I Know That God Does Not Exist

No. Why would it?
In a necessarily-must-be context. In order for this to proceed, you need to show that:"ANY" external intelligence must therefore, necessarily also be "God."I don't think that flies.
It may for you, personally, but this is where I'm coming from:Let's say we have an "external intelligence" that created the universe, and that universe created life.
-this being did not create the universe on purpose
-this being never knew they created our universe, even
-this being never comprehended the concept of 'another universe' than the one they inhabited
-this being is very frail and weak, weaker than a human
-this being has absolutely no knowledge of our planet (they don't even know our universe exists)
-this being died within a few decades of their accidental creation of our universe
-this being was created without the need of any other external intelligence within their own universe
-this being, within their own universe, was only alive for approx. 80 years
-this being's universe itself existed for over 100s of billions of years
-this being, within their own universe, was the product of some sort of natural evolution that did not include any intelligent first causeYou'd call that being "God?" I don't think many would agree with you.
Isn't that sort of like calling you mother and father "God?"
If you're just going to use the term in ways no normal group of people would agree with... I don't see the point you're attempting to make. I do not agree that such a being would be "God."I do, however, agree with your conclusion on that point.
Because... with that definition... I have no point to make.
Who cares if we were created by some pre-existing intelligence that has no idea who we are, had no intended purpose for us, and didn't even know they accidentally created us?I wouldn't call such a pre-existing intelligence "God" anyway.
All of Christianity and every other religion would still be based on a non-extistant God - and I would still know that such a God did not exist as well. I don't know of any theistic group that would accept such a definition as "God." This is acceptable.
And I still know that your deity does not exist because it is obviously irrational for you to believe in such a thing.
Why wouldn't I know that things without evidence don't exist?If, at a future date, some sort of evidence is discovered... then it's perfectly reasonable to begin an investigation and update my position on my knowledge.
Of course, without such a thing happening... it is still perfectly reasonable to say I know such a thing doesn't exist because there's no evidence for it at all.
And, when previous generations have claimed there was evidence... they were always mistaken. Such a history cannot be ignored.

I don't think that's true.I think the way I'm using the word "know" is exactly the same for the following three statements:I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
I know that Santa Claus does not exist.
I know that God does not exist.All 3 contain the same following elements:
-I did not know before investigating
-There was a period of investigation (length of time varies for each subject... but "much greater" for investigating God), where I searched for evidence by looking where experts say I should look to find the entity in question
-The investigation came up negative - no evidence was found
-There is a possibility I could be wrong
-I am open to updating my position given evidence found at a future dateIf we can't use the word "know" in this context - what context can we actually use it in?
Can we use the word "know" for anything at all?

I capitalized all the words simply because it's a title.
I generally try to capitalize "God" or any reference to "Him" partly because of my own Catholic upbringing but mostly out of respect to those that would appreciate such a thing.
For myself, there is no difference between "God" and "god."However, your question is a very good one: I had a long conversation with Catholic Scientist about this right in the beginning of this thread.
Please see Message 63 for a general conclusion to that discussion.The main idea (but there's also a bunch of "clauses" attached to it, explained in the earlier message):

quote:

---

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.

---

To me... if this does not describe the generally accepted definition for "God" (or "god")... then I don't know what does.Hopefully that helps?

