I Know That God Does Not Exist

I think I took your meaning to be something different as I went through that line of reasoning before.
I thought you meant defining God as the sun (the inanimate object).
But perhaps you meant defining God as the sun but also having some living-like properties such as caring about humans and having some sort of relationship with them? Those that worshipped the sun did extend those sorts of properties onto "the God" they worshipped.As for that definition, then my statement does still stand. I know that "the sun as an entity that cares about humans and has some sort of relationship with them" does not exist. The sun as an inanimate object certainly exists... but inanimate objects do not have those properties and therefore that definition of God does not exist. True.
When I started the thread, I was simply thinking of the popular idea held by our current society... That God is a rational concept of some entity that sits back and governs good things and helps out people who pray to Him and used to do grand miracles but hasn't felt like it since we started to monitor such things.But now I think it will hold for any and all conceivable definitions of God that do not include God being an inanimate object and do include God being at least "something more" than humans and relates somewhat to the popular idea held by our current society. And the proposal, of course, must be rational as well.

Inanimate object clause
I don't think anyone has ever proposed God as being an inanimate object anyway... but we'll keep this clause in just to be clear.
If God were to be defined as an inanimate object such as the sun or a chair or a carbon rod... then I think that the person proposing this definition of God is being extremely disengenuous about what the word "God" means within our culture. I am willing to listen to anyone who would like to claim that an inanimate object should be considered to be "God"... but I'm guessing there will not be any takers.
In the case that this does happen, as I explained before I would be forced to concede that my statement is false.

​

More than human clause
As for God being something more than humans and relating to the popular idea currently held... if God is not such a thing... I think it is then honestly up to the individual asking to define what it is they mean when they use the word "God." I think I've attempted to make my definition of "God" as broad as possible, but I'm open to new ideas. Afterall, if "God" isn't what everyone uses the term as... how am I supposed to rationally frame a statement about it?

​

Rational clause
This is simply obvious. The statement is a rational conclusion about the existance of God based upon the data we have and the rational analysis. How can we possibly make a rational conclusion about something if the thing in question isn't rational in the first place? If we are admitting that the defintion of "God" is irrational in the first place, then there is no reason to say whether or not we know He exists because we all know that irrational ideas don't deserve any rational consideration in the first place.
It should be noted that if we're going to define "God" as something like "that which cannot be defined" or "whatever God is if God actually exists" that these are irrational concepts and do not deserve any rational consideration.
And, really, I do not understand an argument of the form "You can't say that because you are not considering the irrational!!!" ...um, really?

​

Edited by Stile, : Spelt argument wrong again, and it is beginning to irritate me. Art students can spell argument correctly. I am as smart as art students, damnit!!

If you have a better idea for understanding "how we know things" than the one I have proposed, I would be interested in hearing about it. This isn't what I'm doing, although I understand how you may have jumped to that conclusion.I do not think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God is impossible.However, I do think the following:All rational concepts of God known to us have been tested and found to be false.
It is impossible to test an irrational concept.
It is impossible to test a concept that is as-yet-undiscovered.Therefore, we have investigated the idea to the best of our abilities.
Therefore, we can rationally conclude that "I know God does not exist."I will repeat the addition of tentativity in "how we know things" again:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.
Message 1

