100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Londoner]

[
Yes I did. The text. What the text says, the faith warrants. It's really terribly simple.

There's a discipline called "exegesis." Its purpose is to get the text right. Good exegesis leads to a clear understanding of the text. After that, it matters not at all what propagandistic uses are made by others: the text won't warrant what they say...

But others disagree with you. If you argue that they can be mistaken, the same must be true of you.

If you think otherwise, it must be because you claim to know you are a superior being to other humans.

Are you asserting I should think about this issue as you do, that "asserting what people should think" is somehow dubious? If you're not, you aren't making any point here. But if you are, you can't complain if I do.

If we say that people's religious opinions are the product of culture, psychology etc. then that must apply to us too. In that case, our position on religious opinion would not be; 'I am right and you are wrong'. It would be 'We cannot know who, if anyone, is right'.

So, what I am complaining about is your claim to knowledge, because it is self-contradictory.

Nobody has ever said, "God wants Muslims killed." It's not in the text. Go and look and you'll see I'm right.

They have. They also find it in scripture; obviously it cannot name Muslims since there were no such things when it was written, however they find lots of OT instances of God encouraging war against non-believers. Sure, I understand that you prefer to look at different verses, but the question is how you know they are wrong and you are right.

Again, "religion" isn't a particular ideology. It's a catch-all invented by skeptics, but it doesn't describe any belief in particular. It tries to embrace everything from Scientology to Zoroastrianism to Wicca to Buddhism, with no essential distinction. It's really a pretty unthinking use of the language.

Additionally, some religions are probably merely cultural. Maybe something like Santeria fits that bill. But that does not for a moment imply that they all are, or that culture is all there is to them. Some are much more than local, and some are actually world-wide, multi-cultural phenomena.

You are still assuming you have the authority to pronounce on such things! That what applies to other people's opinions cannot apply to your own.

Your argument is skeptical when it comes to other people. Their beliefs are simply beliefs. But you are making an exception for yourself. Your own beliefs are knowledge. In that respect it is like all religious belief which says only we Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc. know the truth, all the others are simply deluded.

So the question again is; 'How do you know you are exceptional?'

[Londoner]

Is your God perfect?
If yes, then it follows that it's perfectly just. Or else it would have a flaw, and thus be imperfect.
If no, then it's just a flawed powerful being.

That is where I lose some people. It looks like an assumption. After all who am I to impose qualities on a 'god'. Well, I'm truly just. Therefore; any being that isn't 'truly just' is morally inferior. So why would I regard it to be my 'god'?

That would be true for you, but not for us.

If God is a 'truly just' being and you are 'truly just', then for us God does exist: You.

[Immanuel Can]

But others disagree with you. If you argue that they can be mistaken, the same must be true of you.

There's no reason to suppose that. It's a non-sequitur.

Anybody can be wrong. But also, whoever has the right answer, he's right; and it's not humility but obstinate stupidity if we insist on calling him wrong if he's got the right answer, or if we refuse to consider his answer because we start to imagine that all people's views are equal in truth value. It's just not so.

It doesn't matter how many people think 2+2 = 5 or 2+2 = 1,000. The guy who says 2+2 = 4 is still right.

If you think otherwise, it must be because you claim to know you are a superior being to other humans.

No. It could be because 2+2 actually IS 4.

If we say that people's religious opinions are the product of culture, psychology etc. then that must apply to us too.

Incorrect. If we say SOME people's religious opinions are the product of culture, that does not imply that ALL people's are. Which group we ourselves are in remains to be shown. But we won't know without the showing. To just assume it's the first group would be irrational.

In that case, our position on religious opinion would not be; 'I am right and you are wrong'. It would be 'We cannot know who, if anyone, is right'.

False. We might know that 2+2 = 4. That others don't happen to know it will not suggest we don't. And we don't have to think ourselves superior to know it...we just have to have done the maths.

Nobody has ever said, "God wants Muslims killed." It's not in the text. Go and look and you'll see I'm right.

They have. They also find it in scripture;

Not in my Scripture. They will find it in their own.

...the question is how you know they are wrong and you are right.

Because I can read and use logic.

You are still assuming you have the authority to pronounce on such things!

I know more than most about it. But it doesn't actually matter. What matters is it's true.

That what applies to other people's opinions cannot apply to your own.

No: it could -- but does it, is the real question. The "can" or "cannot" question is trivial by comparison.

