Maybe it is the part where I said, "I think I know that God doesn't exist."

But isn't the difference between "I think I know" and "I know" the dividing line here?

My point is pretty clear. I think you haven't provided a good argument for the existence of God. Rather, you have pointed out that there are metaphysical systems which imply that God exists.* Fine. I don't think anyone was denying that. The issue is whether we should accept those metaphysical systems.

Also, your attempt to claim equivalence between our two positions is incorrect. I am not defining God out of existence. Rather I am saying that it is an open question whether such a being exists. I am rejecting the entire project of defining a being into or out of existence and instead relying on empirical evidence and rational argumentation to justify the belief that God exists. It is not the case that because I reject the definition of Santa Claus as the "actually existing Santa Claus" that I am defining Santa Claus out of existence. No, rather I am acknowledging the possibility that Santa Claus exists, but claiming that as a matter of fact he does not.

*Just as a sideline, I think it should be pointed out that Aquinas actually rejected the ontological argument, so I'm inclined to think that it doesn't works on those grounds either.

Yeah, this is definitely where I get off the train. My entire epistemological approach to the world would have to change in order for this to seem even close to rational. Basing a belief as foundational as this on the ancient legends of a relatively minor people written by who knows whom? It is the belief you describe above that leads me to think that for many theists, their religion does conflict with science. It is hard to reconcile someone who accepts the scientific canons of evidence and who also uses these old stories as evidence for the metaphysical nature of the world.

Nope. Look at the chart. It says that an "gnostic" atheist is someone who claims to know that god doesn't exist. I claim this all the time. For intance, "I know that God doesn't exist."

Of course, I acknowledge that I could be wrong, but I could be wrong about all sorts of things that that I claim to know. If our standard for claiming, "I know that p" is that we couldn't be wrong, then we could almost never truthfully say, "I know that p."

When I say "I think I know that p" I am saying that yes, I think it is true that I know that p. I'm certainly not saying, I don't really know that p.

Fair enough. I suppose I am/was confusing gnostism with having absolute knowledge.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOKERTHIEF:

The arguments for the existence of an intelligent Designer/God aka Jehovah are numerous. Below are just a few.

1. Precision in nature indicates deliberation. Anything deliberately done indicates the presence of an intelligent being who intervened and guided the outcome.


2. Almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled Bible prophecies, many of which have been confirmed by archeology and secular history.


3. Life could not have come from non-life. This was proven by Louis Pasteur and other scientists.


4. INTELLIGENCE: Intelligent beings could not have resulted from non-intelligent means (e.g. evolution theory cannot explain how animals and humans became intelligent)


5. Accidents do not result in precision. The Big Bang theory--mere accidental expansion of space--cannot explain how millions of planets appeared in the heavens, each within their own field of gravity that keeps them within their individual orbits.


6. THE LAW OF GRAVITY: Who created this law? The presence of laws in nature debunk the assertion that anything that is controlled by laws happened by accident. Accidents cannot produce laws and precision because an accident is a spontaneous/unguided event that has harmful effects.

DEFINITION OF PRECISION:
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)

DEFINITION OF ACCIDENT:
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results" (Source: Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary)


7. The oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle.


8. The genetic code: because it could not have written itself. All credible scientists acknowledge it requires intelligence to write codes.


THE ABOVE IS JUST A TIP OF THE ICEBERG.



Those who insist there is no Jehovah are inexcusable, for the following reason:

"For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;..." (Romans 1:20)

The above post is a joke right?

Yeah, but I have an appendix.

Fair enough. "I think I know" just sounds odd, I felt that "I think" added a sense of uncertainty (by whatever your own standards are, not in the epistemological "but I could be wrong about almost everything" sense!) that you did not really intend.

Personally, I don't know how to prove / disprove the existence of the vague definition of god (contrast this to the Biblical definition of God, where all you need to do is take note of contradictions), so this requires me to be agnostic. btw, I don't think I have heard a rational gnostic atheist explain their position before, unless they were talking about a specific and falsifiable version of God, so I'd be very interested to hear more details.


As an aside: that someone could be wrong should be a given, and reflects someones intellectually honesty; that someone can update their beliefs after evaluating new evidence that might someday appear. Contrast this with the apologists (including the theist's favorite, William Lane Craig, iirc) who have publicly stated that they would have to dismiss any evidence that contrasted with their beliefs, making them willfully intellectually dishonest, and casting a dark shadow of doubt over everything they have to say.

As a former member of that psuedo-sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, it makes me laugh that someone like you is posting on a gambling forum.

I was raised as a JW, but right before my 22nd birthday, I realized that I could no longer be a part of it.

I'm not making fun of you, I honestly pity you, because you clearly are in the same mental state that I used to be in. I hope you can find your way out and are able to live a life that makes you happy while you are still here. This life is all there is, you'd better not waste it, especially doing the bidding of a group of old men in Patterson, NY.

If you would like some interesting history on the organization that you won't find in any of their publications, google the name 'Beth Sarim'.