Yes.
Is the test not "we look where the experts say we should look in an attempt to find evidence of their existence?"
Is the proof not "we looked, and didn't find anything that would indicate such things exist?" No?
Are we not able to "look where the experts say we should look in an attempt to find evidence of His existence?"
-the Sun
-thunder, lightning
-'heaven' in the clouds above the earth
-cause of famines or bountious prosperity
-source of love
-punisher of evil
-answers prayers
-does miracles
-author (perhaps by proxy) of the Bible - therefore the Bible should be true/valid (flood/exodus/water-to-wine...)
-helps those in need
-protects the weak
-always there when you need Him
-provides mental stability and mental strength
...
...Are we not able to test these as much as we test for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus?
Do we not find "no evidence" as much as we find "no evidence" for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus every time any "where God should be" becomes testable?How long did we search-where-we're-supposed-to-look for Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus and find nothing? A few minutes? A few decades?
How long did we search-where-we're-supposed-to-look for God and find nothing? A few thousand years?When Sharkfin soup or Santa Claus are not found - do the goal posts shift accordingly? Or is the answer accepted?
When God is not found - do the goal posts shift accordingly? Or is the answer accepted?
How long or how many times have the goal posts shifted? Does this not indicate anything?Why is God treated differently?
What specific difference in "treating God differently" makes God "untestable" where Santa Claus or Sharkfin soup is "testable?"
What specific difference in "treating God differently" makes God's tests "unprovable" where Santa Claus's or Sharkfin soup's are "provable?"
What specific difference in "treating God differently" gives God a valid free-pass on how we apply the word "know" to every other "known to not exist" entity?Is the answer not "public opinion" or "social cultural ideas?"
Are these not terrible answers - logical failures - in order to assess a situation/question in a reasonable/rational way?These are the sorts of specific answer you'll have to provide if you want to contend that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly in regards to God's existence.
Your current simple claim to the contrary is not enough.

This is not evidence.
Evidence is verifiable by everyone.If it's only identifiable by individuals on an individual basis... it's called "subjective."There is no such thing as "subjective evidence."

Untrue.
You don't get to say what I want or don't want. I do.And I do, actually, want God to exist.
I think it would be great if the weak were protected, if (good) prayers were answered, if some benevolent, all-powerful being could provide a sense of security and peace.It's just that such things have been tested, and they've been identified to be equivalent to "nothing is there."Despite my desire to the contrary, I am forced to agree that the rational conclusion is that I Know God Does Not Exist.

Beyond our means of observing?
Just like Santa is only observable by those who believe in him?Sounds exactly the same to me.Either the being is rational - there is evidence to look for and we find none.
Or the being is irrational - we can't look for evidence because there is none - meaning there's not even any evidence to suggest that such a being could possibly exist in the first place.In a rational discussion - both items are taken into account with how we reasonably use the word "know" when knowing something.And therefore, it is still normal and acceptable to say "I know a non-observable Santa Claus does not exist - because it is an irrational concept."
Just as much as we can say "I know a non-observable-deistic god does not exist - because it is an irrational concept."Anything less is special pleading for the deistic god over Santa Claus. Exactly.
And, if no one ever produces evidence of a black swan over thousands of years of looking for one... it is reasonable to say "I know black swans do not exist."
Just as if no one ever produces evidence of a deistic non-observable god over thousands of years of looking for one... it is reasonable to say "I know this deistic non-observable god does not exist." "Researching every theistic god" is not required - that's why we ask "the experts" - they do the research.
Present the evidence that any theistic god should rationally be considered to exist.
Without that, and after searching for thousands of years where the experts say we should look and coming up with nothing... we can reasonably conclude "I know that all proposed theistic gods do not exist."And, of course there's an element of "don't know about it" included. This is included with all normal usage of the word "know" as described in the first post:

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.

---

Do you not agree that such an element of "don't know about it" is included with every normal, reasonable and rational usage of the word "know?"Your argument that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly remains un-persuasive.
I am using the word "know" in a normal, reasonable and rational way.

