I'm not Agnostic

[_antishock8]

Actually, you can assert a negative until the claim is proven otherwise, and you can prove a negative. I think we had this discussion once before.

There is no god. It's not in front of me. I've never seen it. Never touched it. It doesn't exist. I can provide proof of its non-existence by not being able to provide proof. Therefore I assert there's no god. If you counter-claim that proof, then the burden of proof is on you. Sorry, guys. That's how it works.

However, this is where the problem of defining what a god is comes into play. Some people think a god is embodied in a statue. Some think its inheritly unknowable, and therefore unproveable. Etc..

[_ludwigm]

'No God' slogans for city's buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[_TAK]

Bad analogy. I am not going down that road. There are huge differences here in my opinion.

So please give evidences that convince you there is no God.

I have some that I consider at times. I know I base my belief in God primarily in faith. But there are other reasons I believe. But there are many things that cause me to question as well.

But I do not know, either way. Nor do you or Goodk. But I am happy to read what things cause you to lean that way.

Its only bad because you can not counter the argument.

Its a perfect analogy because both are based upon a tradition passed down through the generations. One just happens to be older but they both have a good and evil aspect.

[_Jason Bourne]

Its only bad because you can not counter the argument.

Its a perfect analogy because both are based upon a tradition passed down through the generations. One just happens to be older but they both have a good and evil aspect.

Personally I think there is more evidence that there is a entity that we call God than there is for Santa Clause. Among these I would include the creation in which we live and all parts of it, the order and function of the universe, the ability of one of the species on this world to be self aware and even ask questions about a God and the reason they exist, the plethora of ways men have attempted to find God and the innate longing to do so.

But this thread is about KNOWING there is not a God. I do not think one can really know this anymore than I can know for certain there is. Because of a some of what I listed above I do not think Santa and God are in the same class.

[_JAK]

Actually, you can assert a negative until the claim is proven otherwise, and you can prove a negative. I think we had this discussion once before.

There is no god. It's not in front of me. I've never seen it. Never touched it. It doesn't exist. I can provide proof of its non-existence by not being able to provide proof. Therefore I assert there's no god. If you counter-claim that proof, then the burden of proof is on you. Sorry, guys. That's how it works.

However, this is where the problem of defining what a god is comes into play. Some people think a god is embodied in a statue. Some think its inheritly unknowable, and therefore unproveable. Etc..

Yes, the discussion has played out in many venues. Any god claim is the affirmative's claim. Someone who says: “There is no god” is addressing an implied or stated affirmative claim. It is a denial of the affirmative god claim. If no compelling, tested consensus has been made for a god claim, there is no responsibility for one who doubts it to present anything. He can, but he is not obligated to do that.

However, a statement of an affirmative claim for a negative there is no god is a statement which takes on the burden of proof for a negative claim. How does such a person present testable, compelling evidence for the negative? Failure to observe something is not proof that something does not exist. When did we learn about germs and viruses? When did we learn about bacteria? These were affirmative claims. We have compelling evidence for them. But, when the concepts and claims were first made, many thoughtful and even educated people rejected the claims. Hence evidence had to be presented, and it had to be compelling with consensus of observation for the claims.

When someone says: “I know there is no god,” the person makes two claims. The first is that he knows. The second is what he knows. In addition, level of “proof” varies with time, place, requirement, etc. Or, stated another way, different people accept different levels of evidence as compelling.

Blind belief requires no evidence. O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty” of two murders by a jury in a court. The jurors did not accept DNA evidence as valid. That event ultimately produced greater compelling evidence that DNA is a reality or fact. Today, it has been used to free falsely imprisoned men who have been imprisoned for decades. It is now accepted not only in science (as it was before the O.J. Simpson trial), it is accepted widely among people as valid who know little science.

In any case, one does not prove the assertion: there is no god. Rather, one challenges the affirmative assertion: god. It is an assertion absent compelling evidence. The negative claim here is against an affirmative position: god. That affirmative position is god exists. So the negative is opposing an implied or stated affirmative.

When someone states: “I know that there is no god,” the person argues against an implied or stated affirmative.

Of course one can say anything he pleases. That doesn’t give it validity. We have all heard the claim: I say god exists, and until someone can prove god does not exist, god exists. Such individuals fail to recognize that the burden of proof lies with the implied affirmative claimant. GoodK attempts to turn a negative position into an affirmative claim. But the affirmative claim is god exists. GoodK is expressing rejection of the affirmative claim.

