I know god doesn't exist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The word "god" is loaded. I think that there are cases where we can say that a specific concept of "god doesn't exist. So for instance, if someone says that "god" in their religion did something, and we can prove for a fact that that action did not happen, then we can say that their concept of "god" doesn't exist. Alternatively, if I say that my appetite is my "god", then that concept of "god" definitely exists. But overall, "god" is too broad a term which can be applied to different concepts to say that "god" doesn't exist. There must be a context in which to critique it in order to do so.

Why would theists be the only ones who get to define "god?"

If *I* don't think that your appetite would qualify as a god, then I wouldn't need to take it into account when deciding to say that there no gods.

Arguments over the existence of gods are a bit unique in that they often aren't just a matter of empirical facts and ontology (i.e. do we have reason say that the thing being called a god exists?). They also often come down to semantics (i.e. can the thing they're calling a god rightly be called a god at all?).

The question of what makes a god a god has become more important over the years as theists have redefined "god" from the more traditional ideas of godhood to things like "love," "the universe," or "whatever is the most important thing in your life."

 

[Muffled]

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 believe it would be like saying that you know the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. The evidence is to the contrary.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe I can say that I know that God exists because there is enough evidence to support my statement.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe it would be like saying that you know the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat. The evidence is to the contrary.

The same with saying "I know god does exist". The evidence is to the contrary. I assume whether it is true or not depends on how much knowledge, experience, observation, and education one has to say whether they know something is true or believe it.

Either party doesn't want to accept the other person's evidence to the contrary, but I assume objectively saying you know something based on your experiences, observations, et cetera would be fine even if the other disagrees with that knowledge?

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe in things that have evidence. For instance I can verify that 1 + 1 = 2 by taking two objects and seeing that if I add a second object to the first that I now have two objects.

 

[Muffled]

The same with saying "I know god does exist". The evidence is to the contrary. I assume whether it is true or not depends on how much knowledge, experience, observation, and education one has to say whether they know something is true or believe it.

Either party doesn't want to accept the other person's evidence to the contrary, but I assume objectively saying you know something based on your experiences, observations, et cetera would be fine even if the other disagrees with that knowledge?

I believe people who do not accept evidence are irrational. People who believe there is not a God lack evidence. There is nothing to dismiss.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I can say that I know that God exists because there is enough evidence to support my statement.

I also believe I can say that I know that God exists because there is enough evidence to support my statement.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe people who do not accept evidence are irrational. People who believe there is not a God lack evidence. There is nothing to dismiss.

But isn't that the other way around too?

I haven't heard of any person who believed in god to show evidence outside his personal experience, personal observation, and personal criteria he or she uses to determine what is true and what is not. Evidence doesn't depend on these things especially when saying it is evidence in the objective sense (thereby seeing others as wrong or ignorant) of the word and not evidence for oneself personally (which ideally wouldn't have that bias perspective).

No one has ever given evidence of god outside their personal views. Since personal views are, well, personally, how can any person claim they are evidence for god's existence and other people who are not you or that person are ignorant to it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe people who do not accept evidence are irrational.

What evidence?

People who believe there is not a God lack evidence. There is nothing to dismiss.

Hardly. What sort of irrelevant God do you believe in if your belief doesn't imply predictions for things we ought to see if God were real?

It certainly seems to me that a godless worldview aligns better with reality than a theistic worldview.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Why would theists be the only ones who get to define "god?"

If *I* don't think that your appetite would qualify as a god, then I wouldn't need to take it into account when deciding to say that there no gods.

Arguments over the existence of gods are a bit unique in that they often aren't just a matter of empirical facts and ontology (i.e. do we have reason say that the thing being called a god exists?). They also often come down to semantics (i.e. can the thing they're calling a god rightly be called a god at all?).

The question of what makes a god a god has become more important over the years as theists have redefined "god" from the more traditional ideas of godhood to things like "love," "the universe," or "whatever is the most important thing in your life."