For one definition of "Santa"... yes.
But, again like God, Santa has different definitions for different people.One of those definitions include's Santa's ability to only be observable by those who believe.
Have you never heard that only children see Santa? - This is included in many documentaries (movies) on the entity.Such an ability is as equally un-falsifiable as God is.
Such an ability is as equally irrational as God is.That is why both are known not to exist. No problem.Irrational concept: Any concept that is conceived that has no evidence pointing at the existence of the concept in the first place.Rational concept example: The wind exists because it blows items around - there is evidence for the effects that wind causes.
Irrational concept example: The Chimera (one animal, part lion, part goat and part snake) exists - there is no evidence for any effects that a chimera causes.It is clear we can say we know wind exists.
It is clear we can say we know The Chimera does not exist.Santa and God and a non-observable deity all fall into the Irrational concept definition. Absolutely.If we allow the use of irrational concepts to block our ability as H. sapiens to "know things" - then we cannot know anything at all.
There is always an irrational concept that will add irrational doubt to "knowing something."Just use this basic exchange:1. I know "x" exists.
2. Well, what about the irrational concept that "x" doesn't actually exist but the evidence collected only makes you think it does and you are mistaken?
1. This will be sorted out as new information comes along - if any does come along, then the original statement will be updated as necessary.
2. Well, what about the irrational concept that "x" doesn't actually exist and all evidence is unreliable to ever know anything about "x?"
1. Then we cannot ever know "x" exists.You can use anything in "x."
You can use God, you can use Santa, you can use The Chimera, you can use a fork, you can use the computer and keyboard in front of you, you can use yourself, even.Therefore - if we allow irrational concepts to add doubt to us "knowing something" we must therefore strike the use of the word "know" from the H. sapiens language and find some other word that implies the sense of "objectively investigating the available evidence and coming to a reasonable, rational conclusion."I see no reason to invent another word to mean the same thing as the word "know" that is currently used. Me too.
That is, in a reasonable, rational conclusive sense.
That the available evidence has been gathered and analyzed.
That a notion of "possibly being wrong because we don't know everything and can update our knowledge as we learn new information" is included.If you mean it in that sense - then your argument is still un-persuasive.If you mean "know" in the sense of aboslute, immutable truth - then I think your stance itself is also irrational (because we have no evidence that such a concept exists for anything in reality) - and I reject your definition of the word "know" in a normal, reasonable and rational way. Everything we know is limited to the information available to us.
It doesn't stop us from making any conclusions anywhere else - why stop us for a conclusion on God or a non-observable deity?

