Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Is English your first language, read my original post again hard ass.

I already read it and responded to it. Didn't you notice?

EDIT: Just re-read it at your suggestion. Don't have anything else to add other than what I have already said.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Are you hard of reading? I am not claiming I can prove that god(s) do not exist. I am claiming that I know that God (as in a traditional conception of, roughly or to first order, a personal creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not exist.

All you can ever claim to know is that Sunnydids concept of god is not proven and that the claims that are made for that god are patently false, anything else is an over estimation of your abilities.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
All you can ever claim to know is that Sunnydids concept of god is not proven and that the claims that are made for that god are patently false, anything else is an over estimation of your abilities.

I can claim to know that sumydid's concept of god is, in fact, not instantiated. Whether or not that claim is justified of course depends on the evidence on which it is based.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I already read it and responded to it. Didn't you notice?

EDIT: Just re-read it at your suggestion. Don't have anything else to add other than what I have already said.

I think you responded to what you think I posted, strangely inept comprehension skills for somebody who claims to have proven that god does not exist.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think you responded to what you think I posted, strangely inept comprehension skills for somebody who claims to have proven that god does not exist.

Since I have already explicitly stated to you that I am not claiming "to have proven that god does not exist", you're the one whose comprehension skills leave something to be desired.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Since I have already explicitly stated to you that I am not claiming "to have proven that god does not exist", you're the one whose comprehension skills leave something to be desired.

So you have not Proven it, even to yourself, but you are claiming it as Knowledge, well I give up, maybe my comprehension skills missed that meeting.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So you have not Proven it, even to yourself, but you are claiming it as Knowledge, well I give up, maybe my comprehension skills missed that meeting.

Yeah, either that or we're talking past each other as to what the words 'proof' or 'prove' imply. You're the one who keeps importing them into the discussion, despite my protest. So, what do you expect?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, either that or we're talking past each other as to what the words 'proof' or 'prove' imply. You're the one who keeps importing them into the discussion, despite my protest. So, what do you expect?

I think proof and proven are simple enough, for me, I accept empirical evidence, it is perhaps the concept of knowledge and what constitutes it is where the subjective fuzziness comes in.

As I tried to say in my earlier post I have been exposed to enough
Empirical evidence to the contrary of Sunnydids god construct that I 'know' that construct is false.

It is the existence or non existence of god or gods for which as yet no construct has been advanced, that I would not claim any knowledge about either way.

We may well be talking at cross purposes.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Geez, I think you know what I meant.

Yes I knew what you meant and thought I made it clear that I was not disputing it, but was pointing out that one can get pedantic about words and thus claims of knowledge must be taken to be as the speaker intends them to mean and should not be taken as a claim about all possible meanings for the words. Specifically I am saying that when I make the claim that I know God does not exist, it is I that gets to state what I mean by 'God' in that claim and someone who says 'but God might be an entity on Jupiter who doesn't interfere with the affairs of mankind' is talking about a completely different concept that was not included in my knowledge claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I knew what you meant and thought I made it clear that I was not disputing it, but was pointing out that one can get pedantic about words and thus claims of knowledge must be taken to be as the speaker intends them to mean and should not be taken as a claim about all possible meanings for the words. Specifically I am saying that when I make the claim ...[text shortened]... s talking about a completely different concept that was not included in my knowledge claim.

That is fair enough but you must expect a challenge unless or until you clarify that it is the non existence of a specific god that you are referring to, or in other words the speaker should make his/her intentions clear.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I knew what you meant and thought I made it clear that I was not disputing it, but was pointing out that one can get pedantic about words and thus claims of knowledge must be taken to be as the speaker intends them to mean and should not be taken as a claim about all possible meanings for the words. Specifically I am saying that when I make the claim s talking about a completely different concept that was not included in my knowledge claim.

Sure, many people's gods do not exist except in their minds. There is only one God that really exists and that should be self-evident. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by kevcvs57
That is fair enough but you must expect a challenge unless or until you clarify that it is the non existence of a specific god that you are referring to, or in other words the speaker should make his/her intentions clear.

Agreed. Normally when such claims are made, clarification is called for. Instead what typical happens is word games:
Atheist: I do not believe God exists. (implying Christian God)
Theist: But that doesn't rule out any god (implying any possible god he can think of)
Theist: Therefore you cannot criticize any of my beliefs as you admit they may be true!

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Well, item (1) in your definition of "know" kind of precludes that, doesn't it?

Yes, but I thought this was what you were challenging in your first post.[/b]

I agree that (1) must be part of any general definition of what it means to "know" something, but if P stood for "God does not exist" then my position was and is that we have not satisfied (1) sufficiently, by which I mean that we have not satisfied (1) with mathematical certainty or even with the certainty of a theory in the sciences. However, if P stands for "The God of the Bible's Old Testament does not exist" then I may have to concede (happily) that we indeed have (1) clinched. Before making such a concession I'll need to familiarize myself with item (4) in the definition of "know" that you (and presumably Bbar) are using.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So if you believe not-P on the basis of evidence that you think renders the truth of P less than 1% probable, you would not claim that you know not-P?

I'd have to say yes to your question for big-ticket items like God or the Higg's boson. For smaller fry like the outcome of a presidential election or other political issues, I'd have to say no. My reasoning stems from the notion of expected value in statistics, where I weigh the seriousness of the consequences of being wrong if the thing I say I "know" turns out to be not so.

Originally posted by LemonJello
But, yes I can entirely dismiss Sumydid's charge. His charge, basically, is that one cannot claim to know that God does not exist if one cannot completely rule out all possibilities that God does exist.

But, yes I can entirely dismiss Sumydid's charge.

Of course you can. But that doesn't mean you are correct in doing so.

His charge, basically, is that one cannot claim to know that God does not exist if one cannot completely rule out all possibilities that God does exist.

Ignorance--or strawman--pick one. I never laid out that charge. Here is my charge, and it's not really a charge, it's just a stated fact. You don't "know" God doesn't exist, because your only empirical evidence of His non-existence is your own personal experience. And that's your strongest case. Because any argument using the bible as come kind of self-defeating, contradictory text is all you have left and it is extremely weak (which we can discuss later). Logic agrees with me here: You can't say you have evidence that something doesn't exist, just because you personally haven't witnessed it. You can talk probability and likelihood all you want, but that falls infinitely short of proving your claim. The best thing to lay claim to, which I've already offered up to you and bbarr is: You are utterly convinced that God does not exist and you have gathered a lot of data to support your conclusion.

That's not an embarassing thing to say, is it? Why must you insist on claiming to "know" God doesn't exist? In fact, the best argument against your claim to "know" God doesn't exist is for me to simply say, "Ok. Well you're wrong, because I likewise know God does exist." And though tempted to do so, I reject that retort because 2 false statements don't fix the issue. 2 wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

Good day.