Existence of God is my knowledge

[firedragon]

I'll take that as an admission that you have no idea what the Harry Potter analogy is about either.

Excellent.

 

[John53]

Excellent.

Ok

 

[PureX]

Really? You have been condescending from the start. You pity the skeptic. You depict him as empty because he doesn't have a god belief and doesn't. He's missing something, hence the response of the eyeglasses metaphor, which you still steadfastly refuse to address. All of that is you telling others to be more like you and to think like you whatever their situation.

I only condescend to stupid arguments, not to skepticism, itself. I am an agnostic because I value skepticism. I am a theist because I value the results of faith. That you don't see this or understand it is not my problem.

And of course I can identify fictions about gods. Why can't you? Are you unaware of the limits of knowledge, and that the claims theists make about gods are things that they cannot know? Those are fictions, stories, verbal inventions like all beliefs about the metaphysical. Nobody knows anything that doesn't derive from experience, that doesn't impact upon the senses at some point.

The problem for you is that you think "fiction" is bad because you think it's dishonest, or inaccurate. Because you think your own fictions are not fiction. You think your fictions are "objectively real". "Objectivity" is your magical truth-god.

Did you read what I wrote? "You mentioned above that it is logical to invoke gods if it makes one feel better. Agreed. The belief isn't rational, but benefitting from it if possible is." The belief is irrational if it isn't the product of reasoning pretty much by definition.

I agree that "belief" is irrational. But as I have already stated countless times, this whole discussion is not about belief. It's about faith. Faith is both rational, effective, and necessary. But you cannot grasp this because your whole bias against theism is based on the "irrationality of belief". And I have already long ago agreed that "belief" is irrational and problematic. Which is why I am discussing faith, not belief. But you are unable to recognize the difference because your obsessive bias is focused on "belief". And belief is all your mind can see.

Holding the irrational belief and believing by faith is rational if it comforts at no cost, but faith itself will never graduate above guessing. Faith offers the humanist nothing, just like glasses offer the person with 20-20 vision nothing, so holding such a belief doesn't "work" and would be as irrational as the belief itself.

It is the false surety of "belief" that makes it dishonest and therefor problematic. It's lack of skepticism. And that's as true of your belief in "objective reality" as it is a religionist's "belief in God". Faith is not "believing in". Faith is hope being acted on. It remains skeptical but not stagnant. And it either proves itself useful to us or it doesn't. And clearly, it does prove itself useful for a huge number of people.

By your reasoning, atheism is rational for those who don't need a god belief because the atheism works but not the god belief. And, it is preferable to live without one if possible, just as it's better to live without corrective lenses if you can't benefit from them. I can testify to that.

Atheism is just a big waste of time and energy that produces nothing.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that serves to prove that God exists as a concept but it does not prove His existence as a reality. That kind of proof usually comes as coincidence ie God says He will do something and He does.

 

[Muffled]

Well, not in the imagination anyways. God is as real as Harry Potter as long as you keep reading or watching the films.

Then it's once again back to reality here.

I believe we already have evidence that Harry Potter is fictional but there is no such evidence about God.

 

[Muffled]

I assume god exists. And I have decided what I assume is true, how can I possibly be wrong? Therefore God exists, and I know it.

I believe an assumption is not the same thing as an experience. Job found that out.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe we already have evidence that Harry Potter is fictional but there is no such evidence about God.

What evidence is that?

That's a very interesting statement you made there.

 

[F1fan]

I believe that serves to prove that God exists as a concept but it does not prove His existence as a reality. That kind of proof usually comes as coincidence ie God says He will do something and He does.

That works if you flip a coin and guess heads and it comes up heads that proves that God exist but if you flip it and it comes up tails well you ignore that and then you flip it again until it comes up heads therefore you got your proof that god exists

 

[F1fan]

I believe an assumption is not the same thing as an experience. Job found that out.

How you interpret experience often involves assumptions.

 

[Sheldon]

Whether a character exists or not, he must know that he exists.

Not necessarily, define character?

For example, Harry Potter knows that Harry Potter exists. Harry Potter in the novel quite knew that Harry was there. And his friends knew.

Nope, he's a fictional character, as were the others, they knew nothing, the author simply portrayed them in that way, and they pointedly don't exist so this example would rather destroy your premise anyway.

Therefore, if the knowledges of the All-Knowing One are not false, then God exists.

Say what now? Something exists if it exists to know it exists, priceless. Have you ever heard of a begging question fallacy, or circular reasoning fallacies that use them, or redundant tautologies?

 

[Sheldon]

You are basically arguing that what is in an empty box is too complex for us to sense and understand. Let your imagination run wild, just like girls on spring break.

The rest of us acknowledge it is an empty box.

Well, we acknowledge we have no objective evidence there is anything in the box at least, so we are free to treat unevidenced claims about what is in there with extreme scepticism. As would any theists of course, but they treat their "empty box" as if it's a special case.

 

[Sheldon]

If you gain nothing from calling it an "empty Box" (and how could you gain anything from that?), and you gain something positive from calling it "God" (a focus for faith in the face of our ignorance/unknowing), and you cannot possibly determine what "really is" in the box, then it is clearly more logical to call what's in the box "God", and enjoy the positive advantages that come from doing so.

No it's not more logical (more logical?) something either adheres to logic or does not. Simply making unevidenced assumptions because you find what you imagine makes you happy is not sound reasoning, obviously. If we don't know whether a box contains anything, then we must remain agnostic about it, anyone making unevidenced claims about it's contents I would also have to disbelieve. This is a perfect analogy for agnostic atheism.

 

[Sheldon]

Why atheists so sure of Atheism?

Why does my atheism bother you so much?

I don't believe any deity or deities exist because there is no objective evidence to support the claim, and the arguments apologists keep presenting are generally irrational, and not at all compelling.