I Know That God Does Not Exist

But the Sun does exist. So when we check'd that one it didn't fail. The problem is that the Sun doesn't fit within the set of things that are included by the word "God" in your statement.So are the people that worshiped the Sun wrong, or are you wrong? That isn't something that we've tested. Except for the sun...Without a solid definition of "God", you're statement remains vacuous.The people who worship the sun would laugh you of as a buffoon if you told them that you know god doesn't exist. To them its literally blindingly obvious that you're wrong.But you think they're wrong. And we haven't really tested it either way.

Not exactly, there's another point in there: That what they're calling "God" is, in fact, the Sun. For them (and for us with their usage), God does exist. It be like some eastern asian guy referring to cheeseburgers as "shark-fin soup". He'd be right that McDonalds does have shark-fin soup (cheeseburgers) on its menu. The point is that you haven't distinguished between them being wrong about God existing, and you being wrong about what you think they're referring to as "God".Now, you're right that just because there could be a guy that refers to cheesburgers as shark-fin soup doesn't mean that you can't know that its not on the menu. But what I'm saying it that when you claim to have looked into all the gods and found them to be wrong, that you haven't actually covered that with your statement because the word "God" doesn't really tell us much about what the person who's using it actually means by it.You wouldn't say that you've gone and found that none of the usages of "shark-fin soup" means something that isn't on the McDonald's menu. Give me a little leeway here though; "shark-fin soup" is a much more specific and discete concept than "God" so the analogy is pretty stretched... maybe too far. Here we go: Does McDonalds have "freedom fries" on their menu? It doesn't say that phrase anywhere on it but we know that some rednecks refer to french fries as that. You wouldn't say that you know that McDonalds doesn't have freedom fries on its menu. Does that make sense?Its not that I'm doubting your usage of "know", its that "God" isn't defined well enough to make such a blanket statement about. But God does exist when its referring to the Sun. Further, you have yours and I have mine. But there's also people who have found God... Speak for yourself I get that. I don't have a problem with you not reserving the usage of the word "know" because of some possible undiscovered thing that might prove you wrong. I do have a bit of a problem with saying that people know things that aren't true. I wouldn't say that people knew the Earth was flat. They were 'convinced', or 'believed it'. That's what I was saying earlier about it not being "established". Things that are established are known and there's still the possiblity that it'll be proven wrong in the future, but that's different from coming to a conclusion based on incomplete evidence - which is what you're doing with God. But you've only been exposed to what people have imagined about God. You haven't ever really tested God, itself. That limits what you can know about God, at least in the sense of establishing anything. You can become convinced, or believe it, but I don't think "know" is the best word there. I accept the usage when we're talking about specific and discrete Gods, and I don't really have that much of a problem with the phrase in general, its just that there's room for improvement and its not actually telling us that much. God is not a specific and discrete thing like sharkfin soup is.

Me too. And when we look into the God of the guy who worshipped the sun, we found that God does exist. You're wrong when you say that all the checks have turned up negetive.The problem is that this god doesn't fit within your definition. But we haven't determined whether the guy is wrong about what God is or you are. And for you to say that you know God doesn't exist doesn't tell me the difference on its own without a definition of "God". And part of the data we have is that some of the Gods that people worshipped actually existed as real things. I think the statement "People knew the Earth was flat", implies the accuracy of the thing they knew, i.e. the Earth really is flat. But they didn't establish that the Earth was flat, they just believed it or were convinced that it was. Its the difference between knowing your car is in the parking lot while you're sitting in your cubicle and knowing that your car is in the parking lot when your looking at it out the window. I can tell that it's different knowings because if someone came up to us in our cubicle and said that our car wasn't out there we be all: Really!? Did it get towed (or whatever)?But if somebody told you that your car wasn't out there when you were looking at it out the window, you'd be all: pfft, its right there *points*In both cases we can use the word "know", but the second one is stronger. I meant the word "God" on a piece of paper. That word by itself doesn't really tell us much of anything about what we're talking about. Sure, given a specific and descrete definition of God I agree that you can say that you know it doesn't exist. Here's the definition for the lazy:

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm with you on that one, I don't believe that God exists.But you seem to want to expand that to the general statement: "I know God doesn't exist". And you seem to want to use it as if you've established it. I don't think either of those hold true.

