I know god doesn't exist?

[Unveiled Artist]

Only if I am allowed to say ' I ' know God does exist.

Is that the same as claiming that He does exist as fact rather than a belief?

I don't know. I think it's against the rules or something. If I said "God does not exist" as a statement, it can be taken that way if outside context. Though if I said " I " then I'd assume it's talking from my opinion or point of view though it does sound pretty direct. Stronger emotion than "in my opinion" but still referring to myself none the less.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, if we are allowed to say, "I know that my redeemer liveth" (Bible and beautiful music in Handel's Messiah), why should we not be able to say "I know god doesn't exist?" Since we are all human, every claim to knowledge is tainted with our inherent imperfection, and thus always represents nothing more than a belief statement. And belief statements are permissible.

That's what I would think unless taken out of context.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I know if I say God dosent exist, I'm going to win every single time because non existent gods are never ever going to do anything.

Well, in a debate, it would be interesting to see if either can prove each other wrong whether he actually exists or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hope I understand your post — maybe not — but the important words in this phrase, to me, are “I know”.....

It would be much more acceptable, and realistic, to say “I think god doesn’t exist.”

(That would really be an agnostic’s POV.)

If I’ve misunderstood, just ignore my post.

Take care, my cousin.

I don't think you did, just different opinions. I know god exists is a pretty strong statement, though. Wouldn't a believer who says "I know god exists" be in the same ballpark if they said "I think" rather than I know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, in a debate, it would be interesting to see if either can prove each other wrong whether he actually exists or not.

It depends on the God in question, how you understand exists and proof and allow for general skepticism as for the answer:
The existence of some gods appear unknowable due to them being claim outside human knowledge.

Now in practice that involves in effect how you understand knowledge and if it has limits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think you did, just different opinions. I know god exists is a pretty strong statement, though. Wouldn't a believer who says "I know god exists" be in the same ballpark if they said "I think" rather than I know?

Not to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't believe god exists; but it is impossible to prove.

But then proving Leprechauns, fairies, Loch Ness Monster, etc. don't exist is equally difficult.

You could prove they don't exist by how they are used and developed in history, their usage by the people who believe them, observation, and pretty much comparison to that and things that are psychological and physiological in nature. You can also cross-reference various religious beliefs from different gods and notice a pattern of human need to see the unknown something they can describe whether by practice, faith, involvement, so have you.

Not something you can test in a test tube. Just "god does/doesn't exist" rather than I think, I believe, I have faith, would have different criteria for whether it's fact or not. When we find historical artifacts from my knowledge (unless maybe it's the blood crying statue) we don't use science to determine if the events were true or not. Yet, we find conclusions based on strong evidence and historical sequence to fill in the blanks that we conclude it is true. Even when we did not exist back when to confirm its 100% true.

I'd say fairies go by the same logic. But then we don't tell our children they "could" exist, I'm sure. Even Santa. When I grew up my parents told us later down the line that they were Santa (I don't think we believed they were real that long. They had bills to pay). It didn't ruin the intent and fun, though. The purpose (like god) wasn't to think about its existence. So, that's the only comparison I see.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Knowing G-d is just another dimension, one who says " ' I ' know G-d doesn't exist " just expresses one's ignorance of that dimension and lives in a state of "illusion", I understand. Right, please?

Regards

I'm not sure I understand you. Can you rephrase?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You could prove they don't exist by how they are used and developed in history, their usage by the people who believe them, observation, and pretty much comparison to that and things that are psychological and physiological in nature. You can also cross-reference various religious beliefs from different gods and notice a pattern of human need to see the unknown something they can describe whether by practice, faith, involvement, so have you.

Not something you can test in a test tube. Just "god does/doesn't exist" rather than I think, I believe, I have faith, would have different criteria for whether it's fact or not. When we find historical artifacts from my knowledge (unless maybe it's the blood crying statue) we don't use science to determine if the events were true or not. Yet, we find conclusions based on strong evidence and historical sequence to fill in the blanks that we conclude it is true. Even when we did not exist back when to confirm its 100% true.

I'd say fairies go by the same logic. But then we don't tell our children they "could" exist, I'm sure. Even Santa. When I grew up my parents told us later down the line that they were Santa (I don't think we believed they were real that long. They had bills to pay). It didn't ruin the intent and fun, though. The purpose (like god) wasn't to think about its existence. So, that's the only comparison I see.

That says nothing about metaphysics and ontology though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That says nothing about metaphysics and ontology though.

God has nothing to do with those two when you understand the things I've listed. Just because believers say "god is an entity" doesn't make it so. They also say god is unknown. So, metaphysics varies by religion but all come from the same place humans beliefs, interpretations of practice, and meaningful coincidences et cetera.

If they said "god has three heads and flies in the sky" then yes, I can see it compared to fairies. Instead they say god is unknown, god is love, and "they" trust god and by that trust and faith "then" god does something for them. So, it's dependent on the believer not an entity in itself.

 

[Goddess Kit]

You're allowed to say whatever you want.

When making a positive claim, however, just be prepared to logically back it up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're allowed to say whatever you want.

When making a positive claim, however, just be prepared to logically back it up.

Meh. I'm not beholden to sea lions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You certainly can say "God doesn't exist" as a statement of fact rather than opinion.

The problem here though is that there's no universal, unambiguous definition of God/gods. Any attempt to create such a definition will invariably be met with exceptions to the rule and with disagreements over the definition. In order to make a statement on how likely a deity is to exist, you need to have at least a rough idea of what you would accept as a deity. This part is a matter of opinion but can be used as a basis to make a statement of fact.

