Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

That's a pretty limited definition of atheism.

Generally, atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of gods, which is what you claim, and most illogically, at the same time disclaim.

My research shows that there are no gods.
There are concepts, conceived notions, guesses, hopes and speculations, but no evidence for any gods and, more importantly, no predictions of evidence. Halley's calculations on the force of gravity and its influence on the orbits of comets were only verifiable based on his prediction that the comet would re-appear in the sky on a date certain.

So it is with every unknown in Science, if the math is incomplete without the inclusion of an unknown particle, you make the prediction of the existence of that unknown particle and then you, or some other Nobel Prize seeking physicist, devise an experiment to reveal the particle and its peculiar aspects. And that experiment has to be repeatable and find the same results independent of the original researchers.

If we are talking about the existence, not a concept, there has to be a prediction of activity, of presence, of purpose, of effect of whatever we think exists. Right?

So, where's the math which shows a prediction for the existence of a gods or gods in our Universe? A prediction of a particular activity that these gods will engage in or a prediction of the effect of that god engendered activity?

I'm not overserious about this whole thing because I think the whole concept of god and gods
(and let's not forget goddesses, demi-gods and ,here's a new on for me I read the other day, semi-gods. [what is that? A god for just truckers?] ) is silly.

Someone has a concept of god. Good. They imagine all of the god's powers and the way the god supposedly interacts with mankind and and nature. Fabulous. But, that's all it is. A concept, a notion, a script for a really good Avengers' Movie; so put it down on the same shelves as all the other good fiction, because that's what it is a novel named the Koran, or Bible or Gita or whatever the Incas inscribed on their books before the Christians burned them all.

Joe(thank you for listening)Nation

I don't think so, but I am willing to consider what you are saying here.



So you are saying that all you are doing is rejecting belief in the existence of gods...that you are not going the step further and believing there are no gods.

You are saying that you do NOT believe there are no gods???? That is not a belief of yours?

In response to Beth's question, Joe Nation wrote:



Beth, I hope you got as big a kick out of that as I did!

Apparently Joe Nation has done research...and inspected everywhere in the universe and has been able to determine there are no gods.

Hell of a feat, wouldn't ya say?

Is it really all that difficult for you to acknowledge that you believe there are no gods...and that you are talking about is a "belief" that there are no gods.

You have no hard evidence of any kind that there are no gods. None whatsoever.

It is a belief...and nothing more.

When you claim "your research" shows there are no gods, all you really are doing is sharing a "belief"...or a guess about the reality of whether or not there are gods.

What are you arguing, Frank, that one can know that gods do not exist...or that one cannot know that gods do not exist.

I have, by the way, not been asking for proof. Joe Nation claims he has done research and has apparently come up with EVIDENCE that there are no gods.

All I am asking for is evidence.

I say there is NO evidence that gods do not exists. Lack of evidence that they exist is not evidence that they do not exist...just evidence that there is a lack of evidence that they exist.

There is nothing logically wrong with saying, "I am not willing to guess or believe there are gods." There is something illogical about asserting there are no gods.

Even you, Frank, acknowledge that one cannot prove there are no gods...so an assertion that there are no gods is not logical.

But I get that the atheists here...ya know, the ones who claim not to believe there are no gods...are going to insist that it is logical. That they have done research and have evidence that gods do not exist.

Jeez. And these people claim to be logical.

I actually think we are agreeing here.

My assertion is that one cannot prove that anything does not exist.

The burden of proof falls on the proof of an assertion that something (God or gods) does exist.

One can believe that gods do not exist. One can believe anything one wants. That doesn't make it so.

Also, one cannot claim that something does exist, simply because one cannot prove that it doesn't. Again, that burden of proof thing.

Back to your original statement.

Athiest cannot know there are no gods. - I agree. One cannot know the non-existence of anything.

But I don't agree with the second part.

Theists possible can know there is a God. - I don't agree. Believing something is not proof. It depends upon the definition of KNOW.

Websters definition:
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
-------------------------------------------------------------------
a - perceive directly --- perhaps others have witnessed miracles, etc. Who am I to deny that. But, I haven't and their stories or claims are not sufficient for me.

b - discern - hmmm - to be acquainted with, to have experience of. ---Hard for me to deny someone else's acceptance of that, just hasn't happened to me.

c - aware of the truth - again pretty subjective. Many people have been wrong with their awareness of the 'truth'.

d - as far as the sexual aspect - I will assume that doesn't apply.

As always - it comes down to faith. You either accept or you don't.

So - it sounds like the definition of KNOW is a bit looser than I would like. Probably not the same thing as a scientific proof.

Obviously, Joe Nations's definition of KNOW is different than some believers.

