I Know That God Does Not Exist

Lower case "gods" are demons according to the Bible, but they nevertheless exist. In the west they seem to have gone into hiding since Christ came.As for science's supposedly educating us out of any reason for them to exist, we who believe in the Creator God of the Bible think in terms of ultimate and proximal causes, so that although we can certainly see how lightning and hurricanes and all the rest of it follow natural laws, and we impute those laws to the work of God, we think of Him as controlling what they do as their Ultimate Cause. We do have evidence for this in terms of prayers answered for changes in the weather. Even the Native Indians had surprising answers to their form of prayer. Such as that their Great Spirit might bring the buffalo near so we can have one to eat. Yup. That was reported by the expedition to the Northwest. Lewis and Clark? Memory fails me a lot these days. The buffalo had gone far away and the winter was hard upon them but the next morning a whole herd was stamping around just outside their camp. YEAH, NOT ABOUT WEATHER, SORRY, LOST TRACK.Yeah I guess none of this can be proved or disproved on the basis of scientific method, and it's easy enough to debunk prayer, much of which isn't legit anyway for one reason or another, but believers have had a lot of experience of answered prayer. Yeah I know it's all too irrational for some.What was C. S. Lewis" rationale?I once wanted to prove God to unbelievers, but then I realized He doesn't want to be proved by scientific or logical means. He gave us witnesses and we're to believe them and when we do all heaven breaks loose as it were. I'm talking about the God of the Bible of course. But "rational" types refuse to believe them, and in fact put in a prodigious amount of work finding reasons to disbelieve them. But that's the way God planned it. You believe the witness testimony or you don't. It's there to be believed, so nobody can claim they're deprived of evidence.ABE: OH, forgot: About the Flood. Actually Physical Geology supports it very well. It's Historical Geology that makes such a mess of reality there's no way to prove or disprove most of it. Yup, unfalsifiable. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What?The word "massive" does not mean "with lots of mass."
It is simply derived from the word mass.The word "massive" simply means "very large."

quote:

---

massive
/masiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
large and heavy or solid.
"a massive rampart of stone"
synonyms: huge, enormous, gigantic, very big, very large, great, giant, colossal, mammoth, vast, immense, tremendous, mighty, stupendous, monumental, epic, prodigious, mountainous, monstrous, titanic, towering, elephantine, king-sized, king-size, gargantuan, Herculean, Brobdingnagian, substantial, extensive, hefty, bulky, weighty, heavy, gross; More
2.
exceptionally large.

---

Please note definition #2: "Exceptionally large."You're not even being pedantic... as that includes being right. You're just being specifically, cryptically wrong. I would completely agree.
Of course, if you try to apply "the idea of god can be rational" to any of the context that I'm discussing God in.. you'd be wrong. Your claim on "how I'm wrong" hinges on holding a definition of the word "know" that hardly anyone uses. Including scientists.
It forces one to never be able to say "I know that doesn't exist." No matter how made up or ridiculous the proposition is.It doesn't jive with how practical life functions.
It removes the ability to say "I know a man I can't see isn't standing behind me right now and is going to kill me immediately."
However - everyone acts like such a thing doesn't exist.
No one constantly swirls in a circle trying to prevent the man right behind them that they can't see from killing them.Therefore... regardless of anyone saying it... everyone acts as if they know there is no man right behind them about to kill them immediately.
Most people don't have a problem saying they know such a thing doesn't exist - including scientists.The reasons I can say I know such a man doesn't exist are exactly the same as the reasons I can say I know God does not exist.1. When any irrational unverifiable, no-evidence-to-suggest-it's-possible-in-the-first-place place is claimed for them to exist in - it is rightfully ignored.
2. Any rational verifiable place they've been claimed to exist has been checked.
3. Results are that there is no evidence of their existence.Your method in showing "how I'm wrong" includes an irrational clinging to a definition of the word "know" that not a single person alive adheres to in a practical sense.I'm good with that.

It means (properly) "having mass". Electrons are massive but not large. No. It doesn't. That's a misuse, particularly in a scientific context. Or, "I can not prove a negative." I've lived 67 years without ever needing that ability. I would not call that a "practical life function". You really don't understand what "rational" means, do you? The people who disagree with you in this thread are alive.

