I Know That God Does Not Exist

Wanted to mention something... I agree with this (the analogy to loving-your-wife.)I subjectively believe my wife loves me and continually obtain confirmations about that.
But I always subjectively believe that she loves me more than a rational analysis of the confirmation would allow.I subjectively love my wife.
My love for my wife is irrational.
(Again - same context for irrational - not "silly or stupid" but simply - a concept that is claimed to exist when no evidence-for-the-existence exists itself.)And I think my irrational love for my wife is stronger and more powerful (to me) than any possible rational analysis could provide.
I think my irrational love for my wife is better than any rational love for anything could ever be.But... if someone asked me if my wife existed. Like, say... the government looking to identify her for a passport:
-I wouldn't tell them about how much I loved her
-I would send them copies of her birth certificate and current pictures in the format they require
-I would send the rational, objective evidence
-because the irrational idea that I-love-my-wife-more-than-anything means nothing to someone looking to see if she exists or not in a rational, reasonable context I see my love for my wife as both subjective and poetic
Also - I'll get a kiss if she happens to see this I see it as people being people - using subjective feelings as an explanation for something they can't explain.
Of course - this is not rational, and should be ignored in the context of a rational, reasonable analysis of reality.

I've never witnessed any, or heard of a claim that held up to rational analysis.
Which makes it an irrational concept - unless someone can provide some evidence.
And, if it's nothing more than an irrational concept - it is rightly ignored in providing doubt to a rational analysis of the information we do have in assessing reality.

No.Irrational concept: A concept that is believed to exist without any evidence for the existence of the concept in the first place.We have evidence that microbes and black holes exist - do we not? We do have evidence of quantum mechanics - do we not?
How is this like the invisible Santa? - I am not aware of evidence for invisibile Santa - do you have some to share with us?Do we have evidence that the mathematical models hold true for other aspect of our universe? - I believe we do.
If we do not, if such a mathematical model is created by pure delight with no evidence at all linking it to our reality in any way - of course we should consider this irrational - why shouldn't we? If there is evidence to build them - then no.
If there is no evidence to build them - then yes. Great.
So pick one thing - any one thing - your best "I really know this is absolutely true" thing.
If I cannot find an idea to place the same amount of doubt on it that is placed on "well... what if this God-with-no-evidence-actually-exists?" places on knowing God does not exist... then I will concede your argument.If I can, however, find an idea to place that same amount of doubt on the example you pick as you "really does exist" concept - then will you concede that I am correct?I'll even give you a hint as to what I'm going to say:Tangle's best thing we know "I really know that XXXXX exists!."
Stile's response: "Tangle, have you been to everywhere and everywhen? Are you sure that at some where or some when we cannot find any information that might show us that XXXXX actually doesn't exist, and you were wrong to think that it did?"But please, go ahead and try... perhaps you actually do have a concept that is immune to such irrational doubting? Again, I agree.
The categorical difference is: One is rational, the other is irrational. Yes, it's the kind of belief that words have consistent meanings... words like "know." And that to retain such a consistent meaning - irrational concepts need to be rightfully ignored. By agreeing on definitions by looking at who's being rational and who's making up inconsistent irrationalities - just like you and I are doing.

I completely agree.
I even think that our irrational side can be more powerful than our rational side - for things like love and comedy and sometimes even motivation.But this doesn't change the fact that over the last few thousand years we've discovered that rational analysis provides us with progress in our knowledge about the truth of reality. And when we let irrational ideas effect such knowledge - it restrains progress and can even destroy it all together.