[Londoner]

Me: But others disagree with you. If you argue that they can be mistaken, the same must be true of you.

There's no reason to suppose that. It's a non-sequitur.

Anybody can be wrong. But also, whoever has the right answer, he's right; and it's not humility but obstinate stupidity if we insist on calling him wrong if he's got the right answer, or if we refuse to consider his answer because we start to imagine that all people's views are equal in truth value. It's just not so.

It doesn't matter how many people think 2+2 = 5 or 2+2 = 1,000. The guy who says 2+2 = 4 is still right.

But you do not know that you are the one with the right answer!

Me: If you think otherwise, it must be because you claim to know you are a superior being to other humans.

No. It could be because 2+2 actually IS 4.

We think the person who thinks 2+2=4 is right because everyone agrees the meaning of terms like '2' and how maths works. But everyone doesn't agree that you are correct in your opinions about religion.

Incorrect. If we say SOME people's religious opinions are the product of culture, that does not imply that ALL people's are. Which group we ourselves are in remains to be shown. But we won't know without the showing. To just assume it's the first group would be irrational.

As you say, it remains to be shown. So, pending it being shown (which is impossible, since there is nobody who is outside all culture and thus who could judge), we do not know who are the exceptions - or if there are any exceptions at all.

Me: They have (found the message God wants Muslims killed). They also find it in scripture
Not in my Scripture. They will find it in their own.

So the situation is that we have a difference of opinion. The question is how we know which is right. It cannot be 'because it is in scripture' because both sides claim to find it in scripture. (Nor are we obliged to take scripture as authoritative in religion).

Me:...the question is how you know they are wrong and you are right.
Because I can read and use logic.

Others would claim to be able to do that too, and yet they disagree with you!

I'm sorry; you can only resolve this if you claim to be superior to other people.

I think that this claim to superiority is inherent in discussions about religion. Religion is also a claim to 'know' something, despite that knowledge not being arrived at through science or logic or anything else. Ultimately, the religious person is saying they 'just know'. Which amounts to saying 'God told me'

[uwot]

But others disagree with you. If you argue that they can be mistaken, the same must be true of you.

There's no reason to suppose that.

There is a very good reason to suppose that, Mr Can; it's called confirmation bias. Richard Feynman put it rather well: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." The rest of your post is a textbook example.

[attofishpi]

But others disagree with you. If you argue that they can be mistaken, the same must be true of you.

There's no reason to suppose that.

There is a very good reason to suppose that, Mr Can; it's called confirmation bias. Richard Feynman put it rather well: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." The rest of your post is a textbook example.

PHN members still banging on as to whether God exists? ...short sighted simpletons...to know God is to suffer to the extreme, and earn it.

At the end of the day, i know nobody suffers to the extreme of burning to death in a building, because i know IT. All you non believers ...it just adds to your doubt...ultimately, that is the folly of all atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

We think the person who thinks 2+2=4 is right because everyone agrees the meaning of terms like '2' and how maths works. But everyone doesn't agree that you are correct in your opinions about religion.

You seem to think that this is very important somehow...as if 2+2 would suddenly become 5 if more people believed in it, or more to the point, that 2+2 would not be still 4, so long as some people disagree that it is.

Such reasoning just does not make sense to me. You'll have to explain why you think it ought to.

As you say, it remains to be shown.

I didn't say it couldn't be shown. Only that our conversation has not progressed to that yet.

Me: They have (found the message God wants Muslims killed). They also find it in scripture
Not in my Scripture. They will find it in their own.

So the situation is that we have a difference of opinion.

No. Anyone who reads the Koran knows it's there. There actually isn't a difference of opinion...at least, not among those who have read it.

Me:...the question is how you know they are wrong and you are right.
Because I can read and use logic.

Others would claim to be able to do that too, and yet they disagree with you!

You seem to think this is saying something. I can't see that it is. Many people disagree with you...but so what? Does that somehow make you wrong? It would be hard to see why.

I'm sorry; you can only resolve this if you claim to be superior to other people.

Oh, I see...you don't know that's just ad hominem. Well, I encourage you to look that fallacy up, because it's basic to not jumping to conclusions about people's truthfulness based on their character or perceived motives.