---

Again, I do not think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God is impossible. I just think that an as-yet-undiscovered-God in some undefinable as-yet-undiscovered area of existance is an irrational idea. If you do not think so, I would ask for you to show me how any current data we do have is rationally indicating that God may exist in a certain place.With that in mind, I think that it is an error to think that an irrational idea should have an effect on a rational conclusion from the data we do have.Following through with that (and remembering the tentativity I quoted above), we come to the rational conclusion of:I know that God does not exist.Edited by Stile, : Too many "rational"-s. Changed "rational data" to simply "data." Data isn't rational or irrational, it's just the facts.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm going to try and parse what you've said so that I can understand it... but I might be wrong. I think you're saying that science makes predictions of things we may not fully understand yet by analysing and understanding the things we do have and understand?If so, I agree. And I would say that this is the same method I'm attempting to describe here. I'm having a tough time with this one. What are the "observation statments?" What are the "unobservables which happen to be exceptions to the rules of nature?"
Are you trying to say that in restricting my method to the rational, that I've excluded God from the get-go because God is necessarily irrational? That is, that God is necessarily an exception to the rules of nature? Therefore, I need to accept irrational ideas (your suggestions about using philosophical statements...) in order to "correctly" ponder this question?When you say "rules of nature" are you trying to say something equivalent to "the things we rationally understand" such as Einsteins laws and our theories of how the world works? If not... do you know of any "rules of nature" that are not things that we rationally understand? If so... then if you are saying God is an exception to the rules of nature... you are defining God to be something that we "do not understand." In which case, again, God is something irrational.My point is that if we define God to be an irrational idea, that is the only part that actually "doesn't necessarily work." This is not a fault in my method, but a fault in those that choose to define God in this way.To borrow an example from Catholic Scientist, I think that ancient people were actually being somewhat rational when they worshipped the sun as a God. After all, the sun brings warmth, warmth brings the season of Spring, Spring brings new life to almost all animals. If this is our data set, it is a rational conclusion to think that the sun is a God. Eventually we investigated the sun to expand our data set and were able to rationally determine that the sun is just another inanimate object. Therefore it does not do any of the other things we tend to attach to a definition of God. This doesn't rationally mean that God must be somewhere else. This rationally means that the sun is not God and we need to find another line of rational reasoning to point us to thinking that God may exist somewhere else. And we did. We thought God was in the moon, in the stars, in the night sky itself, doing this, doing that... and we have investigated all these rational ideas. We have also discovered that they are all inanimate objects, and that nothing at all actually "does this or does that" (prayer healing, helping good people.... etc.).What we are left with, is no more "rational ideas" for where God may exist. We do, however, have plenty of "irrational ideas" where God may exist. Maybe in another dimension, maybe "beyond our universe", maybe many other places we can put words in a certain order to describe. However, we still must accept that there are no more "rational ideas" that point us to think that God might actually be in a certain place. Like the sun. This is a significant point in the search for God.At this point, it is rational to say "I know that God does not exist."Maybe it might be possible that some new rational idea for where God may actually exist might enter our area of understanding. And if that point does occur, then it is no longer rational to say "I know that God does not exist." Because then we would need to expand our data set and investigate such an area before being able to rationally conclude so. However, until that day comes, it is irrational to think that "I know that God does not exist" is unacceptable. "But you're demanding for God to be rational! What if God just happens to be irrational?!!"1. Let us assume that God is irrational.
2. Therefore God exists.
3. It is irrational for something to exist and not exist at the same time.
4. Taking 1 and 3 together, we get that He is irrational and still doesn't exist!! Because that as well, is irrational, which we just assumed is an attribute of God.
5. Therefore, I can still say "I know that God does not exist" anyway.Irrational ideas do not have an effect on rational analysis and rational conclusions.
"I know that God does not exist" is a rational conclusion based on a rational analysis of the data we have.
It doesn't acknowledge the irrational because doing so leads to the absurd.If you're going to open the door to irrational ideas, then you have opened the door into the absurd. I've also attempted a different explanation of this in Message 52 that leads us to no longer be able to say that we know 2 + 2 = 4.Of course, maybe this wasn't what you were saying at all and this post of rambling is all for naught. If so, please try to explain what it is you're trying to say again and I will try to understand it again.

Yes. It is a significant problem (to me, anyway).
Your method avoids getting into this problem, which is very good to keep things succinct and get the point across.Part of the purpose of my method (and this thread) was to reveal this problem (or any others), to see if I could actually rationally defend them so I can tell if I actually understand the concept myself or not.
I do happen to know that you've been through a lot already in formulating your understanding of such things. I consider this thread part of my process for formulating (maybe just double-checking?) my own understanding.For a note of interest, I am becoming more and more confident that my summary at the bottom of Message 60 is pretty solid:

quote:

---

I thank you very much for your replies. I wasn't sure how my stance would stand up to this kind of scrutiny.
I think it does stand up, although it does hinge very much on a strict defintion of "how we know things" which comes from holding a personal priority on rationality and epistemology. (And honesty... but honesty is kind of assumed as a priority in any sort of academic thought experiment, I would think?)

​

I do agree that if those things are not a personal priority, then my position is not a requirement.
I also agree that if we do not remember the tentativity and non-absolute-truth-ideal that is included when "knowing things" then my statement is easily taken out of context and can seem like it's overstepping it's boundaries.