Nice one.I wrote a really long post relating to a bunch of points throughout yours... but I think most of it's covered if we just get to the meat of our difference: I think it is. Exactly. Rational methods would exclude this sense of allowing the irrational to interfere with the 'doubt' we place on our conclusion.
Rational methods allow us to know that a fork exists.
Rational methods allow us to know that computers exist.
Rational methods allow us to know that Santa Claus does not exist.
Rational methods allow us to know that God does not exist.
Rational methods allow us to know that a non-observable deistic God does not exist.If the irrational is allowed to place doubt on the 'rational' method... then the method is no longer "rational" - is it? I think you're having an issue with "when it works" - you're conflating "is valid to use" and "is absolutely, immutably true about reality."It is, actually, valid to use for everywhere and every when.
It just won't be "absolutely, immutably true about reality" - and, really, nothing ever is. Such an expectation itself is irrational.
When it's valid to use, but not actually true - we identify this when we can identify 'new information' that can rationally be analyzed. We call this evidence.
Every rational conclusion allows for 'new information' to overturn the conclusion.
It doesn't prevent us from making a rational conclusion based on the information we have available at any 'where' or any 'when.'"I know my keys are in my pocket because that's where I store them when I'm at work and I did so this morning."
*checks pocket - no keys - finds hole*
"Never mind, the keys fell out of my pocket and I didn't realize it."--the original statement is valid - just "not absolutely true about reality."
It is valid because it is based on the evidence available at the time.
But no statement we ever make is "absolutely true about reality" because we don't know what "absolutely true about reality" is - until we have evidence.Overcoming a rational knowledge claim with evidence and then updating that knowledge claim is all valid.
Overcoming a rational knowledge claim without evidence and then updating that knowledge claim is irrational - it is not valid.If you allow the irrational concepts like "well, a non-observable deity may exist, we just don't know yet..." to overturn the conclusion that we know a non-observable deity does not exist...Then you also must allow the irrational concept like "well, my keys may have warped into another dimension and been replaced with bananas that only look and feel like my keys, we just don't know yet..." to overturn the conclusion that we know my keys are in my pocket....which is why you're removing the word "know" from the vocabulary. If you allow one irrational statement to overturn a rational conclusion... what's preventing you from allowing any irrational statement to overturn any rational conclusion?Again, you haven't described this yet - and until you do your argument that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly is in error. I completely agree - they are different problems.One is a rational problem.
The other is an irrational problem.You're the one conflating them and using the word "know" differently for one rather than the other.
When you talk about a rational problem - your definition of the word "know" does not allow for irrational concepts to provide doubt on your conclusion.
When you talk about an irrational problem - your definition of the word "know" allows for irrational concepts to provide doubt on your conclusion.What about an irrational problem concerning a rational item?
Like my keys only looking/feeling/testing like keys but actually being bananas - how do we know this isn't true?
Are we unable to say "I know my keys are not bananas that just look/feel/test like keys?"If we can, actually, say "I know my keys are not bananas that just look/feel/test like keys."
Why can't we equally say "I know a non-observable deity does not exist."
Aren't they the same thing?
Why are you conflating the word "know" to mean two different things for two different problems?
What other words are treated in this way?I'm the one using a single non-conflating definition of the word "know" for both.
My definition of the word "know" excludes irrational, evidence-less claims from having an impact on the doubt of the conclusion. The doubt on my conclusion is evidence-based and can be updated whenever new information is identified and analyzed.
My definition of the word "know" is rational - all the time.
If you ever use the word "know" in an irrational sense - isn't this going against what the word "know" is supposed to imply in the first place - a reasonable conclusion based on a rational analysis of available evidence? How is that reasonable? How does that make any sense?Therefore - I can say "I know my keys are not bananas that just look/feel/test like keys."
And I can also say "I know a non-observable deity does not exist."
And I can also say "I know my keys are in my pocket."I'm the one using an equivalent definition of the word "know" for all of them. I'm simply using the same single, consistent usage of the word "know" whenever I use the word.
You're the one forming different conclusions about different problems but attempting to use the same word to identify them. You're the one forming your own inconsistent, conflating conclusions.Your argument that I'm using the word "know" incorrectly is still un-persuasive.
And now I have a very persuasive rebuttal identifying specifically how you are using the word "know" incorrectly (or, at least, inconsistently.)
You're proving my case even further.