I'm sorry, but that quadruple negative is confusing... Let me see if I can break it down:Given the statement "God exists", any observation could follow from that. Therefore, no observation can support the opposite statement (God does not exist).Is that what you're saying? I don't think you're using the right definition of "know". Given the way you're using it, we can't know anything.Given the statement "We live in The Matrix", any observation could follow from that. Therefore, no observation can support the opposite statement (We do not live in The Matrix). So you don't even know that you're sitting at a computer, you might be in a battery cell inside the Earth.From Message 166:

quote:

---

Firstly, all knowledge is contingent on the method by which (and the data on which) a truth can be demonstrated. By 'method' I mean things like logic or science. I think that "we know" statements essentially means that one has sufficient evidence to take it's truth as granted, as if the subject matter of the statement were itself observed. Note that this doesn't have anything to do with absolute truths.

---

Right, so given that we are in The Matrix, you could still say that you know you're sitting at a computer (even thought you're not) because the data set you do have allows you take it for granted. You wouldn't absolutely know, but you'd know.That's what Sile's saying about God...Givent that God does exist, the data set that he has says that God doesn't, so he can say that he knows its true. Not in the absolute know, but he knows.

Stile isn't using the word 'know' that strictly. With his usage, its safe to say that we know we don't live in The Matrix.

Well, that's pretty much the only problems I can see with your statement and we seem to have covered them pretty well.Have a nice day

I don't think that the fact that the counter-claim is irrational necessitates that your claim is rational. They could still both be irrational. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : I accidentally a word

Well, one of the problems with your usage of knowing things is that it allows people to know things that are not true.You'd say that people knew the Earth was flat... and that's just a load of horseshit

Wait, you think the Earth could actually be flat?

Like what? And like, wrong wrong, or just a little inaccurate and maybe in need of a tweak?I've been using the word established to describe things that I use the word "know" for.There's scientific theories that that I might believe that might turn out to be wrong, but I doubt they're things that have been established and I probably wouldn't say that we know them.The Earth isn't flat. That's been established. People never established that the Earth was flat. I wouldn't say they knew the Earth was flat.

Neat. Its like I don't even have to reply.

The word "know" is better reserved for things that have been established. You can't really establish things that aren't true, unless you got a busted establisher. Its just dumb to say that people knew something that is false.

I'm not assuming that at all Right, and they were wrong. And it was a stupid usage of the word "know". They shouldn't have said they knew it, because they didn't, because it ain't flat. I wouldn't say that those things established the Earth as flat. Really? I don't think so. I don't see a lot of scientists going around saying that they know their theory is correct. Yeah, I prolly would've said I knew Newton was right. I think the math working would have made me think it was established. I doubt I'd say that I knew that mass attracts itself though. But anyways, if I did, and then I found out I was wrong, then I'd be in the same position: that was a stupid way to use the word "know". Its stupid to say that we know that humans are alone on this planet. That hasn't been established.

I don't see a lot of scientists going around saying that they know their scientific facts aren't wrong. I dunno, how was it established? I agree, I wouldn't claim that either.

I see people thinking the Earth was flat as being "just a guess" as opposed to a result of an analysis of the data. But maybe I'm just ignorant of the data that they did have that suggested that the Earth was flat. I'm having trouble imagining much data for that because the Earth is not flat. How would they go about establishing a flat Earth? I would say that people in the 1800's knew that doctors could not grow limbs back, but I wouldn't say that the knew that doctors in the future would be unable to grow limbs back.I just don't think its good to push the definition of knowledge into including ignorance instead of reserving it for when ignorance is removed.