To illustrate: a mathematician who claims to know the answer to 2+2 is not claiming personal superiority. He's just right. And not because he's a mathematician, for even mathematicians make mistakes: he just IS right. And people who can do the maths know it, and those who can't will probably disagree with him. But so what?

The same is true of a theologian. To the extent that a claim conforms to the truth about God, he would be right; to the extent that his claim does not, he'd be wrong. But no matter how many people disagree with him, or how many fail to know the truth, that's not going to impinge on the truthfulness or falsehood of his claim. Like the mathematician, if he's right, he's right. If he's not, he's not. The truthfulness can only be decided based on actually knowing something about God.

[uwot]

PHN members still banging on as to whether God exists? ...short sighted simpletons...to know God is to suffer to the extreme, and earn it.

To listen to theists is to suffer a fair bit too, me old China. I admire your optimism though; given that the argument has not been settled in thousands of years, it speaks highly of your regard for the contributors that you think we should have resolved it.

At the end of the day, i know nobody suffers to the extreme of burning to death in a building, because i know IT. All you non believers ...it just adds to your doubt...ultimately, that is the folly of all atheists.

So what? Fuck 'em, let them burn?

[attofishpi]

PHN members still banging on as to whether God exists? ...short sighted simpletons...to know God is to suffer to the extreme, and earn it.

To listen to theists is to suffer a fair bit too, me old China. I admire your optimism though; given that the argument has not been settled in thousands of years, it speaks highly of your regard for the contributors that you think we should have resolved it.

From experience, it appears the argument is eventually settled for individuals that actually did have some 'faith'. Granted, its not a mass comprehension, and no pun intended.

At the end of the day, i know nobody suffers to the extreme of burning to death in a building, because i know IT. All you non believers ...it just adds to your doubt...ultimately, that is the folly of all atheists.

So what? Fuck 'em, let them burn?

No, they didn't BURN. That is the point i am making, what we see and seems obvious to us, is not the truth to this reality.

[Rhodnar]

This is for clarification. It wasn't in my original post, but I discovered that it should have been.

I define a 'god' as a being that fits the model of popular religions.

That is to say:

Created the Universe
Omniscient
Omnipresent
All-powerful
Loving
Moral authority

I do not consider a 'god' to be any being simply having the title bestowed upon it.

e.g. A king can simply be a man who seized the thrown, or his son. However; a 'god' cannot simply be a creator, or the offspring of a creator. Nor can a 'god' simply be a being that is more powerful than other beings.

If your interpretation of the word 'god' is Conan'esque and “Crom” qualifies as a 'god', then you will not grasp the concept.

Another sticking point is my term 'truly just'. Even if you cannot grasp what I mean by the term, you should be able to grasp the concept. A 'truly just' being does not consider itself to be superior to other beings. A 'truly just' being of 'great power'* could not influence the lives' of beings 'weaker'* than itself. To do so would be unjust; and therefore the being would not be 'truly just'. To truly have freewill, you have to have the freewill to totally screw your existence up. Otherwise you're just a pet, being watched over and protected from harm.
It also raises questions like “If there is a loving God, why does he allow babies to suffer horribly?”. Which are cleared up by pointing out that a 'truly just' “loving God” could not do otherwise. All that a 'truly just' creator could do is to create the conditions for life, and then watch and wait for other 'truly just' beings to emerge. Everything else would just be things taking their natural course.

None of this paragraph is required of the 'truly just' but it is the way that I'd go about it myself. A 'truly just' being could create a 'truly just' system by means of a multiverse, were every single possibility plays out. Thus all beings would achieve their goal of becoming 'truly just' somewhere.

Anyway I reiterate:

Not 'truly just' = Not a 'god'
'Truly just' = Not a 'god'

No 'gods'.

If all this is still unclear, become 'truly just' yourself and you'll say " Oh yeah, why didn't I see that before?".

*I'm not keen on the expressions, “great power” and “weaker” there, because all beings are equal regardless of scope. But I have to make a distinction for clarification somehow.

[uwot]

No, they didn't BURN. That is the point i am making, what we see and seems obvious to us, is not the truth to this reality.

I'm sure you are aware that Grenfell Tower caused the deaths of scores, possibly hundreds of people. How should we respond to the loss, and the fact that many other tower blocks pose a similar risk?

[Londoner]

You seem to think that this is very important somehow...as if 2+2 would suddenly become 5 if more people believed in it, or more to the point, that 2+2 would not be still 4, so long as some people disagree that it is....Such reasoning just does not make sense to me. You'll have to explain why you think it ought to.