I don't deal with evil slaves who beat their brothers and sisters, and I definitely don't deal with unrepentant, disfellowshipped former Jehovah's Witnesses. Onto my "Ignore" list you go.

You've pretty much been talking to yourself anyways.

I begin to wonder if the truth is that Alter isn't banned but rather doesn't have anyone to talk to after he "ignores" everyone. And more to the point ... thanks Coach ! From that search the following is lol solid gold:

"In the early twenties the Watchtower put forward the prophecy that the ancient worthies would be resurrected here on earth in 1925. The Watchtower were so sure about this date that they acquired a large property in California for their use. This property was named Beth-Sarim meaning house of princes, and was to be the home for, amongst others, Abraham, David, Isaac, Jacob, Samson and Moses. In the grounds of the mansion the Watchtower planted palm and olive trees so that the ancient worthies would feel at home. In addition if the worthies needed to get around San Diego they would have had the private use of 2 chauffeur driven Cadillacs.

The only person who ever took up residence in the mansion was Rutherford himself and as soon as he died in 1941 the Watchtower sold the property and dropped their teachings with regard 1925.

Below are some quotes from the secular press at the time. Note what a big thing Rutherford makes of the house and, in hind sight, what an absolute embarrassment he makes not only of himself but of Jehovah’s organization the Watchtower.

Time Magazine of Mar 31, 1930 "Judge Joseph Frederick Rutherford 60, lives in a ten room Spanish mansion, No 4440 Braeburn Rd, San Diego, Calif. Last week he deeded No 4440 Braeburn Road, and adjacent two car garage and a pair of automobiles to King David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, Samuel and sundry other mighties of ancient Palestine. Positive is he that they are shortly to reappear on earth, Said he: 'I have purposely landscaped the place with palm and olive trees so that these princes of the universe will feel at home ..".

San Diego Sun, March 15, 1930 "But how will you identify King David or any of the other representatives from God?' Rutherford was asked. 'I thought all that out before I wrote the deed,' the judge replied with a twinkle in his gray eyes. 'I realized the possibility of some old codger turning up bright and early some morning and declaring he was David. The men whom I have designated to test the identity of these men are officers of my societies and have consecrated themselves to the Lord, they will be divinely authorized to know impostors from the real princes.'

The San Diego Sun of Jan 9 1931 "A gaunt unshaven tramp has been the lone claimant for the $75,000 Southern Californian mansion of David, king of Israel, since it was deeded to the Biblical character a year ago. This was revealed today by Judge James Rutherford, temporary owner of the luxuriantly furnished Spanish type mansion at 440 Braeburn Rd in the exclusive Kensington Heights district. In one of the oddest deeds ever recorded, Rutherford, president of the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, has placed in trust the magnificent estate for ancient kings and prophets of Israel. The slayer of Goliath and his companions may occupy the 10 room modern home with it's landscaped gardens and patio as soon as their credentials are approved by Rutherford and officials of his societies, divinely authorized to recognize them.

One morning as I was going from the house to the garage, a queer looking creature approached me, tipped his dirty hat and cried 'Howdy Judge, I'm David' 'Go and tell that to the winds', I told him and he left without arguing the matter. I could see at a glance that he was not David. He didn't look like I knew David would look.' Asked how he expected David and his distinguished brethren to look, Rutherford, without hesitation, opened his huge Bible and pointed to a verse which said that the Princes of the Universe would be risen from the dead 'as perfect men'. 'I interpret that to mean', the tall dignified Judge declared, 'that David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthae, Joseph and Samuel will be sent here to wrench the world from Satan's grasp, clothed in modern garb as we are, and able, with little effort, to speak our tongue.' Rutherford pictured the arrival of the biblical delegation perhaps in frock coats, high hats, canes and spats.

At Beth Sarim (House of Princes) as Rutherford has named his mansion, David will find the most modern appliances that science has devised. When the distinguished guests walk up the circular stairway to the second floor, they will find a large office with red leather chairs and shiny flat topped desk with inverted lighting. Even French telephones await the touch of the princes. Opening a wide door, the native sons of Palestine will behold a large bathroom, resplendent in shiny black tile with needle shower and an amply filled medicine chest. What a thrill giant shouldered Samson, who wrecked a palace with his bare fists might find in the gold safety razor and strop! Rutherford built the second floor bedroom, which he temporarily occupies, large in order to accommodate several of the expected owners. With wide pane windows that look out on the purple Cuyamacas to the East and California's first mission to the north, the bedroom is almost severe in it's furnishings. The rulers of the universe will have simple tastes, the judge apparently believes, although the austere end tables sported gaily covered fiction magazines. Rutherford has imported some Koniach, Wasser from Cologne, Germany to freshen the princely faces after shaving. A black skull cap hangs over one of the bedposts.

