"How do I know God exists?" - the first step to atheism

[Doubting Thomas]

The problem is that most theists will tell themselves, "Do I know God exists? He must, I've prayed to him all my life."

[Tiberius]

In that case you can easily demonstrate how that simply doesn't meet the definition of knowledge.

[Cosmic Ape]

1) There is no "knowledge of god"

2) I'm the one saying that there are other god-tales out there and that his question of "do i know god exists" means he hasnt explained which god, presuming upon his god-tale.

1) Debatable. Some people claim knowledge of God, how do you know there isn't? I'd be wary of making an absolute truth claim such as "there is no knowledge of god". I'm an agnostic, I hold that knowledge of God is unknown or unknowable (to me at least).

2) Yes, but generally speaking when a specific god is not mentioned the word applies to the concept of a deity.

1) Irrelevant, there still isnt any proven knowledge of it.

2) Which one? That's my point.

[Doubting Thomas]

In that case you can easily demonstrate how that simply doesn't meet the definition of knowledge.

Are you kidding? Do you think they want to admit to themselves that they've just been talking to themselves all these years and don't really have a close, personal relationship with Jesus?

[Mister Agenda]

I find wondering how someone knows what they say they know cuts a lot of claims off at the knees immediately.

[Welsh cake]

I think people question "How do I know God exists?" before they question "Do I know God exists?".

They often ask themselves "Do I know God exists?" before the necessary question "What is a God?" as well.

Theists will never find verifiable evidence of what they haven't bothered to define first. Once they seriously consider that, they become an igtheist... or go into self-denial.

[houseofcantor]

It's rather sad. I don't think Atheists are evil or less good people because of this. But they miss out on awesome knowledge that is the foundation of the soul's existence and have to life a life in fear of death, with little hope of everlasting life.

Not at all. I remember standing before the creator of the universe and accepting the title of prophet, do you? Don't mean a fuck to these cats, but I talk about being a prophet on the street, I get heard; I'm level seven plus atheist.

Doesn't have anything to do about "god," and everything to do with identity God. We don't need it. I don't need you to worship Gwyneth Paltrow; if you need me to worship Jesus Christ, yer god is seriously not omni.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

you either believe in god or not a god, those are the only choices

YES.In terms of belief about anything,there are two and only two choices; yes or no.


In terms claims of knowledge,there are three choices; yes,no and "I don't know",which is the agnostic position.IE I have no knowledge of X or it is not possible to have knowledge of X. Hence I call myself an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god(s) due to lack of credible evidence. (a-theist) I do not claim to know there is no god,conceding the possibility (if not the likelihood) of error.(a-gnosis)

[Tiberius]

1) Irrelevant, there still isnt any proven knowledge of it.

Depending on your definition of knowledge, the adjective "proven" serves no purpose. Plato defined knowledge as true, justified. belief. Agnostics hold that there as subjective beings, there is no way to determine whether something is objectively true, and as such, all knowledge of this kind is inconclusive. The problem with saying "there still isn't any proven knowledge of it" is that you, as a subjective being, have no insight into the minds of others. What if they did have some kind of proven knowledge? You can't know if they do, since all you "know" is what is in your own mind (and what you mind interprets from reality).

2) Which one? That's my point.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "general". Like I said before, if there isn't a specific God being mentioned, you should default to the non-specific concept of a God, i.e. some form of supernatural deity who created / controls the universe.

Are you kidding? Do you think they want to admit to themselves that they've just been talking to themselves all these years and don't really have a close, personal relationship with Jesus?

Their inability to admit to themselves that they're wrong doesn't invalidate your demonstration of how they are wrong.

[Cosmic Ape]

Depending on your definition of knowledge, the adjective "proven" serves no purpose. Plato defined knowledge as true, justified. belief. Agnostics hold that there as subjective beings, there is no way to determine whether something is objectively true, and as such, all knowledge of this kind is inconclusive. The problem with saying "there still isn't any proven knowledge of it" is that you, as a subjective being, have no insight into the minds of others. What if they did have some kind of proven knowledge? You can't know if they do, since all you "know" is what is in

You're jumping around, do you or do you not think there is knowledge of a god? Seems pointless that you even quoted me in the first place, there's literally nothing we're arguing about.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "general". Like I said before, if there isn't a specific God being mentioned, you should default to the non-specific concept of a God, i.e. some form of supernatural deity who created / controls the universe.

I didn't bring up the god-tale, it's not my job to do that, it's the claimers. This is ridiculous, you started quoting me for no reason, how could any Atheist have a problem with my original post if they dont disagree, seems you're being more anal about how I said it than anything I'm actually saying. Maybe I stated it wrongly in my analogy but I was talking about how theists tell us we deny god by using the "Not God" Answer instead of acknowledging that we dont believe it so we cant deny anything.