​

I just think that my statement does rationally flow from the definitions I've provided.
I also think that the definitions I've provided do match the general usage of "knowing things" that we use everyday.
And I think that those who deny that my statement is acceptable are simply equivocating on the term "know" so that it means some sort of absolute-truth-sense for this statement... but those same people do understand that the term "know" does not include that same absolute-truth-sense when they use it in every day language for other non-God ideas.

---

I might add that the equivocation on "knowing things" may or may not be consciously done. That's up to the individual to figure out and deal with on their own.I also may need to add something about the understanding of rationality when considering "knowing things" being another avenue for not accepting the statement...

But, there was rational indication that something was there... land/water leading to it that no one had been to yet. And the proceeding data set showed that when we investigated land/water we hadn't been to yet, we then discovered more geographical land/water locations.I am most certainly not suggesting that there are no more planets to be discovered. Are you claiming that God exists somewhere else in the universe?
What rationally makes you think God will exist somewhere else in the universe?When ancient people thought the sun was God... that was a rational avenue for investigation. The sun brought warmth, warmth brings the season of Spring, Spring brings new life for many plants/animals. Such a data set provides rational indication that God may exist as the sun. After investigation it turns out that the sun is just another inanimate object and they were wrong.The ancients were busy people, it was hard work hunting and killing your food all day just to live another few days and do it again. But maybe there was some ancients that had the time to sit around and think of stuff like us. Maybe if those ancients considered that God was not in the sticks or stones around them.. that God was not in inanimate objects... and the sun appears more like an inanimate object than it does anything else... if that was their data set, then they would be irrational to consider God as being the sun.We do not have this luxury. We do have the time to sit around and consider and discuss these things.
We also have the data set that shows that every inanimate object we find out there does not contain God. From this we know that God is not an inanimate object. Maybe we can find some more inanimate objects that we haven't yet discovered... but to think that those are going to contain God while considering what we know about inanimate objects... is irrational.We also have the data set that shows that every thing we have ever discovered... does not include any indication that God exists.
We also have the data set that shows when people suggest God exists somewhere, and we check... it turns out that God doesn't actually exist there. And they were wrong. Again. Many times.
"But maybe God exists in a way that we haven't discovered yet?!!"
-Yes, this is a question and a concern. But it is not a rational question and not a rational concern when considering our data set.
Therefore, it has no effect on the rational conclusion from our data set that "I know God does not exist." I don't think we can leave it at that. If you take a read through Message 52, I describe that if we're going to allow irrational ideas to affect our statements about what we know... then we most certainly cannot say that we know long division, or any of the rest of mathematics. Such a thing seems silly to me as well. But, this is not my idea.
I claim that we know something until we're proven wrong after we've also investigated all areas we're able to investigate and analyze our resulting data set.That's an important part on the end that you left off. That's the part that makes it rational.

I stumbled across something in my Message 72 to Ringo.Ringo said to me: To which I replied: That's what I've been trying to describe.The conclusion in your message states: And I agree... almost. I agree that this only rationally applies if we apply it within the data set we have available to us.
How else can we possibly ever know anything if it is not contained within or indicated to exist by the data set we have available to us?I agree that it is possible to conceive of things that are not in our data set that may (if they exist) overturn some of the things we "think we know" from within our data set.
But to take these conceivable ideas that may or may not even exist themselves... and say that they should have an effect on a rational conclusion that is based on our collective data set... that is what seems ridiculous to me.If there is nothing within our collective data set that doesn't even indicate that "something" may exist outside of our data set... I find it silly to consider that such a "something" should have the power to overturn rational statements of knowledge that do come from a rational analysis of the data we do have.Anyway, gotta go for the weekend. Likely won't reply to anything until next week.
You've certainly helped clear up some fogginess I've had in my own thoughts, if nothing else.
Thanks for your help.