Absolutely right, IRFRANK,
I know there are no gods.
I know there are no demons.
I know there are no angels.
I know there are no gnomes.
I know there are no little people in Ireland called leprechauns. (Sorry, Mom.)

It's the present state of my knowledge based upon fifty years of examining the evidence offered by persons who claim gods exist that gods do exist.
No?
Good. I am willing to learn. Show me what you have to support your claim.
In the words of Paul Simon:
I know what I know
I'll sing what I said
We come and we go
That's a thing that I keep
In the back of my head


I would also like to have a gnome to live in my garden.

Joe(Doesn't have to speak English)Nation

Thank you for this, Frank. I appreciate your response...and I am delighted you see the point I was making in the earlier statement.

I want to address the second part of this response...the part directed at the second part of my commentary, because it is important.

When I say “Theists can possibly KNOW if there is a GOD” I am not saying they do…I am not saying it is likely that they do. All I am saying is that it is at least possible...it is theoretically possible. Allow me to explain my thinking.

I am merely saying it is at least theoretically possible for a theist to KNOW there is a GOD...and in fact that it is at least theoretically possible for every human being in existence to KNOW there is a GOD…

…but only under the following conditions.

There must actually be a GOD...and the GOD must choose to reveal ITSELF in an unambiguous way. (Let me very clear about this: I am of the opinion that IF THERE ACTUALLY IS A GOD...the GOD has NOT chosen to reveal itself in an unambiguous way.)

If a GOD exists (I have absolutely no idea if one does or does not)…but if one does exist…and if it at some point it chooses to reveal itself with absolute uncertainty…I can think of no reason it cannot do so. And if one does exist and if it does choose to reveal itself in an unambiguous way...EVERYONE will KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that a GOD exists.

I wouldn’t hold my breath!

But logic dictates that we at least acknowledge it is theoretical possible to KNOW…if it exists and if it chooses to reveal itself...particularly as opposed to the theoretical possibility of KNOWING that gods do not exist.

There simply is no corresponding logical argument on the other side…IF NO GODS EXIST...or at least, none that I can think of.

That is all that is being said here.

I understand that many, many, many theists claim to KNOW a GOD exists. I suspect they are full of it…but there is no way I can possibly argue that they do not know. So I stay away from discussions and arguments with people who claim KNOWLEDGE of a GOD. I will not discuss this issue with SpadeMaster, for instance, because he insists he KNOWS a GOD exists. I simply opt out of any discussion with him on the issue.

I also understand that many, many, many atheists claim to KNOW there are no gods. I know they are full of it. I am more than willing to argue and discuss the issue with them at any time. In fact, that is the reason my commentary is directed mostly at atheists rather than theists.

After reading Joe Nation's response, I thought I would call your attention to the fact that once a theist or atheist sets their "I know" in stone...it ain't going to move. Best to just leave those people to their delusions.

That was a lot of work but I see your point.

Theist may know there is a god and when and if he is revealed they may be as surprised as Joe.

Just because it is possible does not make their argument stronger.

I think at some point one has to evaluate all the existing information and make a belief decision.

How many revelation predictions have come and gone?

There have been many cases where people knew something and were wrong.

People that know things that are not proven scare me.

It's usually a way for them to take advantage of others

I agree, Frank.

In fact, the so-called weak atheistic argument is, in my opinion, stronger than the theistic argument. My problem is that the so-called weak atheistic argument is actually the agnostic argument...but when made my someone insisting on being identified as an atheist, I find it suspect.

That may be a defect of some sort in me and my reasoning...but it is how I feel.

I think I finally understand your point. The agnostic view is the most straight forward conclusion. occum's razor ?

But then you don't argue and discuss the issue, you just declaim. The reason you direct your commentary towards atheists is because 1) we are more fun and 2) after we have made our points and you've ignored them, we go away.

The theists, godblessthem, hang in there.

I'm open to any evidence which punctures my conviction that there are no gods, all you have offered is derision.

I'd like to apologize if I have not taken these threads with the seriousness you think they deserve. Somewhere, I cannot find the godamned quote now, you said something to the effect that what you are aiming at is to get everybody to agree that nobody knows.
Well, la di dah.
Believe when I say that is not the solution to anything.

When we as a species cease to entertain the delusions our brain feeds us, we will take another step away from living in the trees.

To say that it is a possibility that some god might reveal itself at some point in time, therefore it is possible that a theist could possibly KNOW there is a god is the most non-sensical thing I have ever heard you say.
How about those Tooth Fairies? Isn't it JUST AS LIKELY that a tooth fairy could reveal herself to some nine year old? Yes. It is. It is just as likely.