A conclusion for the negative is generally by default. That is, absent any evidence for some/any affirmative claim, the negative is assumed. If you can’t show me a germ or a virus, such things don’t exist. So, science now brings to bare the microscope, and all can see what is described and defined as a germ or a virus. The presumption before the “sight” given by the microscope was that the naked eye saw all there was to see. That was false. And while the burden of proof was on those who claimed germs and viruses, they met that burden by introducing tools of observation not previously known.

Someone today could say: I know there are no such things as germs or viruses because I cannot see them. They could say that. But, the scientific/medical evidence is compelling. The apparent negative claim here is not supported.

Antishock8 stated: “Actually, you can assert a negative until the claim is proven otherwise, and you can prove a negative.” It’s the last part of the compound sentence which is incorrect. For example, if we have granules to the sight, we don’t prove a negative, but rather we prove a positive, and by default conclude a negative: We conclude it is not salt. We did not prove a negative. If we prove the substance is sugar, we proved an affirmative. Negative conclusion is by default. The granules are not sand. The granules are not glass, etc.

Unlike the god claims, in this example, we are observing something and establishing fact about it. Again, negative conclusions are by default. We proved or established an affirmative.

[_antishock8]

2 does not equal 1. Is that considered proving a negative statement? I can't recall...

[_TAK]

Its only bad because you can not counter the argument.

Its a perfect analogy because both are based upon a tradition passed down through the generations. One just happens to be older but they both have a good and evil aspect.

Personally I think there is more evidence that there is a entity that we call God than there is for Santa Clause. Among these I would include the creation in which we live and all parts of it, the order and function of the universe, the ability of one of the species on this world to be self aware and even ask questions about a God and the reason they exist, the plethora of ways men have attempted to find God and the innate longing to do so.

But this thread is about KNOWING there is not a God. I do not think one can really know this anymore than I can know for certain there is. Because of a some of what I listed above I do not think Santa and God are in the same class.

Nonsense .. There is no evidence that some entity - whatever you name it is responsible for the things you cite. None

[_Scottie]

There are many mysteries in this world that just can't be explained. Go to any hospital and ask the Dr's there if they have witnessed what they believe to be miracles. My guess it that almost all of them will say yes.

Now, does the fact that a Dr thinks he saw a miracle prove there is some higher power intervening in the lives of humans? Probably not. But, the possibility must be left open that there IS a God and, for whatever reason, it chooses to intervene in some peoples lives.

How many of you have had strange premonitions that kept you out of danger? I know that I have had thoughts enter my head that kept me from dying twice. I honestly have no explanation for these thoughts. It is possible that it was just chance that these thoughts popped into my head at precisely the exact moment I needed them and I altered my actions to save my life. But I can't rule out the possibility that a higher power somehow prompted me.

Therefore, although I certainly don't believe in the Mormon or Christian God, I don't know if there is a higher power of some kind out there.

[_John Larsen]

There are many mysteries in this world that just can't be explained. Go to any hospital and ask the Dr's there if they have witnessed what they believe to be miracles. My guess it that almost all of them will say yes.

Now, does the fact that a Dr thinks he saw a miracle prove there is some higher power intervening in the lives of humans? Probably not. But, the possibility must be left open that there IS a God and, for whatever reason, it chooses to intervene in some peoples lives.

How many of you have had strange premonitions that kept you out of danger? I know that I have had thoughts enter my head that kept me from dying twice. I honestly have no explanation for these thoughts. It is possible that it was just chance that these thoughts popped into my head at precisely the exact moment I needed them and I altered my actions to save my life. But I can't rule out the possibility that a higher power somehow prompted me.

Therefore, although I certainly don't believe in the Mormon or Christian God, I don't know if there is a higher power of some kind out there.

You may be right, but it doesn't follow that there is a God. It is equally probably that the world is populated with magic invisible elves that do all of the stuff we can't explain.

Just because miracles occur (if indeed they occur) it simply does not require a parental God figure to explain them.

[_JAK]

2 does not equal 1. Is that considered proving a negative statement? I can't recall...

It’s not proof of a negative. What do we do? We establish a definition and meaning for “1.” We establish a definition and meaning for “2.” As we agree to these definitions and ultimately to meaning for a system of counting, we establish positive meaning and definition for all “characters” used in the system of counting or numbers. It’s correct that “2 does not equal 1.” But we agree upon what each of these characters mean. We also play games with what numbers mean. For example 2 people can equal 1 marriage. But even in that, we are required to specify what we mean by the use of numbers.

2 minus 3 equals -1. But we are using definitions upon which we agree regarding what the characters mean in the statement. We aren’t proving a negative in the context of the claim: “I know there is no god.”