Fair enough, but it doesn't change my question:What rationally makes you think God could exist somewhere else in the universe?If you don't have anything rational that indicates that God could even possibly exist somewhere else in the universe... then why do you think the option should be rationally considered when making a rational statement about our knowledge? How can I no longer use the word "know" on a repeatable basis? But... you can't. You're arguing that you cannot know these things.
I'm the one arguing that we can know these things because we do not have to acknowledge irrational possibilities.I know how to bake a cake, I've done it before.
You may have done it before, but you cannot say you know how to bake a cake.
What if we discover something in the future that shows you that what you thought was "baking a cake" actually was not?
I think that such an idea is an irrational consideration and shouldn't be considered when we make a rational statement about our knowledge.
You're the one arguing that we cannot say "I know God does not exist" because of a similar irrational statement.So, what is it?Do you know that God does not exist?
Or can you no longer say that you know how to bake a cake because there might be something that shows you that you've been wrong all along? Not quite. It ends where we are no longer able to investigate. Perhaps due to limits in current technology. Perhaps due to physical barriers. As soon as you have the data.
We know everything we know because it is part of our data set and we can make rational conclusions about the analysis.
We are likely wrong about a great many things we think we know. But that's never stopped us from saying we know them before, and it won't in the future.
But the only thing that will stop us from saying we know them... is actually finding more data to add to our data set. Irrational statements have no effect.

Perhaps this is our difference.
I don't understand how something could be considered a "statement of fact" if it is unfalsifiable.Unfalsifiable, to me, means that it is untestable. If we are unable to test it... if we can't check it... how can we call it a statement of fact?
Wouldn't it, then, just be an idea?

I understand.
From here, I think it's just a semantics issue to say "I know that God does not exist" or not.
For me, if we can keep in mind all the semantics I've explained and discussed... it makes sense to me and I think the statement is rationally justified.
However, I certainly do see the ease in which it can be taken another way, especially with a quick look. And, of course, that's exactly why I named this thread such as it is... because I knew the phrase would evoke a certain interest.

But this isn't the same argument.I'm telling you that "every feasible effort" ends when we don't even have a rational indication of possible further checking. Creationists don't stop there, they stop as early as possible because they want to stop.
I'm not asking for a lot, I'm not saying you have to produce God... just produce anything that even rationally points towards God.
The ancients did it with the Sun. They turned out to be wrong, but at least they were rational.Obviously, with producing life in the lab, there is rational indiciation that RNA life may have some interesting information we should be checking into. And, of course, science is on their way checking into this (and other lines of rationally possible pathways as well).Creationists would say to stop right now because we have the answer they want.
I say don't stop because you have rational pathways to follow.
I say don't stop even if you have irrational pathways to follow... although at this point, I would say "I know life wasn't produced naturally." But, we haven't reached that point yet, have we?
As a side note, if we did reach this point, I would then stop saying that I know God doesn't exist.. because no longer having a rational possibility for the origin of life would actually give a rational indication that God does indeed exist...
But, again, we're just not at such a point.Since we are saying to do two very different things... are you sure it's not you who is confused on what each argument is proposing?Edited by Stile, : Added a "not", otherwise it just wouldn't have made any sense. And I am all about sense. Sense is my middle name. I eat sense for breakfast. I am full of sense!

Maybe this is where the trouble is.
I agree with you that "having evidencial support that God does exist (like God revealing Himself to humanity)" is unnecessary for the hypothesis that God exists to be true. But, we must point out here that you've equivocated on the word "true" in this sense.
This is not "knowing that something is true."
This is "absolutely true in the true-est sense of the word." Or, as I identified in the first post, knowing something "for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake:"

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.
Message 1

---

If you are going to insist that we must know something "for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake" before we can say that we know it... then we cannot say that we know anything at all and you have removed the usage of "knowing things" from human ability. Which, in turn, means that you don't actually know that the argument you've just used is even valid... And, since you don't seem to be saying that we should stop using the word "know" entirely... then you are equivocating and using two different definitions where they best benefit your argument.The way I've set things up... it most certainly IS necessary for there to be evidencial support for God's existance before you can use the statement of fact that "I know God exists." If we stop equivocating and use a single definition for the word "know," you either have to accept this, or stop using the word "know" for anything else.If you want to redefine and use terms in such a way that it removes a very common word from english dictionaries... that's up to you.
But I've defined my terms and they make sense, and if we stick to those definitions and requirements, then "I know that God does not exist" is simply a rational conclusion.Edited by Stile, : Edits are not fun. They make me feel less manly. Like I've failed at life.

