I Know That God Does Not Exist

By and large yes...pending objective evidence. But some things remain unevidenced. Do we thus discard them from consideration pending further review?

Like what?

Let's say you're on a committee putting together a list of unevidenced things to consider. What are your criteria?--Percy

You know I mean GOD

That there is no way to present them to others via objective evidence yet the committee has in its hands a list nonetheless.And I know where ringo will take this. He will include every god ever mentioned by humanity on the list.I can never win such arguments, but Church History is packed with people who could serve on the committee as well as many who should never be allowed to poison society with wishy-washy relativism.

Edited by Phat, .

You still don't seem to understand a consistent usage of the word "know."You didn't reply to me way back in Message 525 so here's the summary again:

quote

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existence we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it to know more and more.

How do we "know" negative statements about the existence of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false. Once we get lots and lots of evidence about how McDonald's runs their company (compiled from people all over the world) we can rationally, reasonably, confidently say that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu without even checking in that moment.

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

Therefore, I know that God does not exist.
I, and many other people, have looked for where God is proposed to exist for almost the entirety of human history. It is possible that "God's existence" is the most looked for thing ever. But no data has ever been obtained that indicates God's existence. We have also analyzed some of the things God has been proposed to have done (world-wide flood, bringing happiness/peace). And, again, the data results are no different than if God does not exist at all.
Therefore, after obtaining the data and analyzing it, my position is that I know that God does not exist.

---

Here's a larger message that spells it out a bit more: Message 372
-this message discusses the subjective judgement each and every one of us uses whenever we use the word "know" while discussing anything.
-I'm simply using a much more consistent, rational subjective judgement when I say I "know things" then you are when you say I can't know that God exists.Summarized by this small quote from Modulous: For your own personal, subjective reasons - when discussing God you've decided to move the goalposts for the word "know" into some sort of irrational, hopeful area of your mind that you hold for reasons only you will ever know and you don't apply this standard to any other time you use the word "know" (or else... you would never be able to say that you know anything at all.)For me, I use a more consistent, rational sense of the word "know" when discussing God and this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that I Know That God Does Not Exist.

No, my argument is that evidence of absence is evidence of absence. Why wouldn't it be?If I can say I know there are no keys on a table when I look at a table and there's nothing on it at all... then I can say I Know That God Does Not Exist when the vast majority humans throughout history have looked for God everywhere we possibly can and never find Him.Can you think of a way God exists and we haven't found Him yet? - Sure, just as you can think of a way Sharkfin soup exists on McDonald's menu even though it never has and all evidence points to that it's not moving in that direction.Which is the meaning of the word "know.""Know" doesn't mean for-sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake. If it did, you could never actually say that you "know" anything.
There's always some level of tentativity/doubt when using the word "know."
The word "know" simply means that you do have evidence, and it's reasonable/rational to follow that evidence to the conclusion you're drawing.If you want to use a different level of tentativity/doubt when using the word "know" about God then you do about everything else... then that's up to you.For me, I am going to try and stay consistent, and this leads me to an unavoidable conclusion that I Know That God Does Not Exist.

It's a good counter-argument, perhaps the best one. But I think it fails when you add in a level of consistency.You can call it "levels of contentment" or "finished looking" or "finished believing/accepting"... it all seems to be about the same thing... when to personally (subjectively) accept that "knowing something" is tentative and you're confident (again, subjectively) that you've done "enough."I can look at a table with nothing on it.
I can say "I know my keys are not on that table."But is this not simply my own level of contentment?
Have I not simply decided that I'm done looking?
Didn't I simply accept that my "knowing" is tentative and I'm confident that I've done "enough?"After all... perhaps there is some physics trick-of-the-light where my keys are perfectly blending into the table with excellent camoflauge.Maybe I need to swipe my hand across the table?
Is that "enough" to say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?But, then again... what if my brain is having issues... I move up to the table and swipe my hand across it and feel nothing... but in reality I didn't actually lower my hand onto the table and I only thought I did?
...if I don't know that, and I think I truly did swipe my hand across the table, and also see no keys on the table... can I say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?It gets worse, though.Let's say I do tests to guarantee no trick-of-the-light is occurring and my vision is fine.
Let's say I have many people swipe their hands across the table and none of us are having brain-issues.Isn't it possible that God Himself may be hiding my keys from us? And my keys really are on that table.
What if it's not God? What if it's Loki or Dr. Strange or Satan or a Demon or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or an Elf or a Satyr?After all my tests... can I say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table?The point is... in order to say I Know My Keys Are Not On That Table... there is always a level of tentativity. A level of doubt that's accepted. A level of "I'm done looking now" even though we haven't looked everywhere. This is how it is whenever we use the word "know." With anything and everything.Understand that... and apply the same level of tentativity/doubt/done-looking to God's existence with all the evidence of absence we have on God and no evidence of existence; not even a required motive for existence... over basically all of human history... and the conclusion is unavoidable: I Know That God Does Not Exist.

There were words and sentences, but you didn't really say anything, and you didn't answer the question. Let's say you're on a committee putting together a list of unevidenced things to consider. What are your criteria?--Percy

About this committee. Would it be made up of all political/religious spectrums?

Perhaps you accept the fact that once you have not only stopped looking but feel no need to look, you then "know".My argument would assume that one of those keys was the key to "the kingdom", Perhaps a necessary key for me to find and/or have. Perhaps not so much for you.

