Warbler said:

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?

Look closely. I put the verb "believe" in italics.

As Frink said, belief and knowledge are two different things. I don't believe there is no God, but then again I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun. I know the Earth goes around the sun.

But if you know the Earth goes around the sun, you must also believe it goes around the sun.

No, I don't. I know it. Period. One excludes the other.

So you are saying that you know God doesn't exist. That seems like a rather arrogant thing to say.

So what?

Ok, picture this: in your system of beliefs, I am wrong. Now, just assume, for the sake of argument, that I was right. Would I be arrogant then? Or would I be just right? Please define arrogant for me, maybe I don't fully understand what the word means.

Leonardo said:

In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God.

I wouldn't call that 'knowing God doesn't exist', I'd call that 'assuming God doesn't exist'.

Again, I don't assume anything. As I said earlier "a theist's view of the universe puts metaphysics first, as a given, and then everything else should follow". That's what you do.
You are certain that a metaphysic reality exists. That's your postulate.

I, on the other hand, exclude that anything that doesn't belong in the physical world can possibly exist. Everything is physical. Nothing is metaphysical. That's my postulate.