That would make sense to me, but the issue isn't that things aren't making sense to me... it's that they are not making sense to those who object. I take it as a personal challenge to try and defend my positions on other people's terms... whatever those are, if it's at all possible.On top of the actual banter, I find it interesting to note why the discussion is important to me. I am trying very hard to keep definitions straight and follow rational logic in this argument because I find epistemology and rationality to be high priorities. If someone else has other, higher priorities... perhaps something like their personal relationship with a certain God... then keeping semantics rigid for the purpose of discussion becomes less pressing.And, strangely enough, the more people bring up "counterarguments" that clearly do not align with the definitions provided upfront... the more confidence I gain that those definitions are actually a good foundation for the resulting conclusion. Their objections are actually counter-productive.With that said, I certainly do welcome a discussion about why my definitions may not be valid. I would hope to learn a better, more useful definition that I could take away from this discussion and use in other aspects of my life as well. But I did try pretty hard to use definitions that make sense, and also align with the way the terms are mostly used in basic conversation as well.I chose the title "I know that God does not exist" for a reason.
I knew full well that such a phrase evokes a certain equivocation on the idea of "knowing things." The entire point of this thread was to discuss that equivocation. Most of the time we talk about knowing things in the sense that it's from the data we currently have available to us. However, when we say "I know that God does not exist," people won't blink an eye if they can understand the context of "from the data we currently have available to us." It's only if we switch contexts into knowing things in the "for sure-sure's and absolute truth" sense. Sometimes they don't switch context and actually think that "the data we have" somehow does show that God actually exists... these can be interesting discussions as well. But, for the most part, people seem to just swap context.So, why does this phrase seem to cause people's context of the idea of "knowing things" to switch?If we're being honest, we must admit (regardless of rightly or wrongly) that the general population does switch context into an absolute-truth-sense when discussing this phrase. So, in the sense that dictionary terms are descriptive and not proscriptive, we must admit that this can be explained as "the general way the term is used", and in that sense is "kind of okay." I just don't like that a general rule would include a special case. Others don't seem to mind. Why is that? Obviously other people have a higher priority than using rational, non-confusing definitions for words.I think that it's because of the popularity of the God-idea that exists within our culture.If God wasn't so socially popular to believe in, everyone would treat the idea that "I know God does not exist" the same as "I know Santa Claus does not exist." They would treat it as the mundane, "duh," basically useless statement of fact that it actually is.But, because of the popularity of theism in our culture, almost everyone switches over to this absolute-truth-sense context of "knowing things" without even thinking about it. Personally, I find it amazing that so many folks can flip-flop definitions of words like this in their heads. I think it would be naive of me to think that I am impervious to such wide-spread human behaviour.So... what are the things that I switch context about without skipping a beat?
Is it possible for me to even identify such things? Or would I require an external source to turn on such a light-bulb?These are the extensions of the discussion that I find extremely interesting. But I'm basically a selfish prick at heart, so go figure!

Let me try to go through this and give you my thoughts. The Northwest Passage Background (for anyone who doesn't know Canadian geography)
Northern Canada is a bunch of islands in the arctic. At one time it was believed that there was no way to get a boat through from east to west (about the 1800's and before). This was problematic for trade routes. At a later time, it was discovered (and mapped out in the early 1900's) that you actually could navigate a boat around the islands/ice and get to the otherside via a boat on water only (no land portaging or locks required). This travel pathway through the northern Canadian area is called the Northwest PassageAgain, what I'm saying depends on data sets. I can't say exactly what the data set of any specific group of people during any specific time was, but I can give you some examples:Overall Data Set: There's water on the west side, water on the east side, lots of islands and ice and land and stuff in the middle.
Rational Indications of possible pathways for the Northwest Passage:
1. There is water on both sides, East and West, so it could be possible that the water may connect (it has done so in other island areas).
2. There is ice flow invloved. From experience they would know that sometimes ice flow is passable, but sometimes it is not.1600's Data Set: Let's include some facts of some people trying to boat through and failing. Let's say they've tried every route they could, and thought they had covered everything.
I think it is rational for them to say "The Northwest Passage does not exist."
Do you think otherwise?
-Perhaps this was false and the "correct" route wasn't discovered until the 1900's.
-But, perhaps this was even true... maybe during the times of the 1600's the ice over the area was more widespread than it is now and at that time the Northwest Passage (NWP) didn't actually exist. Maybe.
-My point is that whether or not the NWP was real... the statement of their knowledge should rationally be taken to be a statement of their knowledge. That is, since they could not find it, and they did look everywhere they could (according to this example) they then "knew that it didn't exist." If you really think this should rationally be otherwise, do you think you could explain how?Alternate Data Set: They've tried to boat through, and failed. They didn't try all routes, but tried some of the ones they found most promising.
Now, I do not think it is rational for them to say "The Northwest Passage does not exist." Because there are obvious rational indications that they could be wrong. Some of those waterways could make it through, some might not.
Again, regardless of whether or not the ice blocked the way during the 1600's or not... the statement of their knowledge is simply a statement of their knowledge.Now, lets take your statement of "Some day, if and when we develop the capability to study the planets orbiting around it, we might find God on the far side watching a really big big-screen TV".What is there from within our data set that could rationally indicate that God could exist on another planet. Regardless of how far away from Earth it actually is. What is it about planets that we have learned that indicates that God might exist on one?