We tend to look harder for things we *need*. If I need to get to work, I need my keys. I may glance at the table four or five times...even if it has been checked previously. If I were merely hungry for sharkfin soup one day, one glance at the Mcdonald's menu may prompt me to drive elsewhere. If I crawled out of a desert...parched for water, and saw a Mcdonald's open (or even closed) failing to find water on the menu would not cause me to move on. In my mind, Mcdonald's would simply *have* to have water. Perhaps one's level of knowledge is correlated with their need to know. I also never equate fairies, CIA conspiracy theories, or Bigfoot with the same need-to-know urgency that I have for God, as I understand Him.
So are you saying that since levels of contentment are relative to the individual, "knowing" is also relative to the individual?Or are you pushing for knowledge to be objective and absolute?

Edited by Phat, : punctuation and clarity

Yes - this is the (subjective) acceptance of tentativity that we all make whenever we use the word "know." Whether we consciously acknowledge it or not.My point is that if we look at the level of acceptance we use for the word "know" on all sorts of other things we confidently say we know all the time: keys not being on a table, safe to drive through an intersection, other people on the other side of the internet... and then apply this to "Does God exist?" Then the reasonable, consistent conclusion is that I Know That God Does Not Exist.But not being consistent isn't necessarily a bad thing.When I want to know I'm going to buy a house - I'll read all the fine print in the contract.
When I want to know I'm going to use some freeware software - I'll click past the "I Acknowledge" screens during installation.These 2 items are inconsistent for a reason: A house is a lot of money and I want to put a higher level of confidence on my knowledge. Freeware software may or may not work, and I likely don't really care... so my level of confidence on my knowledge doesn't need to be as high.So... why am I using a consistent level of knowledge for God and you're using a high level of knowledge?
Because you think God is a more important aspect of life than I do.Maybe you think God is important for the afterlife.
-I'm confident in taking responsibility for the decisions I've made in my life... if someone wants to judge me as evil or bad and condemn me to an afterlife of pain and agony... I'll take that so that I'm able to say I lived a good life helping people and those I love as best I know how.
-So I don't think God is important for the afterlife.Maybe you think God is required for a good/safe life here and now.
-I'm confident that no God has ever had a hand in my life or anyone else I love or care for. I do have a good/safe life here and now, and I'm confident that it's because I've made good decisions as well as had help from many family and friends who've greatly helped me along my way. Mostly because I deal in reality and not imagination when getting into serious decisions on how to live my life.
-So I don't think God is required for a good/safe life here and now.Maybe you think we owe God something for creating us.
-I'm confident that didn't create us. But even if He did, I'm confident that a good God would want us to become independent. That's what I'd want for my own children - to be able to take care of themselves and lead a life they can find personal fulfillment within. In such a view, the created never owes anything to the creator, and such an idea that something was actually owed would be repulsive to a good creator.
-So I don't think we owe God anything.The draw of this chain of 3000 messages is to get people to look ("Free Beer!" ... "I Know That God Does Not Exist!")
But the reason for this chain of 3000 messages is to get people to think about how they know things... and think about how that applies to everything they think they "know/believe/accept."Understanding that we "know nothing" is the first step.
Understanding a really good way to "know things" is the next.
Understanding what we actually "know" is the next.
Applying these concepts to all other concepts is the next.
This will lead to a very well-grounded foundation - from which people can go anywhere.It can even lead to a strong belief in God... it will help you understand the aspects you "really know" and the aspects you "actually only accept" and which of those are really important to you and which can be shrugged into the "don't care" pile.The proper answer to "I Know That God Does Not Exist" is not "Nuh-uh! You can't say that!!"... This merely identifies the answer-er as someone who doesn't understand what knowledge is and is therefore at a great disadvantage in almost all aspects of life.The proper answer is "Oh... cool for you... I have my own subjective reasons why I'm going to an inconsistent level of tentativity so I'm not willing to say such a thing, and I'm good with that."
-if you can truthfully, really say this... then it shows that you understand what "knowing" something is all about and if you apply this to all the things you know... then it's a lot easier to make better decisions for all other aspects of life.

You shouldn't let dust accumulate on either your dictionary or your Bible. Ignorance and belief are in the same category. Innocent ignorance is okay but wilfull ignorance is not and aggressive ignorance, like Dredge's, is worse. It's one thing to be ignorant of science and another thing to wilfully turn your back on the evidence. Worst of all is when you let belief get in the way of evidence (or lack of evidence). No it isn't. And they are, by definition, nonsense. Non = not. Or how you, if you actually followed Christianity, would do what Christ said. But you prefer your nonsensical, self-serving religion. You mean the "doubting Thomas" story? I have tried to clear up your misunderstanding before.John 20:1-2 Mary Magdalane tells Peter that Jesus' body is missing from the tomb.
John 20: 8 Peter goes to the tomb, sees and believes.
John 20:19-20 The disciples see Jesus and He shows them His wounds. But Thomas is not there.
John 20:25 The disciples tell Thomas what they saw but he wants to see the evidence for himself.
John 20:26-27 Eight days later, Jesus appears to the disciples again and shows Thomas His wounds.
john 20:29 And only then, after voluntarily showing the evidence, He says that it is also okay to believe without seeing.It's a pretty long stretch to pretend that believing without seeing is better than believing when you see the evidence. You say that as if being Elmer Gantry is a bad thing. No. You have finished looking when you stop looking. That has nothing to do with any conclusions about belief and knowledge. In your case, your obvious mistrust is a symptom of your empty belief. They are not opposites. That's like going "all-in" trusting a bridge. We trust it because it's our only choice. It isn't "somehow feeling". It's a logical conclusion. You can believe until the cows come home that you can jump the river like them Duke boys. But you have to discard that belief if you want to survive.

I have a table like that. I can look for something twenty times and it isn't there - and then it is there.