Frank, you are a very smart guy, but you are wasting hours of your precious life over this minutiae, this nothingness, this chasing after the idea that gods and goddesses do or do not exist or are believable or are knowable is a pathetic waste of your brilliant being.

You know what's real. You are not afraid, so let it be.
I said this before, you were insulted. I say it now: cut it out.

Joe(all my love)Nation

I'm saying that I do not believe in gods. Period. Full stop.

Ahhh..."believe in gods!" Another use of the word.

When one says, "I believe in GOD" or "I do not believe in gods" what they are actually saying is: "I 'believe' a GOD exists" or "I do not 'believe' gods exist."

I do not “believe” in gods either--which is to say that I do not "believe" gods exist. (They may, but I am not willing to guess or believe or estimate" that they exist!)

There are people who do “believe” at least one GOD exists.

Like you, I am not one of them.

I also do not “believe” gods do not exist.

There are people who do “believe” that gods do not exist.

I am not one of them.

Since you put that "period full stop" up there, I have to wonder if you ARE one of them.

I'd be interested in know if you are or are not. If you are not willing to share that information, I will understand.

I think you're conflating belief with knowledge much the way theists do.

As far as knowledge goes concerning things like gods, people have their own criteria that satisfies their own ideas of what "knowledge" entails.

You yourself have difficulty in defining "knowledge," and have left it at, "I can’t describe (define) it, but I know (!) it when I see it."

By this criteria, Joe's empirical assertion that god does not exist is certainly as valid as a theist asserting that god exists because he believes that god exist.

As for me, gods exist much the way fairies, angels and demons exist: in people's beliefs. I do not believe in these things. That's as far as my knowledge of these things goes.

InfraBlue,

First of all, thank you for the response. I truly appreciate the thoughts and the fact that you expressed them without the gratuitous insults that seem to abound during these discussions.

You wrote:


I agree completely and without reservation, Blue, that Joe’s assertion that god does not exist is EVERY BIT as valid as a theists assertion that a GOD exists…which is to say, it is completely baseless assertion, essentially a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither has any logical validity.



Fine. When dealing with the question of the true nature of existence, I do not “believe” gods exist either. I also do not “believe” gods do not exist.

For the record, I also do not guess gods exist or that they do not exist.

I certainly do not see anything that indicates to me that the existence of gods is an impossibility…and I do not see anything that indicates to me that the existence of gods is a necessity to explain existence.

I do not think I am conflating belief with knowledge…and I have gone out of my way to express my thoughts on each.

That is certainly an interesting statement and I think worthy of comment.

I've been holding back from sharing my own religious views here, because I'm not sure they are relevant to this discussion. But, the word delusions prod me into sharing, so here goes.

I guess, I agree with Frank here that I take the agnostic view. I don't know (or believe) one way or the other, and further more I've come to the conclusion that I have no way to know from this vantage point. I've accepted that. That's fine with me, with the levels of awareness I have, I don't have enough information to know otherwise. At least to the way that I define ' to know'.

Now - lately I've been studying and practicing Buddhism. I've mentioned that here before and as I go along I keep learning a great deal about the way I function and think. I hope that as I learn, I use my knowledge less and less to judge others. It is a natural human trait to judge others, but that activity is fairly useless. I have very little insight into their thought processes and no knowledge of their experiences other than what they can communicate. I try hard these days to not pass judgement on another. I know I haven't always been that way. That doesn't mean I can't participate in a logical discussion, or try to be funny sometimes. Not always successful.

I practice Buddhism because I completly believe that Buddha was right and his teachings are the simple truth. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural. Reincarnation might be a streatch for some, but it seems like a very plausible theory to me. But, one doesn't have to believe in reincarnation to learn, understand, and profit from the teachings of Buddha. Buddha was not a god, never claimed to be. In fact, the question of god does not come up. It's not part of the question as to how we should live and be happy with who we are.

If I live according to the Buddha's teachings, I will benefit by being a happier person and the people I touch will benefit by my better behavior and thoughts.

If there is a god, I think that would please him or her.
If there is not a god, I still benefit from learning from a wise and knowing body of knowledge (dharma).

So I am not that concerned with whether or not there is a god. Nor am I that concerned as to whether or not one can prove it one way or the other.

Back to the delusion statement.

Nearly all of the bad things in this world are caused by someone's delusions. I guess nature causes the rest. The human mind spends a great deal of effort manufacturing thoughts and theories that are not based on any kind of reality. That has been proven time and again. The totality of that is a great deal of pain to many people and often even to the originator. Much of it comes from greed or simple human agressive behavior. We humans create most of our suffering, on a large scale and individually also. Recognizing that in your own thoughts and behavior and learning to minimize it goes a long way toward true happiness. That is part of the teaching of Buddha.