Using my definitions and structure as proposed in this thread? Yes.
People are different and will have different data sets.
"I know that God does not exist" includes one person's data set.
"We know that God does not exist" will force multiple people to pool their data sets and then analyze the resulting larger set to come to a conclusion. If "checked all rational indication that God might exist somewhere and the answer is negative" is not a part of any of those data sets... then there would be no rational reason to say "We know that God does not exist."Can they come to a different result after reading this thread? No.
-I am sharing my data set with this thread. That data set includes looking for God in all the places rationally indicated by anyone throughout history (like sun worshippers telling us to check out the sun). And, no one has yet added to this data set by giving a rational indication that we should be checking somewhere else before we make our conclusion.Can they come to a different result, ever? Yes.
For example, it is possible that some group of people have yet to check out the sun to see if God exists there. For these people, it would not be rational to say "They know God does not exist." They still can't say they know God does exist... because they still haven't checked out the sun to show that He's there yet... But I would consider it rational for such a group of people to hold the question in limbo because they have yet to do some work.My statement, similar to the way science works, isn't a way to describe "the absolute truth of things." It's just a way to rationally describe the data set obtained by someone (or a group).Think of it this way.
Would you agree that we can say "I know there are 26 letters in the english alphabet."
Would you agree that this is similar as saying "I know that the 27th letter in the english alphabet does not exist."
Would you agree that it is rational to say these things?
Now... what if 250 years from now human speech patterns have reached a point where a new sound requires delineation and we invent a new, 27th letter for the alphabet and it becomes a part of common english speech.
I still say that it was rational for us to say "I know that the 27th letter in the english alphabet does not exist" because it is merely a conclusion based on the data set we had available to us. And, at that time, there was no rational indication to us that a 27th letter would ever be required or used.
However, if we follow the logic of some of those posters that do not agree with my definitions and statements... they cannot say such a thing. They do not "know that there are 26 letters in the english alphabet" because it's possible that at some point in the future there might be 27.Does that make sense?

Why is that a better question? Because it seems to indicate that you are correct?
Let's take a look at the questions and see. "What makes God's existance impossible?"
I would say "nothing."
However, I would also say that such an idea has never stopped us from knowing things before.A - "I know how to bake a cake."
B - "What makes it impossible for you to attempt baking a cake, but the result is not actually a cake?"
A - "Well, nothing... so I guess I do not know how to bake a cake."B - "Actually, you do know how to bake a cake because irrational propositions such as this should not be taken into account when you are making statements about your knowledge."Or, with a similar negative example, if you'd like:A - "I know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu."
B - "What makes it impossible for shark-fin soup to be on McDonald's menu?"
A - "Well, nothing... so I guess I do not know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu."B - "Actually, you do know that shark-fin soup is not on McDonald's menu if you go and check McDonald's menu and shark-fin soup is not listed there." "What makes God's existance unlikely?"The fact that we have checked on every rational indication that's ever been proposed for God's existance (like being in the sun or protecting innocent people...) and they have all come up negative for God's existance. We are now out of rational indications for God's existance. If we cannot even propose that God may exist... then it makes it likely that God does not exist.
Of course, such philosophical mumbo jumbo doesn't make it absolutely true. But saying "I know that God does not exist" is only a rational description of our data set, it's not a statment about absolute truth, just like every other statement we make about "knowing things."After examination, your question does not actually seem "better", and it also doesn't seem to benefit your argument.
But that was my explanation, so it is likely somewhat biased. Perhaps you could explain what you mean a bit more?Edited by Stile, : Closing quotes. Because open quotes means the quote just goes on forever, into some sort of never-ending quote-abyss. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy... let alone a poor innocent quote. By the way, my worst enemy is the difference between affect and effect... I live a sheltered life...