OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

You're looking for certainty about non-existence or existence. You don't need certainty to make a claim about which claim is more rational. That's not how empiricism works, for that matter, it's not how logic works either. You can have deductive claims (the conclusion follows from the premise with strict necessity (i.e. certainty) or inductive claims (the conclusion probably follows from the conclusion (i.e. probability). If the premises are true in a deductive claim and the argument form is valid, you have a sound argument. If the premises are true in an inductive claim and the argument is strong (meaning the conclusion probably follows from the premises) you have a cogent argument. My claim is inductive in nature. This is chapter 1 intro to logic stuff.

 

I assume...
Reality exists
We can learn about it
Predictive models are useful
I don't need to assume...
Gods exist
Gods don't exist

 

I AM NOT LOOKING FOR CERTAINTY ABOUT non-existence or existence.

I having a discussion about whether or not gods exist. My contention is that nobody here knows if gods exist or not...and that there is not enough evidence for or against for anyone to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

Not if you are close-minded.

If you are close-minded and not particularly interested in logic, you certainly can make a claim that "there is at least one god is more rational" or "there are no gods is more rational." But I am not close-minded...and logic does matter to me.

I want to be sure you understand that I do acknowledge that for close-minded people it is easy to say, as many theists do, "It is more rational to claim that at least one god exists"...or as many atheists do, "It is more rational to claim that no gods exist."

We agree.

But it is how close-mindedness and disregard of logic works.

Oh?

Okay, I'll accept that for now.

If you are saying that a claim "There are no gods" is the stuff of logic...you are DEAD WRONG.

So...

...what else do you in mind for this ill-advised ill-conceived, and illogical pontification session?

 

Sure. No disagreement here.

 

What do you mean by "know?" What is your definition of knowledge?

 

First, what is your definition of "definition?"

 

To state what you mean by a word. My god man you act as if I am playing games. Do you know anything of epistemology or philosophical argument?

 

Okay...so you want me to state what I mean by a word.

Your questions were: "What do you mean by "know?" What is your definition of knowledge?"

When I used the word "know" in the context of "I do not KNOW if gods exist or not"...what I mean is "That I do not KNOW if gods exist or not."

If that has to be clarified further, perhaps this is not the discussion for you.

Alternatively...if you suggest what the word means to you in that context...I'll explain any deviations from what you suggest if appropriate.

I don't remember using the word "knowledge", but if you give me a context...I'll try to answer it.

I'm not acting, Adorno. My guess is that you are just playing games...so the reality of my feelings about this are probably showing through.

I do not KNOW that though.

One of my majors in college was philosophy. It and religion were required majors along with my economics major. But that was back in the 1960's...after serving in the Air Force.

So, though I acknowledge it may be slightly dated, yes, I do.

Do you?

 

Perhaps not.

"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry." _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This saddens me.

 

Really?

That's funny, I don't. Why would I assume when I know?

 

What I find illogical is that you keep using a term that you are incapable of defining. That doesn't really show much evidence of logical thinking.

 

If you'd read properly you'd be able to answer your own question.

 

Of course, the evasion will lead one to then ask what exactly constitutes unambiguous evidence? If the Eel was not so slippery you wouldn't need to be so firm with it but, that is what is being dealt with here as numerous posters are finding.

 

I am sorry you are sad.

Me...I am not sad. Life is good.

 

I have discovered that when discussing things like this with atheists...there comes a moment where "define" this or that, becomes paramount. It is the atheist equivalence to a discussion with theists when "it is called faith" raises its ugly head.

People who want to assert what they should not be asserting...often refuse to acknowledge they are just offering blind guesses about a REALITY that they cannot know in any meaningful sense. Then "faith" and "justified belief"...which is to say, "justified blind guesses" become the standard.

When I offer my agnostic take, Jester...I AM BEING LOGICAL.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I think that is what bothers you people.

 

No actually you only think you are being logical. Since there appears to be no actual evidemce to support that conclusion we can safely assume that your assumption of being logical is illogical.

 

No...I AM being logical in what I said.

If you think not...that is your right. I am not insulted in any way by you thinking my thinking is not logical...

...especially since it is YOU.

 

Oh, such a lack of respect from an intellectual inferior is devastating.

 

I could do that to begin with, which is why it should have been obvious that the question was rhetorical. As for your post, nothing in it explains why anyone would need to assume reality exists.

 

Ignorance is not bliss.

 

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are profoundly ignorant of even the most basic aspects of all science.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/NOS Over.BasicAssump.html

 

I don't there's any point in talking about proof when it comes to God. It's like saying 'prove that pink elephants don't exist in some other galaxy'. While pink elephants I'd say is more likely than God, it's still a pointless question.

What's important for me is the concept that we as little fallible mammals know what God's preferences are. Or the concept that an all powerful being, who presides over the entire universe which houses perhaps 100 million galaxies -- one of which is our own -- and an untold amount of planets which logically should sustain life, would be concerned about our particular political and social affairs, down to which day you do your laundry or whatever. We are a drop in the ocean, a transient mutation of maybe 200,000 years which in relative terms is a nano-second. Yet we have the conceit to think that somehow this whole thing started with us in mind. Humble, this concept is not!

 

The hubris of theists to assume that they were made in the "image" of their imaginary "creator" is quite extraordinary. And if that were to be so then why did this imaginary "creator" make chimpanzees and orangutans too? Or were those just prototypes while he was trying to figure the kinks is making a "mini-me" to worship and adore him? Speaking of which just how vainglorious must this imaginary "creator" be that he needs the constant adoration from an insignificant planet in orbit around one star out of hundreds of billion, billions. And what did he do for "worship" in the billions of years preceding the last 2000 years?

 

If you think I am your intellectual inferior...fine with me. I consider it hilarious...but I am sure you do not mind me laughing at you.