Perhaps you don't understand my premise?
I've repeated the first post in this thread many times, where I note how room for doubt is included in all knowledge. I'm not arguming semantics.
I clearly defined and have used the single definition for my terms (which align with the normal usage of such terms) in the first post.
It's you who's arguing semantics that the word "know" should have a different meaning when discussing God.I get it... I really do.
It's ingrained in anyone raised in a historically Christian, modern culture (North America, most of Europe, the UK...)
We've been socially and traditionally taught that "God" (Christian or a non-observable deity or whatever) is a special case and He gets free passes left and right.
I'm simply pointing out that there's no reason to give God a free pass, and if we don't - we end up knowing that God does not exist.I'll try one more time to show you the free pass you're inserting with no valid reason behind it: Example 1: Tangle and Stile discussing a deity (a non-observable deity):Stile: I know that a deity does not exist.
Tangle: Are you sure? You have not searched every where and every when... perhaps evidence for such a deity exists in some where or some when.
Stile: But we have tested the deity existing for the where's and when's we have available to us. Also, this fishbowl* of information available to us expands all the time. In the many, many recent expansions, we know that the deity does not exist. This allows us to know that expanding our fishbowl even further will produce similar results - that we will still know the deity does not exist. Perhaps - yes - one day we may find a new where and a new when where the deity actually exists - but such doubt is included with all knowledge and any massive upheaval overturning thousands of years of observations and fishbowl-expansions can rationally be ignored until evidence pointing in that direction is uncovered.
Tangle: Stop playing semantics. The lack of evidence for this deistic God implies that we don't know if it exists or not.
Stile: What? That's just crazy. If we remain rational about our analysis - we can easily say we know the deistic God does not exist. Example 2: Tangle and Stile discussing keys being bananas:Stile: I know that my keys are not bananas.
Tangle: Are you sure? You have not searched every where and every when... perhaps evidence for your keys being bananas exist in some where or some when.
Stile: But we have tested my keys being bananas for the where's and when's we have available to us. Also, this fishbowl* of information available to us expands all the time. In the many, many recent expansions, we know that my keys are still not bananas. This allows us to know that expanding our fishbowl even further will produce similar results - that we will still know my keys are not bananas. Perhaps - yes - one day we may find a new where and a new when when my keys actually are bananas - but such doubt is included with all knowledge and any massive upheaval overturning thousands of years of observations and fishbowl-expansions can rationally be ignored until evidence pointing in that direction is uncovered.
Tangle: Stop playing semantics. The lack of evidence for your keys being bananas implies that we don't know if your keys are bananas or not.
Stile: What? That's just crazy. If we remain rational about our analysis - we can easily say we know my keys are not bananas.This isn't semantics, Tangle.
It's a straight-forward argument on how we know anything and simply applying that same concept to a deity.Now, I'm assuming that you do actually understand why we can say my keys aren't bananas.
So - now you have a problem, since the same method is used for both:What's the difference in the two examples?
What's the difference between ignoring the irrational possibility that a non-observable deity exists and ignoring the irrational possibility that a non-observable set of banana-keys exists?If you can't identify a difference - it is you who is playing semantics - protecting a subjective feeling of "you can't expand your fishbowl!" for God, but not protecting such a subjective feeling for my keys being bananas.It is a culturally, traditionally, socially ingrained subjective feeling... and you're falling into it's trap.
If you remain rational and reasonable... the conclusion that we know a deity does not exist is unavoidable.
Or, at least, no one has been able to offer up a rational, reasonable argument to the contrary so far.This is why I Know That God Does Not Exist.*for more information on what's meant by "fishbowl," feel free to peruse this old thread: Message 1121

You find him on a personal, subjective, irrational level - and this is perfectly fine.
If we look in exactly the same place on an objective, rational level - we don't find God there. We just find people doing people-things.The whole point to this argument of "I Know God Does Not Exist" is to remain rational.I fully understand (and even endorse, actually) the idea of believing in God on a personal, subjective level when it's helpful to the individual.
This just has no bearing on what we can know about reality in a rational sense. No.
The problem is that it's a subjective, personal "finding."
This is proven by the claim you're making of "not looking hard enough."
If it was, actually, rational - I wouldn't have to look hard at all - you could show me and I'd see the same thing as you. Like my keys not being bananas.But you can't do this - which is what makes it subjective and personal.
Again - subjective and personal is huge and very powerful and I endorse it - for individual mental health.
However - if we're talking about rational claims on our knowledge about reality - there's no place for subjective, personal ideas - only rational, reasonable ideas - which means in this context it's not valid for you, personally, to "see God" in people - in has no meaning and is not persuasive.It's like looking at a blue sky... but someone comes by and talks about how they love green skies and the sky is looking very green to them today and it's such a beautiful day.
...But the sky's blue that day. No amount of "feeling the green-ness" will change the actual colour of the sky that day.

Not quite.
I actually endorse and think people *should* believe in God where it benefits their mental health on a personal level.However - if we're going to move into the context of rational, reasonable claims about reality... I see no reason to include personal, subjective feelings to add 'reasonable doubt' to a conclusion. Only if we're all trying to determine rational, reasonable conclusions about reality - which is the context of this thread. I think believers have full rights to believe.
I just don't think believers have any rights to allow their beliefs to bleed into rational, reasonable conclusion about reality. If we did that, we can't know anything and we end up with banana keys. This is true, but only incidentally.
It's actually irrelevant to the argument of this thread. That is a perfectly acceptable response.
You're allowed to believe anything you'd like.
In fact - much human progress started with someone irrationally 'believing' something and following their heart.If no one ever dreamed of "crossing" the sea... the vikings would never have found North America.

