I Know That God Does Not Exist

So, you're not differentiating between a God and peoples propositions about a God. That is, you're only testing people's propositions and not actually testing a God. But you've defined knowing as finding and analyzing data. If you're only analzying peoples' propositions about a God then you're only knowing that their propositions are wrong. The one that would be there if it was real. You would still have the erroneous propositions that you've discarded all the while never actually determining anything about the God. Well I was thinking along the lines of sufficiently advanced aliens that helped primitive man become civilized and then became deified. There could be a purely natural "god" that the propositions stem from that you'd be unduly rejecting, imho. But your data is limited to peoples' propositions. I'm not following this. It sounds like your saying that an alternative is irrational, therefore your claim is rational. But that doesn't seem logical to me.

It's always better to "know" things based on positive evidence rather than lack of evidence. I do have a problem with that actually. I think the likelihood of the Loch Ness monster existing is much higher than the likelihood of fairies or gods existing - simply because there are no unnatural attributes required.Edited by ringo, : Xpelling.

I think that's closer to it

But also, many religious believers claim to believe through personal revelation. They say that they have a personal relationship with their god and it's real, not imagined. They say that they just KNOW it to be true and that IS evidence.I explain that as delusional and/or wishful thinking, but they claim that because they know it to be true, that is evidence enough.I imagine that Jar's belief (above) falls into the "I just know" category.

I think that irrational ideas have a very important place in life. Even a small place in the expansion of knowledge (it has the possibility to lead curiosity into areas where rationality may not venture). I just don't think they have a place in saying whether or not we "know" things. I tend to assume that when someone brings up knowing something that they are talking as rationally as possible.

True. However, Stile has investigated and found no evidence where such evidence would be expected to be. That is in fact some positive evidence.How else would you suggest we come to conclusions about the existence or nonexistence about beings that in fact do not exist? Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?Edited by subbie, : TyopEdited by subbie, : Doh!

I am testing all propositions.
If we cannot even propose that God exists, then doesn't that make the statement "I know that God does not exist" even stronger? Do you know another way of knowing things? How else can we know something unless we find and analyze data about it? Feel free to attack my position at the base with the definition of "knowing"... that's why I included the definition in my post. Not as an assumption that we have to accept, but as something that should be tested if you have a better idea.If there is nothing about God that can be tested or verified, we cannot even propose that He exists. We're just making things up. Why should making things up have the ability to cause doubt on things we know from the data we actually have collected? Is this similar to imagining the one piece of evidence that would destroy evolution if that piece of evidence was real?I mean that seriously: Talking about God
We can imagine the possibility of a God-yet-to-be-detected, but there is no data indicating that such a possibility might exist.
Should this thought really have any rational impact on the saying "I know God does not exist" which is based on the body of knowledge we have collected about Gods and human minds and imagination throughout history? Talking about Evolution
We can imagine the possibility of "a piece of evidence that would destroy evolution"-yet-to-be-detected, but there is no data indicating that such a possibility might exist.
Should this thought really have any rational impact on the saying "I know that a 'piece of evidence that would destroy evolution' does not exist" which is based on the body of knowledge we have collected about Gods and human minds and imagination throughout history?Just because we can phrase a what-if scenario, do you really think it should bear any weght against the things we actually do know?Again, with both sayings, I agree that they may not be absolutely-true... but such absolute truth may not be possible for us to ever discover, and such a caveat already exists within everything we ever say that we "know." Everything we know is always "based on the data we have" such that future data may very well focus us in other directions. However, we do not allow such as-yet-undiscovered-future-data to effect the things we do know based on the data we do have. If we did, we would never learn anything else ever again. Because we would have to also lend credence to the possiblity that "the next piece of data we learn will kill us all" and other such nonsense and irrationality. I tried to provide an example in Message 28. Maybe that will help?

Well with all due respect I don't believe you.I think you and most other theists have a pretty consistent albeit vague idea of what they believe in.It's something along the lines of a conscious intelligent being who is inherently unable to be investigated or understood by any material means and whose intellect and abilities are so super-human as to be effectively incomprehensible to us necessarily limited mere mortals. This being is generally deemed to be the creator of the universe (and anything else which might exist).Sure - The details will fluctuate. But that's the core idea. That's the sort of thing we are talking about here.Am I wrong?

Yes, people can say a lot of things. That's why I provided a definition of "knowing" in the beginning.
I'm open to that definition being challenged, of course. But not simply by saying it's wrong for no reason. I just explain it as them not understanding what "knowing" means, or should mean. A simple semantic confusion that has led them down a path into larger confusion.If we use my definition of knowing, then it is obvious that these people are simply wrong. They don't know, and it isn't evidence.
If we use their definition of "knowing" (because it feels right... because it happened to me... because I don't think I was under a delusion... because I've heard of similar things... etc) we would be forced to include a whole whack of other things that would then also be "known" that wouldn't make any sense (like the idea that the world is flat - some people feel that is true; and also round at the same time - other people feel that is true). I don't think jar would say he "knows" his beliefs are true. In fact, I think he may have specifically stated otherwise?
I really don't have a problem with beliefs when they are understood to be beliefs and not "things we know."

Not only that, but many vast collections of multiple beliefs that are all mutually contradictory.

This is what I was thinking about when I started this thread. It most certainly is, as I'm finding out rather quickly. I'm having a go at expanding my reasoning in order to incorporate this. I'm not sure if it's doing well or not. Seems to hinge on the definition of what 'knowing something' is. Which makes me think the argument is weak. However, the definition of 'knowing something' could be a very important definition.
Without that, how do I know if I know anything at all?
This makes me feel that having a good, strict definition of 'knowing something' is very important and that makes me feel like the argument is actually kinda strong. If you value having a good base for such things, anyway.
Perhaps the argument doesn't hinge on the definition of 'knowing something' and it hinges more on the priority of rationality and epistemology in your life. Maybe a high priority of those things would simply require a strict definition of 'knowing something'...We'll see how it goes. It's fun either way

I've used a similar line before, though I make it a conditional, something like:If I can say I know there is no Santa Claus
If I can say I know there are no fairies
If I can say I know there are no secret CIA bases on the moon controlling our thoughts
Then I say I know there is no God.

All that stuff is an absence of evidence, though - the absence of evidence that elephants are obstructing your view of the room, absence of evidence that the floor is not intact, absence of evidence that the room smells like elephant shit, and so on.

I guess if you want to try to turn it into an absense of evidence then you can look at it that way. But its positive evidence nonetheless.The room smelling like the apple candle is what: absence of evidence of it smelling like elephant shit, absence of evidence of it smelling like cheese, absence of evidence of it smelling like gasoline, absence of evidence of it smelling like... whatever else you care to throw in there.But, it is the presence of evidence of it smelling like apples too.Is the rate of acceleration due to gravity 9.8 m/s/s because of the lack of evidence of it being 9.7, or 9.9, or any other number? Or is it because we have evidence that it is, in fact, 9.8?

That could be because his expectations are unrealistic. If he expects to find an elephant in his living room and doesn't, it may be premature to conclude that elephants don't exist. He may need to broaden his scope. Yes.I think we should maintain a healthy state of agnosticism about things that do exist too.