I think it is analytical. Among other things, '4' means 'the sum of 2 and 2'. If somebody said 2+2=5 we would say they did not understand the meaning of '5' (or '2'). But that is not the case for the word 'God' or the interpretation of scripture.

Me: They have (found the message God wants Muslims killed). They also find it in scripture
You: Not in my Scripture. They will find it in their own.
Me: So the situation is that we have a difference of opinion
No. Anyone who reads the Koran knows it's there. There actually isn't a difference of opinion...at least, not among those who have read it.

This is confusing! Are you saying the message 'God wants Muslims killed' is in the Koran!? I was referring to the Bible and within Christianity.

As I pointed out, obviously the Bible does not refer to Muslims, since it predates Islam, but the OT has many instances of God telling the Israelites to attack and expel (or exterminate) the followers of other religions. It is there. People did interpret it in the way I say. You think they were mistaken; they would think you were mistaken.

Me: I'm sorry; you can only resolve this if you claim to be superior to other people.
Oh, I see...you don't know that's just ad hominem. Well, I encourage you to look that fallacy up, because it's basic to not jumping to conclusions about people's truthfulness based on their character or perceived motives.

But you are not in any position to know whether what you say is true or not. You are claiming certainty without any justification, without explaining how you know that you are right and other people are wrong.

To illustrate: a mathematician who claims to know the answer to 2+2 is not claiming personal superiority. He's just right. And not because he's a mathematician, for even mathematicians make mistakes: he just IS right. And people who can do the maths know it, and those who can't will probably disagree with him. But so what?

I explain this above. Maths is a system; we are right if we apply the rules of that system. This could be true within religion. If one is a Muslim then there are certain things one ought to do. But just as one cannot use maths to prove the validity of maths, you cannot use the rules of Islam to prove the validity of Islam.

The same is true of a theologian. To the extent that a claim conforms to the truth about God, he would be right; to the extent that his claim does not, he'd be wrong. But no matter how many people disagree with him, or how many fail to know the truth, that's not going to impinge on the truthfulness or falsehood of his claim. Like the mathematician, if he's right, he's right. If he's not, he's not. The truthfulness can only be decided based on actually knowing something about God.

(my emphasis added)

Exactly. Your claim rests on you knowing more about God than other people. How do you know that is the case?

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that we can only make such claims on the basis of some sort of revelation. Reading scripture cannot make us religious. I can read the Koran but that will not make me a theist, let alone a Muslim. It has to involve some sort of subjective experience. I do not decry such experiences, but we have to accept that they cannot act as proof. If you have had some subjective experience which you believe has enabled you to 'know God' and I have had a different subjective experience, there is no way I can claim 'my subjective experience is more true than your subjective experience'.

[Londoner]

This is for clarification. It wasn't in my original post, but I discovered that it should have been.

I define a 'god' as a being that fits the model of popular religions.

That is to say:

Created the Universe
Omniscient
Omnipresent
All-powerful
Loving
Moral authority....

Not 'truly just' = Not a 'god'
'Truly just' = Not a 'god'

But since you have defined God as having 'moral authority', then by definition God must be 'truly just'. If you can dispute God's moral authority to decide what is 'truly just' then you must be talking about some other, lesser God.

Anyway I reiterate:

Not 'truly just' = Not a 'god'
'Truly just' = Not a 'god'

No 'gods'.

If all this is still unclear, become 'truly just' yourself and you'll say " Oh yeah, why didn't I see that before?".

It isn't at all unclear; it is a version of the 'Ontological Argument'. You are trying to argue existence from predicates. Usually it is the other way round; God is perfect, it is more perfect to exist, therefore God must exist. You are describing some sort of a self-contradiction around the term 'truly just', then saying that because you define God as 'truly just' he can't exist. In either case, it doesn't work. God cannot not be 'truly just' unless he exists to be that way. Otherwise it is like arguing that because if it is true that 'dragons have the attribute of 'not being unicorns'' then dragons must exist.

If this is unclear, just read up on the Ontological Argument, and eventually it will click!

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to think that this is very important somehow...as if 2+2 would suddenly become 5 if more people believed in it, or more to the point, that 2+2 would not be still 4, so long as some people disagree that it is....Such reasoning just does not make sense to me. You'll have to explain why you think it ought to.

