I Know That God Does Not Exist

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?

I always think of the Cheech and Chong skit about Santa. Cheech and Chong - Santa and the Magic Dust

Well you can increase the difficulty of finding evidence by making him invisible, but his presence is made obvious by his presents :-) (pleased with that :-) Sure - so long as you define you Santa as being not interventionist out of time and space and undetectable by any objective method he becomes exactly the same as an deistic god. Unkowable. Yes, you've simply defined him that way. But of course the 'real' Santa does intervene and does leave objective evidence that can be tested. Those that say that the possibility of a deistic god is a rational concept would say that the existence of something (and rather a lot of it) rather than nothing and that we so far have no rational explanation for it leaves open the possibility of a Godly cause. That's not correct is it?
We can know all sorts of things using our rational methods. It certainly seems to work very well with what (little) we know so far. But the question is whether that works for *all* things everywhere and everywhen. I think that's an unknowable question and a rational person would leave it an open question. I don't think it's reasonable to conflate knowing that there's a chair in the room or not with knowing whether a non-interventalist god deistic god exists outside of time and space. They're different problems. You can form conclusions all you like, mostly they'll work. But if you're forming a conclusion that there is no possibility of a deistic god, I think you're actually pushing beyond knowledge into speculation and belief. And that's the predominant - but not universal - atheistic position. Hence their bus slogan Atheist Bus Campaign » Humanists UK

Really not surprising that a religionist would be against human rights and dignity.And the continuing hate for gays is getting really old. At the time Europe *was* a death-cult society run by you religionists. Your christian colonizers should have felt right at home with human sacrifice. From the moment they stepped ashore they practiced mass killing in the name of your evil god.

You are pretty embarrassing yourself.

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.

I kinda left this topic behind as Tangle was already doing a better job with that angle of attack than I could do anyway. I’ll try and find another way. This is from your OP. In this case you are referring of course to Santa Claus but it is talking about the question of where do you look for God. As a Christian I’d like to talk about where I find God. I’d like to use the following story, (although there are numerous of examples I could use), as it happened near where I grew up and because mu brother was personally involved with the situation.
Quote from here

quote:

---

As Canadians reel from the tragedy of a school shooting in northern Saskatchewan on Friday, an Alberta father who lost his son in a school shooting nearly 17 years ago recalled the horror of that day.

​

“It’s hard to imagine a more painful situation for people than losing a child,” said Rev. Dale Lang.

​

“It’s something no one should ever have to go through. Now there’s more people going through the same thing.”

​

On April 28, 1999, a 14-year-old student walked into Taber’s W.R. Myers high school and opened fire with a sawn-off .22 calibre rifle, killing Lang’s 17-year-old son Jason and injuring another boy. The incident took place eight days after the Columbine high school massacre in Colorado.

​

Lang remembered the tension and confusion as he was told over the phone that Jason had been rushed to hospital. All he knew was that it was “serious”.
When he discovered it was a school shooting, Lang was shocked.
“When you live in Canada, you don’t expect to hear anybody ever say that to you,” he said.

​

“It’s hard to imagine you’re actually sitting there, waiting to hear news about something so unbelievable.”

​

When Lang’s son died, the former Anglican minister and his wife turned to their faith. Despite their pain and anger, they tried to find forgiveness for their son’s killer, who was the victim of severe bullying from a young age.
“It didn’t make me angry at him, it made me feel sad for him,” said Lang.
“Our faith allowed us to forgive this young man, as early on as the memorial service for our son,” which was just five days after Jason’s death.

​

Lang became a public speaker on the subject, telling audiences across Canada of the importance of healing and forgiveness. He also heard from other parents who had lost children, and their own experiences grappling with sadness, anger and forgiveness.

​

“The problem will be if you can’t reach that place of forgiveness, then you’re going to get stuck in that place of anger and bitterness,” said Lang.
“Forgiveness is not saying it’s okay or acceptable, it’s saying that I’m choosing to let go of this for my own health and to move on in life.”
While the La Loche investigation continues, Lang sympathized with the family and friends of victims who will now have their own difficult grief process to work through after another school tragedy.

​

“It’s really bad that we have people ending up in places where they don’t get the help and support they need and they end up doing something horrible like this.”

---

It doesn't mention here but Dale Lang ministered to the shooter while he was in custody.The point is that I look for God in the hearts of people like Dale Lang and I find Him there. I look for God in the hearts of people like Jean Vanier and I find Him there. I look for God in human activities such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission led by Desmond Tutu.Maybe the problem is that when you look for where God might be you just aren’t looking hard enough.

You quote a verse like this ” “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7) out of context, but then when I ask you to explain how God can be “evil” in this verse, yet be “a righteous God” a few verses later (v.21), you have no sensible answer.
You really ought to leave Bible discussions to those who can present arguments that rise above your level of bumbling, ignorant amateur. Approaching the subject honestly and with an open mind would also help.

Christianity: Jesus said, “I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves, so be as wise as serpents but as innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16).Islam: The Qur’an tells us: “not to make friendship with Jews and Christians” (5:51), “kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (2:191), “murder them and treat them harshly” (9:123), “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem”

Neither should you - according to your Darwinist belief-system, the "genocide” of species and sub-species has been going on for billions of years, so it's just part of Mother Nature doing her thing.

If God is the Creator of all then nothing can exist apart from his will, to include evil. Evil obviously serves a vital function just as light is meaningless without the understanding of what darkness is by contrast. So it seems that the Isaiah verse is not taken out of context, that exactly as it says is exactly as it means. Seems like a reasonable deduction given the omnipotence of the Creator. Perhaps evil's sole function is to provide meaning to good. But God is still ultimately responsible for its existence. But, hey, you and I are the molded clay... so who are we to bitch?

Nonsense. Your conclusion is not implied by the Catholic statements quoted. Try and think honesty instead of relying on your antiChrist prejudice.Show me a Catholic document that says “So-and-so is condemned to hell”, or that says, “All non-Catholic Christians are condemned to hell”, or that says “All Muslims are condemned to hell” or that says “All atheists are condemned to hell” or that says “Anyone not persuaded by Catholic teaching is condemned to hell”.

Well of course it is - political correctness/cultural Marxism hates free speech and is intolerant of dissenters. Just ask Australian sports star Israel Folau, who was sacked for preaching Christianity.
iview

In the first verse he was bragging about his creation, his evil.In the second he was boasting about how wonderful he saw himself.Only a bumbling, ignorant amateur could miss that.

Israel Folau had his say. His employer, who has the same right of free speech, had theirs.No government force involved. No violation of free speech.Only a bumbling, ignorant amateur could miss that.