The word "properly" is incorrect, here.
It only mean "having mass" in one specific definition.There are other definitions.
The other definitions are popular, and normal enough to say that "The most common adjective among the population is "massive" but I don't think it should be used at EvC to apply to holes" is your personal opinion and should be ignored because it's quite eccentric. It is not "a misuse."
It is a misuse in a scientific context.
Just as the scientific context is a misuse in the normal context.Since we're being normal... what do you think is correct? Wrong again.
I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm trying to know it with as much confidence as we know anything else. Then the way you "know I'm wrong" is applied inconsistently and should be ignored for that reason. Pick your poison. Yes, I do. And none of the swirl in circles trying to get away from the man behind them trying to kill them - right?
Therefore - they all do not use your definition of "know" in their practical life.You're proving my point.

The "popular" definition is illiterate. EvC is a scientific context. No you're not. You're pretending to "know" something when you haven't done nearly enough research. Your confidence level is inflated far beyond what you can possibly justify. Then why do you keep bringing up evidence? You should know that logic/reason does not depend on evidence.

You've made three assertions, so I'll take each in turn.Just because one person might believe in unicorns does not mean unicorns exist.I'm not denigrating the logic of people in the past who may have thought that a volcano was, by analogy, like an enormous forge and so required an enormous and powerful blacksmith (did they really think that way, or was it just a fun story to tell around the campfire?). Would you reason the same way nowadays? Of course not. Such reasoning is irrational.Believing in something that is not falsifiable is a perfect example of something taken on faith, rather than by reason.

What does that have to do with anything I have said?
1. The existence of unicorns has nothing to do with whether or not the idea of unicorns is rational.
2. Belief in unicorns might be irrational but that does not make the idea of unicorns irrational. You still refuse to show what is irrational about the reasoning. We draw different conclusions today because we have different information to work with - i.e. different premises. But our reasoning process isn't necessaruly "more rational".What is it exactly in the reasoning process of the past that you think was irrational? We're not talking about belief in a idea. We're talking about the idea itself and the reasoning behind it.

I think this is intellectually dishonest. There are several well established, respectable, philosophical arguments that we have objections to but nevertheless are reasonable positions. We can argue against them but we can't disprove them in a scientific sense so they remain as hypotheses. Awaiting evidence. This is a very silly thing to say. We know that the FSG is a made up construct to make a particular point, we suspect that gods are made up for the same reason but we don't actually know that.

The Flood has numerous problems, among which are that many of the geological strata are volcanic, which floods do not lay down.C. S. Lewis had some rather odd notions that cannot be described in a few paragraphs. Here's one example. We find everyone, in every culture has a sense of morality. If there is a standard of moral behavior common to mankind, then there must, Lewis argues, be an author and arbiter of that standard.

I think you've lost yourself in sophistry here. You write "We're not talking about belief in a idea. We're talking about the idea itself and the reasoning behind it." I'll go back to one example I've described to you at least one time before. Someone who thinks a volcano contains a forge with a powerful being in it may be making a rational deduction by the standards of their time: they see a human working a forge that smokes and spits sparks so they, by analogy, imagine a bigger forge under the mountain. (I have no idea if that is how the ancient Greeks came to have the idea of Hephaestus, but that's neither here nor there). It is not rational by our standards, however, because we know where the logic is flawed. (If you can't see where the logic is flawed, then . . . why don't you worship Hephaestus?)Now you may say the various pieces are "rational" in the sense that there is such a thing as a blacksmith, a forge, sparks, smoke and so on. But if you put those "rational" pieces together illogically you can no longer make a claim that your reasoning is rational.

I would tend to argue that the idea of a creative intelligence behind creation itself is logical. Some scientists, such as John Lennox agree. Others, such as the late Stephen Hawking, do not. The idea of the Christian God, transcendent of humanity yet anthropomorphized through Jesus Christ, can be argued both ways---as rational and as irrational. Now to be fair, I had heard the basic arguments over how the Christian mythos developed, and I'm not too impressed with many of them, though some would make logical sense given other assumptions.

Then why don't you show us where the logic is flawed? You're still confusing the reasoning with the premises. I don't believe in Hephaestus because the premises are false - or to put it another way, we have better premises today. No. No. No. You're still dwelling on the premises. Look at the reasoning only and show us how their reasoning from their premises to their conclusion is wrong. This is what I keep asking you: How did they put the pieces together illogically? Be specific.

Exactly. The idea is not inherently irrational.

There are no volcanic strata. There is a very occasional volcanic sill that looks like a stratum but is an intrusive that occurred after all the strata were in place. So produce some pictures. There aren't any.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

the belief becomes rational if one accepts it. If one questions it, it becomes simply a discussion of characters in a book and the authors of that book. If one accepts it, (and I know I wont be able to prove this) the character becomes living in you. The character becomes potentially alive in every living being with a free will to accept or reject such a premise.