The origins of atheism

[Ana the Ist]

But you have left out the actual reason, the reason I gave you...which is the contingent requirement set down by God. We are His creation...so He decides what is required.

Also, yes, we both speak english, but you would have to believe me. And just as I would not trust you with my life (not at this point), you should not expect to trust me with yours...so believing my words is not realistic. But I can explain just how it works, and I have, which is confirmed by countless people down through the ages. But then you have to take it upon yourself. You are either a child of God and have it in you to see it through and trust in His requirements, or you are not His child, but only an animated part of his creation...which is a gift all by itself...but it does not include the bonus of eternal life.

As I said, you do whatever you will do about this...for you.

All the best!

So how exactly does god keep you from sharing your knowledge?

 

[Freodin]

There only contradicting because you've decided that its reasonable to claim that you can have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, which is clearly an irrational thing to claim. As long as this third party can comprehend that, then the answer is clear that your being irrational and I'm not.

The claim to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something is not irrational. This is a demonstrable fact. I fear you are mangling your logic here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes

Do you have any contemporary, independent, objective evidence to support your claim that he lived as a literal person?

 

[HitchSlap]

The claim to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something is not irrational. This is a demonstrable fact. I fear you are mangling your logic here.

He does seem to have problems comprehending simple syllogisms.

 

[AirPo]

Yes

Good to know! Thanks.

 

[Davian]

If you know the truth, you speak it.

And those deceived into thinking they have the truth, speak it. You'll need to do more than just speak what you think to be the truth.

 

[Chriliman]

The claim to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something is not irrational. This is a demonstrable fact. I fear you are mangling your logic here.

Okay, lets think this through. In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed. Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?

You can't demonstrate that God never existed at any point in time ever, this is simply an irrational thought that your mind has allowed you to think for some irrational reason.

 

[Colter]

Then you're missing the point entirely. Whether I read UB or not, in no way changes the fact it's an anonymous work of fiction.

How do you know it's fiction if you havnt read it?

 

[ScottA]

Hey, I (almost) agree with you: the "why" of the world is indeed demonstrated in the existence of the world. But it isn't the "why" that you imagine it is.


As I didn't offer any explanation, any "lack" is inevitable. But I didn't find any 2nd, 3rd and home base in your explanation either.... so, reciprocal lack is lacking.

But the main problem might be: there is no need to mention 2nd, 3rd and home base... because what I am "explaining" is not baseball.

Sorry, I meant to say "...the existence of God."

The "why" the world exists is not the "how" or the happenstance of science. But the "why" would indicate a "purpose" behind the "what."

 

[Freodin]

Okay, lets think this through. In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed.

Incorrect.
Basically, there are two ways of having such knowlegde.
First, you can have the knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must have knowledge of its identity. Identity can be contrived, it doesn't have to be in material - or spiritual, whatvever that may mean - existence.
Second, you can have that knowledge by having knowledge of the impossibility of such an existence, thus leaving non-existence as the only alternative. (Basically what you are trying to do, showing that I do not have "truth"... by showing that my claims are impossible. Problem is: you fail at it. )

If you have that knowledge of identity or the knowledge of logical impossibility, you can have the knowledge that such an item is not in existence.

Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?

I do have the knowledge of the suggested identities of God, thus I can have the knowledge that deities with this identity do not exist.

You can't demonstrate that God never existed at any point in time ever, this is simply an irrational thought that your mind has allowed you to think for some irrational reason.

Irrelevant, see above.

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, I meant to say "...the existence of God."

The "why" the world exists is not the "how" or the happenstance of science. But the "why" would indicate a "purpose" behind the "what."

Yes, agreed. Still, I propose a different "why". As for a "purpose"... I fear you are still lacking your bases. There is no way to demonstrate an existing "purpose" for "the world".

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay, lets think this through. In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed. Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?

You can't demonstrate that God never existed at any point in time ever, this is simply an irrational thought that your mind has allowed you to think for some irrational reason.

It's not knowledge of something that doesn't exist, as that would be absurd. It's knowledge of what you, Chrilliman, claim about the knowledge of god. See the difference?

Once Chrilliman makes a truth claim, then were obligated to keep Chrilliman honest and request evidence for his truth claims.

Sadly, all Chrilliman can offer us is the equivalent of 'you'll never understand and you'll just have to trust me.'

See why logical people who use reason to evaluate claims made by Chrilliman might have an issue with this?

(If you don't, then we have bigger problems than previously imagined.)

 

[ScottA]

God of the gaps, gotcha.

Watch out for the gaps closing, as this will likely be a bit scary for you.

I don't know of this gaps god of which you speak. But what has that got to do with why there would be males and females in a happenstance evolution model?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed. Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?

Non sequitur.

You can be sure of the non existence of certain things that have never existed.

 

[Freodin]

I don't know of this gaps god of which you speak. But what has that got to do with why there would be males and females in a happenstance evolution model?

Recombination of hereditary material provides evolutionary advantage. Smallest base on which recombination is possible is 2.

Now I would like to hear your explanation why there is male and female under a theistic system.

 

[David Colin Gould]

"These are really delicious, try one!"

No, of course not, nothing like that ever happens.

Yes, threats of horrible torture unless I believe as you do are close to identical to telling me that a cookie is nice ...

 

[HitchSlap]

How do you know it's fiction if you havnt read it?

"The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be "almost one million" light years away, repeating the understandings of the 1920s, but the galaxy is now understood to be 2.5 million light years away."

As I said, fiction.

 

[Davian]

The way your mind works is baffling. How can all significance be meaningless? Isn't it more likely that all significance would be all meaning as well?

Something can only be of significance in contrast to something else. "All significance" is incoherent.

 

[Chriliman]

Incorrect.
Basically, there are two ways of having such knowlegde.
First, you can have the knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must have knowledge of its identity. Identity can be contrived, it doesn't have to be in material - or spiritual, whatvever that may mean - existence.

Now you're claiming to know non-material "things" do not exist? So love and truth do not exist and you can know this?

Second, you can have that knowledge by having knowledge of the impossibility of such an existence, thus leaving non-existence as the only alternative. (Basically what you are trying to do, showing that I do not have "truth"... by showing that my claims are impossible. Problem is: you fail at it. )

Apparently your claims are only possible if you disregard all rational thinking.

If you have that knowledge of identity or the knowledge of logical impossibility, you can have the knowledge that such an item is not in existence.

So you know the identity of God in order to be able to claim He does not exist. How does that make sense?

And God is not a logical impossibility because He is eternal and infinite, therefore exists at all times and outside of time. You do not exist in this way because your finite, therefore, its logically impossible for you show that God is a logical impossibility, simply because you are not eternal and infinite.

I do have the knowledge of the suggested identities of God, thus I can have the knowledge that deities with this identity do not exist.

Right, because you think its rational to declare that something eternal and infinite can't possibly exist. Got it.

 

[Davian]

So how exactly does god keep you from sharing your knowledge?

From what I gather, you are stopping him by not believing what he says. Or something like that.