I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

---

I appears that you can read.  Perhaps you can understand what you read?
I don't care what you did or did not do during your long and surely illustrious career on the Internet.
You can read and abide by the rules here or your participation can be limited by staff.

Are you staff...or are you just some big mouth giving me a bunch of shit because you cannot reasonably challenge my take on the issue of whether or not there are any gods?

At no point did I attempt to limit anyone. Since you seem to want to present yourself as an authority on people who can or cannot read and understand...why are you unable to understand that I have not attempted to limit ANYONE?

[arewethereyet]

I appears that you can read.  Perhaps you can understand what you read?
I don't care what you did or did not do during your long and surely illustrious career on the Internet.
You can read and abide by the rules here or your participation can be limited by staff.

Are you staff...or are you just some big mouth giving me a bunch of shit because you cannot reasonably challenge my take on the issue of whether or not there are any gods?

At no point did I attempt to limit anyone. Since you seem to want to present yourself as an authority on people who can or cannot read and understand...why are you unable to understand that I have not attempted to limit ANYONE?

I am staff.  And I did read what you said.  Read our forum rules.

[Frank Apisa]

If you can present a coherent argument for how one can know that no gods exist, please do so. If not, I am going to stick with, "It cannot be done."

In any case, I have found out what I wanted to find out with this thread. There are posters here who assert, "There are no gods"...there are posters here who assert, "I KNOW there are no gods"...and there are posters who assert, "It is impossible for gods to exist."

Great.

Since I now have that information...I will probably move on to another thread soon. 

---

I do not "think" there is no way of knowing that there are no gods...I KNOW there is no way of knowing it.

-and if someone expressed incredulity at this statement, stating that you couldn't possibly know that....?  You'd have questions, wouldn't you?  That's where we're at, I believe.  There are atheists and theists and agnostics alike who all contend that the existence of these things is at least in principle a knowable quantity.  You can hear them explain why they know something, or make a claim to that knowledge, and at leat understand why they'd insist as much even if you don;t agree with them on the specific contents of that set.  A born again christian might say that god's existence is knowable in a revelatory experience.  An atheist might suggest that they got that experience wrong - but this..too, is a claim about an allegedly knowable thing.

Okay, I sorta agree, in part. Anyone who says "It is impossible to know if any gods exist" is way over the line. There is no way for anyone to KNOW that it is impossible to know if any gods exist. If any exist, it is at least possible it has a way of verifying its existence.

BUT...and this is a huge BUT...I can say without equivocation that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.
Think about it. How can one possibly verify that there are NO GODS.?

I notice that there are no theistic creator gods in the world, the thing you're asking about..ostensibly.  It's a pretty routine process.  I state that I know my name in the same way and for the same reasons.  To me, the idea that we can't know whether or not there's a personal and intervening god which created the world is as absurd as the claim that I couldn't know my own name.  Which is why I ask people who believe as much to explain it, rather than assert it.

Case in point, I asked you -why- you couldn't know whether gods existed, and you merely reasserted the initial claim.  Do you know why...is there any reason at all, or is it just something you've heard said, or some bit of knowledge you don't possess, or some unspoken limit of your own epistemology?  Sort of has to start there.  There must be some place where you and I diverge so that each of us, genuinely apprehending the same world in a rational and coherent way, reach wildly disparate conclusions.

[Angrboda]

Saying that I don't know something would be agnosticism.  Claiming that it's impossible to know something is an entirely different assertion.  Personally, I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole, but I am interested in how a claim focusing on the individual ends up being insisted as comment on the world at large.

If I ask somebody what the proper weight for some bird is, they might say they don't know.  They have a vague idea or general opinions, but they'd have to get back to me on that, or I'd have to ask someone else, or look somewhere else, if I was looking for a fact.  Maybe two reasonable and well informed people disagree over that fact, even.  Here is our bird weight agnostic and our dueling bird weight gnostics.

A person who says, instead, that no one can know the proper weight for some bird...is making a different claim than any of those three people.

TLDR version...I'm not so sure we can blame the agnostics for ruining reality.  

Okay, I sorta agree, in part. Anyone who says "It is impossible to know if any gods exist" is way over the line. There is no way for anyone to KNOW that it is impossible to know if any gods exist. If any exist, it is at least possible it has a way of verifying its existence.

BUT...and this is a huge BUT...I can say without equivocation that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.
Think about it. How can one possibly verify that there are NO GODS.?

Not knowing how one can know that there are no possible gods is not the same as knowing that it is not possible to know that there are no gods.  The former seems to be an argument from ignorance, and is invalid.  If this is how you know that it is not possible to know that there are no gods, then you do not know.  How do you know that I cannot know that there are no gods?

Let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's say that I tell you that I have an ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods.  Obviously, you don't know what my argument is.  Equally as obvious is that you're claiming that I cannot have an ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods.  So the question becomes, how exactly can you know that I have no ironclad deductive argument against the existence of gods when you don't know what I know?

