I Know That God Does Not Exist

Stile writes: "I know that God does not exist." "I know that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu on Earth." I really do not see a difference in the statements.

The difference is that you moved the goalpost in the second statement but not in the first. It shoud read, "I know that God does not exist on earth."

You only "know" about the places where you have actually looked. Your surmises about the places where you haven't looked are not very valuable.

ringo writes: I still know how to bake a cake with a pretty high level of confidence.

But you don't know that.
You don't even know if you have ever baked a cake in the past as those memories could have been implanted.
And the next time you go to bake a cake you might find that you have forgotten.

You (according to your logic) do not know anything - because you can imagine unfounded reasons for your knowledge to be wrong.

Panda writes: You (according to your logic) do not know anything - because you can imagine unfounded reasons for your knowledge to be wrong.

True. When you tell me how delicious my cake is, that could all be in my own imagination too.

Panda writes: Can you provide a definition of knowledge that you would agree with?

A belief that is both justified and true, in addition to having
observable and measurable evidence that can be tested and falsified.

Problem being there is no real consensus on what knowledge is, which is why I do appreciate Stile defining his terms. But that still does not exonerate him from fallacious arguments. Although he will say he does not agree they are such.

I concede to you the atheist victory. As for agnostics and theist
blow it out your arse.

numbers writes: Prior to the construction of Super colliders' was there any way such physical evidence would of been obtained?

I don't think so.

numbers writes: Is that a problem concerning the rational for the potential existence of God? That there is no way to test such a proposal so it must be null?

But there is no reason to test.
There is no reason to suppose that god exists.
But there were reasons to think that the Higgs existed.

numbers writes: Sure and when if no positive data presented itself what would you conclude?

That the Higgs does not exist.
(It would not stop at that though, as there are still reasons to think that a Higgs-like particle exists.)

numbers writes: Data that does not exist does not mean it is not forthcoming.

Which means that anything could exist and you are left not being able to know anything but can suggest any random thing you wish.

I think there is a dragon in my lounge but evidence of its existence is not yet forthcoming?
I think that would be a irrational claim.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Panda writes: But there is no reason to test. There is no reason to suppose that god exists. But there were reasons to think that the Higgs existed.

So we confine our inquiry to that which is only reasonable?

Seems like a argument from incredulity again.

numbers writes: So we confine our inquiry to that which is only reasonable?

We should confine ourselves to those claims that are reasonable.
(It was reasonable to claim that a Higgs-like particle existed.)
You would prefer that we made unreasonable claims?

Certainly, if you want to run off and investigate (e.g.) the spaghetti monster, then go ahead.
But the fact that you are investigating the spaghetti monster does not lend credence to it existing.

numbers writes: Seems like a argument from incredulity again.

I don't agree.

I am not saying: "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true."
I am saying: "There is no evidence that a god exists."
Do you think that me saying: "There are no dragons in my lounge." is an argument from incredulity also?

I am not denying any evidence: there is none.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I am not denying any evidence: there is none.

Let us be more specific - it is not the "lack of evidence" that is evidence of absence.

It is rather the lack of conspicuous, or strongly expected, evidence which is evidence of absence.

I know that there is no dragon in my lounge because the hypothesis that there is a dragon in my lounge would strongly predict that I should see it, that it would eat things and excrete waste, make sound, breathe air (fire?), be tangible and audible, etc.

When I fail to observe that which is strongly predicted by the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes proportionally less likely to be accurate.

Rahvin writes: It is rather the lack of conspicuous, or strongly expected, evidence which is evidence of absence.

There is also a lack of inconspicuous evidence, possibly expected evidence and also unexpected evidence.

But, yes, that is what I meant by "there is none".

quote:

---

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:"

---

It's not a matter of absolute truth, it is a matter of evidence or the capacity to infer evidence. Inferring evidence for the non-existence of things is already difficult, and becomes nigh irrational when talking about something as difficult to reify as god. It is possible to make a statement that looks kind of like "I know god doesn't exist", but this statement itself is just erroneous on every level. Maybe you should expound on what you imply by "I know" and "god".

quote:

---

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.

---

You are obviously correct to say that one must have evidence for the existence of gods before you can claim that "I know god exists". But, I don't think that you are using the same standard for the demonstration that "I know god does not exist" because your supposed evidences are pseudoepistemic. The only way I can agree with your statement that you "know" god does not exist is if I accept a total devaluation of what it means to "know".

quote:

---

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.

---

It is not a rational conclusion. I think it is based on rational argument, but the inference itself demolishes all preceeding rationality. It is an inference, at best, based on ones dissatisfaction with an absence of positive evidence. Kind of like dismissing Wagener's continental drift because the geophysics of the day said it was impossible, or the inference of design because we cannot explain abiogenesis.

quote:

---

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.

---

Comparing the notion of god to Stanta Claus is about as productive as comparing organic life to a pocket watch in the design argument. The similarities between your reasoning and classical theology are uncanny.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think that's great. I did a similar thing on this board for several years, except as a creationist.

Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

Unless one can show that (1) if god exists it is of a certain type, and (2) that this type of god can be confirmed or disconfirmed/falsified by some observation of nature, it cannot be said that one 'knows' god does not exist, inasmuch as 'knowledge' involves a demonstration of truth. 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. I don't see the problem with acknowledging that some statements of fact are unfalsifiable. How are you even addressing what he's saying? Sure, you can claim something is true even though its unfalsifiable. But what does that have to do with unevidenced possibilities not having an effect on evidenced conclusions?

There is no evidence for the claim that "god does not exist" because you cannot demonstrate that an observation cannot follow from the statement that god exists.

Returning to one of Stile's statements:

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem is that it is not ridiculous because his supposedly rational conclusion can only be based on data that we do not have. The statement that "god does not exist" cannot be based on data that we do have because of what I said above.

It is necessary because Stile is trying to claim that the statement that he "knows god does not exist" is sound (i.e, that the statement "god exists" is demonstrably unfactual).

I do not understand how Stile's epistemology is rational.

Edited by TrueCreation, : fixed some errors

Straggler writes: But how do you know that some unexpected anomolous result isn't around the corner?

Ringo writes: We don't know absolutely. We have a high level of confidence.

Exactly. And I also have a high level of confidence that god isn't going to turn up anytime soon.

Ringo writes: The snakes could be living in the neighour's yard and naturally retreat there whenever Tangle looks for them.

Are these snakes also hiding their poo and eliminating all other forensic evidence of their presence in Stile's garden? Clever snakes.

Ringo writes: I've proposed that God could be on a certain planet orbiting a certain star.

Unless you are claiming to have been to this certain planet orbiting this certain star or are claiming some other indirect evidence of god's presence there, we know for a fact that this proposition of yours amounts to you plucking 'what-ifs' from your humanly-imaginative arse.

Ringo writes: So again, what makes it unlikely that God is there?

Whilst your imagination could have stumbled across some deep truth of reality by sheer random flukey chance this is, to say the least, unlikely.

TrueCreation writes: I do not understand how Stile's epistemology is rational.

It's as rational as saying that you know there isn't an undetectable unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type.

Do you know that?

Can you give an example of something that you do know?

Ringo writes: Panda writes: You (according to your logic) do not know anything - because you can imagine unfounded reasons for your knowledge to be wrong. True. When you tell me how delicious my cake is, that could all be in my own imagination too.

Yes it could. Which is why absolute certainty is a stupid measure of knowledge.

We can know things based on evidence. But that knowledge may be wrong. All we can really say is that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced propositions.