God's existence is impossible and not emphasizing that harms society

I will briefly prove that God's existence is impossible: God has a great many impossible traits. Examples are telepathy, thoughts existing outside of a brain, being eternal, having the ability to create matter through thought, omniscience, etc. No physicist is going to say that science points to the existence of any of these (because it doesn't) individually. With that in mind we have considerably less reason to believe they all exist within one sapient entity (a God). So, therefore God's existence is impossible...unless you are willing to seriously consider the existence of other things we have no reason to believe exist, like me being a pink elephant.

So, there is no reason to speak about God's existence as if it's a serious consideration, and because there are no logical arguments for God's existence (noting that if there were, the physicists would have alerted us to their reasons for why all of those aforementioned traits of God exist) that means people believe in God purely due to emotional bias, peer pressure, the view that most people do, and other non-logical reasons.

With that in mind, the fact that most people believe in God pretty much necessitates that logical arguments don't work well to convince people God doesn't exist, or else everyone would be atheists by now.

So, what's a great and efficient way to convince people that some idea isn't true, that doesn't involve the usage of logical reasoning? The best way I can think of to do that, is to try to convince them that the people they perceive as respected authorities are not necessarily correct. Most people don't have time to do much research, and we like to settle on finding some people we can trust and follow their views. For most people, I'm thinking that "respected authority" is the vast majority of human beings who believe in God, and the atheists and agnostics who cautiously treat the issue as if they aren't sure God doesn't exist. This, I would think, helps convince people that: "Surely, if everyone else thinks God's existence is a respectable possibility, I'd be a fool to at least not consider its existence, wouldn't I?"

This allows mental-gymnastics based arguments for God like the teleological, Ontological, and Cosmological arguments to more easily trick people into God belief.

So, I'm a gnostic atheist. I know God doesn't exist. I'm not agnostic towards God's existence. I'm not an agnostic atheist. I'm gnostic. I'm quite confident God doesn't exist for the exact same reason I know I'm not a pink elephant.

Now, technically I could be a pink elephant. There are no patterns I can think of pointing to that being true, and therefore I'm pretty sure I'm not a pink elephant, but in a basically useless albeit technical sense, I could be a pink elephant, despite that I know for a fact I'm not.

In the exact same way, God could exist. There are no patterns I can think of pointing to that being true, and therefore I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist, but in a basically useless albeit technical sense, God could exist, despite that I know for a fact it doesn't.

And I suspect, because of the way humans seem to think, me calling myself a gnostic atheist (someone who knows God doesn't exist) helps normalize that perspective and makes it seem less rebellious and strange, and that's good, because the standard position should be that God's existence is impossible. We should be treating that as the normal, non-controversial view to help destroy this more common irrational mentality in which it's just taken for granted that you can't know God doesn't exist.

Understand what I'm saying? Thoughts?

I figure it's kind of like how, with homosexuality, you can normalize that by spreading the word that more people are gay, and that's a way to get people more comfortable with it and accepting of it. I'm thinking atheism works the same way.

God's existence is impossible and not emphasizing that harms society

Your litany of impossible attributes and abilities does not constitute proof, although it is as almost as amusing as edgar's hardwired assertion.

While frank's lecture on syllogism is as risible as 'christ, i don't believe or not believe' posture.

If you think that way try providing examples of how belief in imaginary beings harms society.


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOXHvnSeoAo&list=RDuOXHvnSeoAo&start_radio=1[/youtube]

In which case, enjoy your life. It must be a great one.

Quote:

In which case, enjoy your life. It must be a great one.

Thank you.

What a delight it must be in your dotage to eschew the substance of the topic and focus on the shadow of your umbrage instead.

While frank's lecture on syllogism is as risible as 'christ, i don't believe or not believe' posture.

If you think that way try providing examples of how belief in imaginary beings harms society.

I will briefly prove that God's existence is impossible:

That's what really brightens up your day, some self-centred pseudo intellectual gobshite deciding what you are.

I believe in free will, you can call yourself whatever you want, and if anyone says otherwise they can stick it where the Sun don't shine.

He just wants to sneer at people for not being as smart as he thinks he is.