One way to argue that there definitely isn't a God would go something like this:

The only thing I would accept as God would be a being who wouldn't allow for the existence of suffering and has the power to prevent the existence of suffering in the first place. (This part is the statement of opinion)

Since suffering exists, there can't be any such being. (This part is the statement of fact).

I see. But the latter doesn't say what the god is you don't believe in in this analogy, just you don't want to believe in that god (whether it's an entity, invisible frog, so have you) that lets suffering exists. I wouldn't want to believe in "any thing" god, gods, or not that causes suffering. But I do believe that no one "lets" people suffer-that definition of god I don't see too much when getting deeper into what believers define as god's nature.

Which is kind of weird. If god is the unknown, highest, greater than a person, so have you, then wouldn't we assume that whatever believers say he does isn't a reflection of their definition of (their) god but what "they" attribute to it?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?
Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

Take as ye will. Knowledge versus opinion versus belief versus whatever the case may be.

I have only been in trouble once since I joined. It was because I said " God only exists in your head" speaking to a specific person. It was labeled as proselytizing. I should have said " I believe God only exists in people's heads....I think. The difference being I was making a definite statement of fact from my personal opinion, directected at a specific member with the first, and my opinion only in the second version.

At least I believe I have gotten this right.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Sometimes people need to be told the truth of their silliness. Such censorship doesn't exist in my universe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have only been in trouble once since I joined. It was because I said " God only exists in your head" speaking to a specific person. It was labeled as proselytizing. I should have said " I believe God only exists in people's heads....I think. The difference being I was making a definite statement of fact from my personal opinion, directected at a specific member with the first, and my opinion only in the second version.

At least I believe I have gotten this right.

Hmm. Maybe the "your" gave it away. I know English you can use you for you all as a people (when you [all] believe god exists...) or you to the person you're speaking with. It's mostly context. Most people off line would understand you as a statement coming from your opinion or belief. I talk with believers, though, who speak in statements to assume the other person agrees with them. They are shocked when they find out otherwise.

 

[Trailblazer]

You say that all the time

Yeah I know.

 

[stvdv]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?

Disclaimer: All I wrote below is only my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with Corona virus

YES ... Freedom of Speech ... you can say whatever you like. BUT it is not smart to say this, see the proof below

I hope I understand your post — maybe not — but the important words in this phrase, to me, are “I know”.....
It would be much more acceptable, and realistic, to say “I think god doesn’t exist.”

1) "I know God does exist" one can say, as it might be true and you only have to proof ONE claim
2) "I know God does not exist" you can say of course, but you should be able to proof ALL the "God exists" claims wrong **)

Note: God is described as having these 3 attributes, normal human beings don't have: Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient
Note: **) To prove all "God exists" claims wrong, you need to have the attributes: Omnipresent + Omnipotent + Omniscient
Note: **) Of course IF you have these 3 attributes (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient) THEN you are God, and failed to prove "God exist not"
@stvdvRF

 

[Erebus]

I see. But the latter doesn't say what the god is you don't believe in in this analogy, just you don't want to believe in that god (whether it's an entity, invisible frog, so have you) that lets suffering exists. I wouldn't want to believe in "any thing" god, gods, or not that causes suffering. But I do believe that no one "lets" people suffer-that definition of god I don't see too much when getting deeper into what believers define as god's nature.

Which is kind of weird. If god is the unknown, highest, greater than a person, so have you, then wouldn't we assume that whatever believers say he does isn't a reflection of their definition of (their) god but what "they" attribute to it?

Just to clarify: The example argument I gave doesn't reflect my own view of deities. It's just meant to show one way somebody could argue, "God doesn't exist" rather than simply saying, "I don't believe in God."

So in that example, the requirements for somebody to view a being as God would be that it created a world free of suffering. If they could somehow prove the existence of a creator, then that being wouldn't qualify as God to them. It would just be the creator of the universe.

Keep in mind that there's no universally applicable definition of what a god is and so I would argue that it's ultimately up to individuals to decide for themselves what qualifies as a deity. Rather than viewing the word "god" as referring to a specific being, look at it more as a way to describe something. If I describe a woman as pretty, that's an expression of my opinion. Describing something as a god works much the same way.

To try to illustrate this, imagine that some immensely powerful alien made its presence known to mankind. This alien is immortal, can part seas, resurrect the dead and perform other such miraculous feats. However, it's neither omnipotent nor omniscient. One person might look at that alien and say, "A being as powerful as that is a god." Another person could say, "If it's not omnipotent and omniscient, it's not a god." Neither person is wrong, they just hold different views about what a god is.

 

[Vinayaka]

Are we allowed to say ' I ' know god doesn't exist?
Is that the same as claiming that he does not as fact rather than opinion?

If I know god doesn't exists why would I (and anyone who knows god exists or doesn't exist) say it as an opinion if the word 'I' dictates what they say is a fact is only applicable to the person who said it?

Take as ye will. Knowledge versus opinion versus belief versus whatever the case may be.

I hope I get your query, but maybe not. If I get it right it's not at all about belief, but only about how we phrase it.

I think it's in the linguistics, and how folks understand linguistics. The pronoun 'I' really is indicative of an opinion, but because we're not trained to see it that way, some folks see it as condescending, or preaching, rather than just an opinion. This forum has had many posts about whether or not every single statement should be prefaced with 'in my opinion' and there are many views on it. Personally, I used to find it far more annoying that I did before, but I've had to work on that. Mentally, I visualise 'in my opinion' before nearly every post. It's helped me not get so annoyed.