If you could identify some, that would be a start. If something cannot be observed - it is an irrational concept.
That is, you cannot have any evidence to think such a thing may even exist in the first place - because you can't observe it.
Therefore, in a rational, reasonable analysis of the evidence in order to form a conclusion about "knowing" something in reality - such an irrational concept is rightly ignored. I didn't think you could identify a difference - because there isn't one!
If you really think non interventionist gods should be treated differently than banana keys - make your case.
Without making your case - your position has no weight. I don't care who or what labels themselves as whatever - what does this matter about the argument? Yes, I understand you're saying this.
What you're not doing is showing it.
In fact - you provided me with a very solid rebuttal against it - one that you seem to avoid at all costs.
You don't get to do that and continue to claim you're correct. You do understand that we don't *really* know anything at all - right? That *everything* is only based upon the information available to us?
Such doubt is included in all knowledge.Such doubt is described in the first post:

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.

---

Understanding the deist position is irrelevant to my argument that I Know God Does Not Exist.
Unless deists use their own dictionary with different meanings for words?

Okay. Nope.
I don't put limits on God. God could be whatever He is - if He existed.
What sort of limits do you think I'm putting on Him? Nope.
I'm open to any and all God(s) contacting me - regardless of my previous-modes-of-contact or previous preconceptions.I may still miss it - I'm not infallible.
But so far - nothing ever has. Not for everyone indeed.
Only for those who decide to look at the God situation rationally and reasonably.I myself am quite capable of having an irrational side and a rational side within my mind.
However - when I'm attempting to make a claim about reality - then it's been proven that the irrational side is unreliable and usually wrong. The rational side, however, always gets closer and closer to truth. Which is why we say we "know things" when we do a rational analysis.From this thread - if we move into a context of rationally and reasonably analyzing reality - the inevitable conclusion is that We Know God Does Not Exist.
You can read the thread as well as I can - any and all of those that disagree are not being consistent and rational so far. Therefore, the statement stands. For everyone (within it's scope of rational context.)

Yes, it is more rational.
There is evidence for the latter, and none for the former.The definition/context of "irrational" for this thread is: A concept that is claimed to exist when no evidence for the claim exists in the first place.Do you disagree that this definition is a normal definition for the word "irrational?"Do you disagree that the idea that God exists even though we have no evidence for God fits this description of "irrational?"
-considering that no evidence exists for claiming God exists in the first place?Do you disagree that there is evidence for us existing as a result of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes?
-considering that all the evidence we've gathered about our coming-to-be is that of non-consciousness; non-intelligent; non-moral chemical processes?I understand that the word "irrational" can sometimes be used to mean "silly" or "stupid."
I am not using it in that context - and I agree that the idea is not "irrational" along such definitions.
And I apologize for the easy-enough-to-make-conflation here - but I don't see any way around it.It's simply easier to use the word "irrational" rather than write out "a concept that is claimed to exist when no-evidence-for-the-claim exists in the first place" every time.
Do you know of another word that better describes that phrase/idea rather than "irrational?"I am open to using another word, if one is better suited for that task. Absolutely true.
My point is, however, that this also doesn't give them any weight in a rational analysis. This is true. You do subjectively believe them.
I, however, objectively do not believe them - there are also objective contradictions within the NT writer's works.
This gives evidence that they were not telling "the truth" at all times. And we're back to the same concept:
In this sense - none of us ever objectively know the truth about anything. Remember?

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.

---

However, if want to objectively know what we can, by objectively analyzing the available evidence - we can know things.
And if we apply this method to God - then the conclusion becomes I Know That God Does Not Exist.