two claims different? Just because one disbelieves in God doesnt mean it is not true. To state it is a Fact/knowledge of disbelief, then the theist and atheist can meet eye to eye.

And of COURSE, just because the believer believes does not make god true, either.
And this whole GOD thing is the actual claim. They tell us their god is real. That's the claim. Atheists just aren't that overwhelmed by the evidence for their gods. You sound like you've fallen for their trick of trying to shift the burden of the proof onto the non believers.

They make weird claims.. it's THEIR business to prove that they are true...and real.

This has nothing to do with theists and evidence. They have evidence for their BELIEF only. Thats from person to person. The sun rising is not a belief, its a fact.

With or without evidence

It is a fact.

The ONLY reason we say that the sun is "rising" is a fact is BECAUSE of the overwhelming evidence that it does. But I don't know what you mean by "with or without evidence". Do you believe in things that you DON'T have any evidence for?

As long as beliefs depend on the believer (subjective) it will never be fact/universal.

What do you MEAN by "fact/universal"?
But I agree with you there. If we believe in something for which there is NO evidence, then we can't say that it's a FACT.

I was wondering...believers can say 100 percent their belief is a FACT. Why cant atheist say the same?

Because some atheists don't go around saying things they actually DON'T know. When some atheists don't know something , they just admit it.. because SOME atheists are intellectually honest.