To say that "god" doesn't exist is a truth claim and therefore I am limiting what we can critique to that which is examinable. Therefore, the term "god" isn't limited to theistic definitions, but also critiquing a definition of "god" that a person doesn't subscribe to is impractical. So then you could say that my appetite isn't a "god" but I would just ignore your critique because it doesn't apply to me.

"God" has definitely become a semantics issue. I think it has become that so to sidestep criticism by moving the goalpost and to create a different brand of religion to advertise so that gullible people can be impressed and join a new religion.

Regarding the actual word "god", the Bible's actual definition of "god" is broad. It refers to the creator, the "god" of another religion, a person who has significantly more power over others, a person in a high position and a thing or feeling that a person is addicted to. The same goes with many other ancient religions. So the ever changing definition of "god" is nothing new.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Who doesn’t exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Who doesn’t exist?

I don't understand the question.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't understand the question.

I was just asking Who is it you say does not exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was just asking Who is it you say does not exist?

Oh. I was wondering if it's alright to say "I know god does not exist." Is it a fact statement? I know people get raddle when someone says "god does/does not exist", though I find harmless. So, I guess I know.. is a middle ground?

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh. I was wondering if it's alright to say "I know god does not exist." Is it a fact statement? I know people get raddle when someone says "god does/does not exist", though I find harmless. So, I guess I know.. is a middle ground?

When you posted the OP, I figured lots of people would misunderstand the point.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh. I was wondering if it's alright to say "I know god does not exist." Is it a fact statement? I know people get raddle when someone says "god does/does not exist", though I find harmless. So, I guess I know.. is a middle ground?

I think the best way maybe is to just say you don’t believe there is a God.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the best way maybe is to just say you don’t believe there is a God.

You're missing the point entirely. UA is talking about how a belief is expressed. Nothing to do with God's existence. I suggest you read the OP again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh. I was wondering if it's alright to say "I know god does not exist." Is it a fact statement? I know people get raddle when someone says "god does/does not exist", though I find harmless. So, I guess I know.. is a middle ground?

If those people who get rattled when someone says "God does not exist" don't get similarly rattled when people say things like "I don't have a red car" or "my town doesn't have an amusement park," then maybe they should try to address the inconsistencies in their position before they decide to chirp at others.

 

[Arthur P. Dent]

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

Sure! You're allowed to say whatever you wish. But honestly, it's irrelevant. What matters is what you can prove.

As an atheist, *I* would never state "god doesn't exist" as that would be a definitive statement requiring a burden of proof and thanks to solipsism, that would be a hopeless task. What I *can* say is that I believe god exists to the same degree that I believe fairies and leprechauns exists, which is to say, not at all. However is anyone has good evidence for any of the aforementioned entities, I am all ears.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

Sure! You're allowed to say whatever you wish. But honestly, it's irrelevant. What matters is what you can prove.

As an atheist, *I* would never state "god doesn't exist" as that would be a definitive statement requiring a burden of proof and thanks to solipsism, that would be a hopeless task. What I *can* say is that I believe god exists to the same degree that I believe fairies and leprechauns exists, which is to say, not at all. However is anyone has good evidence for any of the aforementioned entities, I am all ears.

Eh. I'm more simple than that. If there wasn't someone next to me, I wouldn't say I believe there isn't. No matter how many times another person would say there is someone there even confer to his or her book to prove it, that wouldn't influence me to say "I believe" rather than "I know."

I never did like the leprechauns and fairies analogy because ideally an atheist don't know what god is (he doesn't exist, right?)-and as such-he or she can't compare "it" to anything imaginary or otherwise. He could a concept a theist gives him, but he would need to say he is addressing the concept not god itself (unless, of course, he knows what it is to say something against it).

It would make sense for you to say "god doesn't exist" (If you believed he doesn't) only because, unless fairies may exist to you, it is no different than saying fairies don't exist or we can defy gravity by clicking our heels three times.