The origins of atheism

[Davian]

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.

Define what you mean by "God".

 

[ScottA]

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".

Just how would you suggest demonstrating a demonstration in the middle of the demonstration? Pick any example demonstration and explain.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just how would you suggest demonstrating a demonstration in the middle of the demonstration? Pick any example demonstration and explain.

Any demonstration will do in a pinch.

 

[ScottA]

I don't care what you believe (with seven billion people on this planet, kind of hard to keep up with everyone's beliefs), I'm interested in what you can demonstrate.

You will need to work on your receiver then. You can't get everything on just one channel.

 

[HitchSlap]

You will need to work on your receiver then. You can't get everything on just one channel.

Why don't you go ahead and give it a shot anyway.

 

[ScottA]

I was not addressing its duration, but rather the veracity, of your claim.

I was not addressing whether or not the matter was factual, but the fact that you didn't know about it.

 

[Davian]

Just how would you suggest demonstrating a demonstration in the middle of the demonstration? Pick any example demonstration and explain.

Let me get this right; you believe that you are "one" (whatever that means) with an allegedly all-knowing-all-powerful deity and you are asking - on an internet discussion forum - for assistance in establishing the veracity of your claims.

Do you ever take a step back and consider how this looks to those that are unconvinced of your claims?

 

[ScottA]

Why don't you go ahead and give it a shot anyway.

...Can you hear me now?

 

[Davian]

I was not addressing whether or not the matter was factual, but the fact that you didn't know about it.

The claims come in pretty thick here. It may have been in there somewhere.

 

[HitchSlap]

...Can you hear me now?

Yep. Shoot.

 

[ScottA]

Let me get this right; you believe that you are "one" (whatever that means) with an allegedly all-knowing-all-powerful deity and you are asking - on an internet discussion forum - for assistance in establishing the veracity of your claims.

Do you ever take a step back and consider how this looks to those that are unconvinced of your claims?

No, I'm like "one" of the kids in a class who knows the answer to the question, while other kids don't.

Would it help my "looks" if I raise my hand higher?

 

[Freodin]

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

I didn't say that. I made no specific mention of "love" or "truth"... and I didn't even hint at specific "spiritual" concepts not existing. Don't try to twist my words.
But it is possible to have knowledge of the non-existence of non-existing "spiritual" things as well as knowledge of the non-existence of non-existing material thing.

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

So you keep claiming... it is just that you are very bad at showing it.

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

It does. The identity of something is what something is, or is being said to be. If such an identity is internally or externally inconsistent, this thing does not exist.

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.

That a given identity is not logically impossible, because of eternity or infinity is not demonstrated. If you make claims like that, you have to show your reasoning. Likewise, my limitations do not mean that I cannot show the logical impossibility of something eternal and infinite.

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

No, now you are channeling your own thoughts again. I didn't say that. I personally think it not only possible, but inevitable, that something eternal and infinite "exists" (though explaining that would be beyond this thread). I just say that I know that this eternal and infinite is not what you identity as "God".

 

[HitchSlap]

No, I'm like "one" of the kids in a class who knows the answer to the question, while other kids don't.

Would it help my "looks" if I raise my hand higher?

I'm acting as your teacher, and giving you permission to answer.

Go for it.

 

[Freodin]

Just how would you suggest demonstrating a demonstration in the middle of the demonstration? Pick any example demonstration and explain.

I don't know... but that was what you claimed: that this "demonstration" is evidence for the "purpose", or did I misunderstand that?

So how would you who makes this claim "demonstrate" this (that is: how is this evidence for a purpose?)

 

[ScottA]

Yep. Shoot.

Change your channel selector to Freodin...and when he can show how to demonstrate a demonstration while the demonstration is in progress, then I will answer both of you. Otherwise, I refer you to my Sponsor.

 

[Freodin]

Change your channel selector to Freodin...and when he can show how to demonstrate a demonstration while the demonstration is in progress, then I will answer both of you. Otherwise, I refer you to my Sponsor.

So... you are now saying that the existence of the world is evidence for a purpose... but it is not possible to show this evidence (and thus, not possible to show that it is evidence for a purpose).

Now that makes sense. Or not.

 

[Davian]

No, I'm like "one" of the kids in a class who knows the answer to the question, while other kids don't.

Would it help my "looks" if I raise my hand higher?

It would help if your answer can be correlated with observations of reality. Your marks are pretty low to date. Would you like to try again, and be graded accordingly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise, I refer you to my Sponsor.

 

[Davian]

You will need to work on your receiver then. You can't get everything on just one channel.

The channel I am on right now is all about observations of reality, explored with testable, falsifiable hypotheses and scientific methodology. I tried the religious channels, and not only did they all disagree with each other, they all, in some way, conflicted with observations of reality. Perhaps the fault lies at your transmitter.

 

[Colter]

"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.

Oh I see, that's common, skeptics Google a skeptic book about the Uranta Book and belive that hook, line and sinker without ever reading the UB. The revelators were restricted to the use of our sciences of the age where those facts had not yet been discovered. Other lost, previously known facts were restored.