I think it is analytical. Among other things, '4' means 'the sum of 2 and 2'. If somebody said 2+2=5 we would say they did not understand the meaning of '5' (or '2'). But that is not the case for the word 'God' or the interpretation of scripture.

We're not speaking of the difference merely between analytic and synthetic claims. We're talking about the idea of truth.

The point is that the truth is the truth -- whether in maths or in empirical matters like science -- regardless of how many people believe or don't believe it, or of how many contrary opinions are on hand. That's the important point. You seem to think that truth matters in analytic things, but not in empirical ones. In empirical ones, like the existence or non-existence of God, you appear to say that people's disbelief or alternate beliefs would have some impact on the facts. But clearly, nothing would change.

The belief of people or the disbelief of people will not make God exist or not exist.

Me: They have (found the message God wants Muslims killed). They also find it in scripture
You: Not in my Scripture. They will find it in their own.
Me: So the situation is that we have a difference of opinion
No. Anyone who reads the Koran knows it's there. There actually isn't a difference of opinion...at least, not among those who have read it.

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."

Clear enough now?

...the OT has many instances of God telling the Israelites to attack and expel (or exterminate) the followers of other religions.

Indeed it does. You should take that up with the Israelites, I would think. Christians, by definition, center their doctrine and interpretation on the life and Person of Christ, and hence understand the Old Testament through the New. This is a key distinction between Jewish and Christian interpretation, of course. Here we get into particulars of exegesis...which we can do, but maybe it's not all that interesting to you.

It is there. People did interpret it in the way I say. You think they were mistaken; they would think you were mistaken.

I wouldn't, actually. I would say they were quite right, at least in their instructions regarding the Promised Land. Their general theology I would have some exceptions to -- but then, according to Torah, so did God.

The truthfulness can only be decided based on actually knowing something about God.

(my emphasis added)

Exactly. Your claim rests on you knowing more about God than other people. How do you know that is the case?

This is where we get into two key questions:

1. Has God spoken? and

2. Where/How has God spoken?

You're quite right to say that if the answer to 1) is "No," then we're all shooting in the dark, and all is equal. But if it's NOT true, then things are quite different: we go on to question 2). The answer to that, we can only find by looking. We can read the Bible (or the Koran, if you will, or the Tao, or the Gita, or whatever). We can see which Scripture is wisest, makes most sense of our most powerful moral intuitions, is most rational and consistent, and so on. Moreover, we can see if we find God speaking to us personally through that Scripture. And if we do, then we know something; and if we do not, we are still in the dark about the whole question. We keep looking and thinking. Or we give up, pretend the question no longer matters, and declare unilaterally for agnosticism.

[Rhodnar]

It isn't at all unclear; it is a version of the 'Ontological Argument'. You are trying to argue existence from predicates. Usually it is the other way round; God is perfect, it is more perfect to exist, therefore God must exist. You are describing some sort of a self-contradiction around the term 'truly just', then saying that because you define God as 'truly just' he can't exist. In either case, it doesn't work. God cannot not be 'truly just' unless he exists to be that way. Otherwise it is like arguing that because if it is true that 'dragons have the attribute of 'not being unicorns'' then dragons must exist.

I am saying no 'truly just' being is a 'god', not attempting to disprove a creator or a creation.

The “Abrahamic God” may well exist, I cannot prove otherwise. I may yet burn in hell for eternity, or face some other punishment for my “heresy”. However; in that case, I would be subject to 'justice' not 'justness' and therefore; the “Abrahamic God” would not be a 'truly just' being, and therefore; would not be a 'god'.

But since you have defined God as having 'moral authority', then by definition God must be 'truly just'.

I haven't defined a 'god' as being anything. I have said right from the start that 'gods' do not exist. I was simply caging the term 'god', for reference.

If you can dispute God's moral authority to decide what is 'truly just' then you must be talking about some other, lesser God.

I am saying that if a being such as the “Abrahamic God” exists, then either it is 'truly just' and therefore; not a 'god' or it is not 'truly just' and therefore; not perfect, and therefore; simply a more powerful life form than I, and therefore; not a 'god'.

Gosh, bit of a mouthful that.

If I told you that all fish live in water and that all trout are fish. Would you conclude that I am saying that trout live in trees? (To paraphrase John Cleese)

Take care and have fun.