I am saying that you CANNOT have an ironclad deductive argument that NO GODS EXIST.

You have a huge advantage over me here. You can show that I am full of Shinola by presenting such an argument.

So...have a go at it.

I don't need to present any argument to show that you are full of shinola. All I need to do is point out that you have presented no argument or justification for your belief that you know that it is impossible to know that there are no gods. Asking me to show that you are wrong is an invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof for your claim onto me. You made the claim, you have the burden of demonstrating the truth of your claim. So far all you've done is assert a claim. Now you need to show that you're not simply making vapid claims by trotting out your proof that I have no such argument. I'm under no obligation to do anything. You, on the other hand, are.

Present your argument or proof or have your claim summarily dismissed. That's how it works.

You're welcome to be skeptical of me. You're not welcome to claim I cannot have such an argument without justification. So what is your justification?

(And while you're at it, learn how to quote correctly. It's not that hard.)

[Frank Apisa]

I am saying that you CANNOT have an ironclad deductive argument that NO GODS EXIST.

You have a huge advantage over me here. You can show that I am full of Shinola by presenting such an argument.

So...have a go at it.

I don't need to present any argument to show that you are full of shinola.  All I need to do is point out that you have presented no argument or justification for your belief that you know that it is impossible to know that there are no gods.  Asking me to show that you are wrong is an invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof for your claim onto me.  You made the claim, you have the burden of demonstrating the truth of your claim.  So far all you've done is assert a claim.  Now you need to show that you're not simply making vapid claims by trotting out your proof that I have no such argument.  I'm under no obligation to do anything.  You, on the other hand, are.

Present your argument or proof or have your claim summarily dismissed.  That's how it works.  

You're welcome to be skeptical of me.  You're not welcome to claim I cannot have such an argument without justification.  So what is your justification?

(And while you're at it, learn how to quote correctly.  It's not that hard.)


LAST PART FIRST:  I have posted in dozens of Internet fora...and this is the most complex quoting system I've encountered. I acknowledge that I am far from a tech savvy person, so it may just be me missing something easy. In any case, I just cannot figure out how to quote reasonably here, and it is frustrating the crap out of me.  If there is a tutorial on it, I would appreciate being referred to it so I can do a better job of answering. Until I do learn, I hope the other members can put up with my failings.

As for the "I KNOW you cannot validate an assertion of 'There are no gods'"...I'll save you the trouble of dismissing the claim. I withdraw it...and acknowledge that I was wrong to make it. You are correct that the burden falls on me...not you as a refuter. I was wrong...you and the others who mentioned this are correct.
My bad. I apologize.

It IS my opinion that the assertion "There are no gods" cannot be logically or scientifically validated. It is strictly an opinion. The basis of the opinion is that in the decades of debate (on line and in other media) I have never seen an argument that validates the assertion in any real way. 

If anyone here can do it...please do. I would be delighted to see it happen.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I appears that you can read.  Perhaps you can understand what you read?
I don't care what you did or did not do during your long and surely illustrious career on the Internet.
You can read and abide by the rules here or your participation can be limited by staff.

Are you staff...or are you just some big mouth giving me a bunch of shit because you cannot reasonably challenge my take on the issue of whether or not there are any gods?

At no point did I attempt to limit anyone. Since you seem to want to present yourself as an authority on people who can or cannot read and understand...why are you unable to understand that I have not attempted to limit ANYONE?

Those whose user names are in green or red are Staff - green for moderators, red for administrators. We’re considering another colour specific to arewethereyet to indicate the somewhat special position she occupies here.

I’m voting for ‘Pit Bull Pink’.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

Hit reply at the end of a post you want to reply to.  That post will show up and you post your response under the line.

[LadyForCamus]

@Frank Apisa

Can we cut to the chase? What do you believe and why?

[Frank Apisa]

Are you staff...or are you just some big mouth giving me a bunch of shit because you cannot reasonably challenge my take on the issue of whether or not there are any gods?

At no point did I attempt to limit anyone. Since you seem to want to present yourself as an authority on people who can or cannot read and understand...why are you unable to understand that I have not attempted to limit ANYONE?

I am staff.  And I did read what you said.  Read our forum rules.

Thank you for informing me that you are staff.'

I HAVE READ THE RULES...and I contend that I have NOT broken the rule you are suggesting I have. I have NOT limited anyone...and welcome the comments of everyone. But some people indicated that they were not interested in what I have to say...and I was just letting them know that they are welcome to ignore me completely.

Now...can we move on? Or do I have to be disciplined?

[The Grand Nudger]

I notice that there are no theistic world creators in our world. I notice that the stories are literary vehicles for cultural narratives, normative and expository..and at least a little bit, pure fun and mastery of craft. What's the problem?

You're asking me whether tinker bell exists and expressing incredulity when I say no as a matter of fact?