The coming of David and his companions will be the greatest news story of the ages, Rutherford predicted. 'I am not a publicity seeker,' Rutherford said with a twinkle in his kindly brown eyes, 'but I feel that the world should know about their arrival. It will be a great news story.' Word of his 'House of king David' has reached into every corner of the world, the judge stated. 'Everywhere I went people asked me about this place,' Rutherford said. 'In Chicago a millionaire manufacturer offered to build another house for David, but I declined the offer. 'Literally thousands have driven here to see this place,' Rutherford continued. 'Many have come to the door and my secretary has shown them about the place.' The patio with it's silver pool and olive and palm trees is gay with flowers. Down toward the canyon, paths have been landscaped to allow David and his friends to walk in meditation. Many of the fruits and trees, native to their Palestine, will greet the rulers when they arrive. In the two car garage next door stands a new, yellow 16 cylinder coupe which will be turned over to the rulers along with all the personal property on the place. 'Everything will be theirs, the house, the land, the furnishings and even the clothes if they need them,' Judge Rutherford said. 'What will I do? Oh, don't worry about me. I'll manage somehow.' the judge smiled. He had another 'Watch Tower' residence on Staten Island and practically an entire floor at Bethel. The seven famous men will not have long to rest at their San Diego estate because they soon will lead the forces of the Lord to vanquish the minions of Satan at the battle of Armageddon, Rutherford believed. 'But they will win out. The Lord will punish the devil and will show that the preachers and the politicians have been giving the people false counsel,' Rutherford said confidently. Rutherford will sail May 9 for Europe where he will speak before conventions in Berlin, Paris and London."

I know you are, but I think you are wrong for concluding that doing so suffices to defeat my argument. To the point:

“I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable [a priori].” — David Hume

Since I can conceive of a being that I can't conceive of as non-existent, Hume’s argument fails as a defeater. That you or Humeans can’t conceive of such a being, or adhere to a philosophical schema that prevents you from doing so, likewise fails as a defeater, and is wholly irrelevant to whether my argument works for me.


Like I said, that was the short answer.

Dr. William Lane Craig has always said he is willing to follow wherever the evidence leads him. He says this in many of his debates. He certainly is not intellectually dishonest.

B-b-b-b-b-bollocks.

Have you read Craig?

Here are a number of quotes from the first chapter of Reasonable Faith:

Here he states that a theists belief in God in NOT caused by argument or evidence but primarily through someone akin to revelation. Now that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks evidence is irrelevant, but wait! there's more!

Well that doesn't sound too good, but maybe we're misunderstanding Craig. Let's see how he continues..

And there's more!

And the smoking gun of intellectual dishonesty..

Dishonesty?

Craig's made the most honest of statements.

Are you going to believe God who lays out everything truthfully in the bible though you may need research into it or are you going to believe the devil who tries to run this world? Most people know the world isn't a fair place.

So why doesn't God make it fair immediately?

Well maybe because God's fair and allows everyone a certain amount of time for repentance. Even the devil.

If the devil isn't given enough time to repent can we then say God is fair?

In the meantime why aren't you learning to overcome the devil?

It's dishonest to say in public debates that he is open to changing his belief in God based on evidence and reason and then spend a whole chapter in his book explaining that nothing can ever change his mind because of the voices in his head.

What are his exact words?

And you're dishonest when you put words in someone else's mouth. Have you heard him say he heard a voice in his head or did you say that to paint a distorted picture of him?

If you've deliberately distorted WLC it says more about you than him.

Feel free to replace voice in his head with the holy spirit telling him so (same thing IMO, but you might disagree).

A feeling of deep conviction is what a lot of people report.

The number of people feeling convicted is most likely a good bit higher than the people reporting hearing voices.

How many Christians in your life have you met that said they heard from God vocally? I bet not many. There are some but they're the exception not the rule.

That's fine, but he's still saying there's a supernatural force telling him the answers rather than relying on the preponderance of evidence. This, of course, is dishonest because (as zumby pointed out) Williams Lane Craig says he's open to changing his mind based on the evidence....which is an out and out lie.

Feel free to replace "voices in his head" with "feeling of deep conviction", the meaning of my statement remains completely unchanged.

Saying that I'm misrepresenting WLC is pretty stupid given that I've quoted that chapter with plenty of context. It's not like I've posted 3 or 4 disparate sentences from years of writings.. it's all from one chapter of one of his books and most of them directly follow each other within that chapter.

My knowledge of Christianity’s truth, while supported by strong arguments, is not ultimately based on those arguments but on the witness of God Himself. If, therefore, I find myself confronted with a well-prepared and articulate Mormon who blows away my arguments and presents a case for Mormonism that I can’t answer, I should not apostatize, since I have the witness of the Holy Spirit to Christianity’s truth and so realize that although I’ve lost the argument, Christianity is nonetheless the truth - WLC



WLC and his peers have never made any attempt to hide their position that counter-evidence would take second place to their faith, so no-one should be getting upset about it being brought up.

The most interesting thing to take away from all this is that the arguments that apologists provide for believing in God are rarely, if ever, the same reason they themselves believe in God, an astounding piece of info!!!

if god wanted humans to know he existed he would tell us.