I completely agree. I disagree very much.How is my love for my wife evidence that she exists?
If it's evidence - why doesn't the government even consider it as a question on the form to get her a passport?I think you're conflating "powerful emotions" with "evidence."Powerful emotions are amazing things, some of the most amazing things humans are capable of.
But they aren't evidence of things existing. They never have been, and never will be.It's realistically possible that my wife does not love me the way I think she does.
Many, many relationships have fallen apart because one side believed the other loved them more than they actually did.
Have you never heard "I never saw this coming.... I thought they loved me??!!!!"
Almost every divorce contains something like that - some level where one side thought the other loved them as much as you and I love our wives... but they were just wrong. That love did not exist - they just believed it did. The person they thought existed - did not actually exist. Someone else existed - someone they didn't know.That's why "powerful emotions" or even "emotions of any level" are not evidence - they are often wrong and we know they are often wrong.
That doesn't stop them from becoming powerful (they can even be powerful and wrong!) - but no matter how powerful they get - they are not evidence.
They don't meet the standard of "objectively being highly likely to be true" - even when they are true - they cannot be "objectively true." And that's the whole point of the word "evidence" - for something to be "objectively highly likely to be true." Not just "highly likely to be true for my specific, personal, subjective situation."

I think it would be fair if the believer acknowledged:1. Knowledge requires evidence - objective and verifiable.
2. Information (claims/ideas) without evidence are irrational.
3. If there is no evidence for something, and the only information available to support it's existence is irrational - we cannot say we know it exists.
4. If we take the time to search for more evidence of the irrational concept anyway - searching anywhere we possibly currently can - and still come up with no evidence for the claim/idea at all - then the rational conclusion is that we know the claim/idea does not exist.
5. The only way to overturn the knowledge that the claim/idea does not exist is to actually find evidence of it's existence - irrational claims will not suffice.Some dampening caveats may soften any seeming-harshness:
a. Even our "knowledge" based on objective evidence can be wrong and overturned - see the shape of the earth going from flat to spherical to oblong-sphere to whatever-it's-actually-called-now (and likely still not "perfectly accurate.")
b. It's quite possible that irrational claims/ideas can become knowledge - and many do - but this does require evidence.This method works perfectly for knowing that all things-we-know actually exist.
This method works perfectly for knowing that the great-majority of irrational ideas do not exist (Santa, unicorns, chimera...)
For some reason, some people don't think this same method applies to God or any deity.However, they (any who choose to dispute the method - some theists, some atheists) are currently unable to describe a rational reason why they should be taken seriously.
Which is why the first post of this thread still stands undefeated: I Know That God Does Not Exist.

Did we have this conversation years ago in this thread? I don't feel like digging for it... but it feels like we did.And I still agree with this conlclusion:**IF** you want to be explicit about your definition of the word "know" to include only a certain level of confidence... then you cannot say "I know that God does not exist."However:**IF** you want to be explicit about your definition of the word "know" as described in the first post of this thread... and remain consistently rational with that definition... then the only reasonable conclusion is to say "I Know That God Does Not Exist."That being said... if anyone attempts to argue that I cannot use the word "know" in the way I'm using it as described in this thread... or if that definition is "weird or strange" in some sense... I think they're wrong. And demonstrably wrong. (And I think I've demonstrated that over the last 1000 or so posts..)However (again There's nothing wrong with defining the word "know" differently... for lack of objective terms we're left with calling it a "slightly higher confidence level" (higher than what? what's slightly lower? what is this measuring bar? is "God" the only thing divided here?) - then this is a valid way to dispute "I know that God does not exist."...it just simply does not invalidate the argument/definitions as described in the first post.A bit confusing... but that's my best shot at putting it into words.

With that... I will completely agree.

Not at all.Just like it's not irrational to say "I know chimeras do not exist" right now.
Maybe tomorrow we get evidence that shows they do exist... then it would be rational to change your position on chimeras.That's how all knowledge grows:
-Current knowledge claims are based on current information/evidence.
-Future gains to information/evidence lead to changes in knowledge claims. I don't understand how you're using the term "indirect."The difference I'm making is that the evidence for QM is objective, and it exists (direct or indirect is irrelevant.)
There is no evidence for an invisible Santa. The claims may be direct or indirect - but again, are irrelevant.Direct/Indirect doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is evidence (objective, verifiable information) or not (claims/ideas.) You think it's rational to build a mathematical model describing our universe as nothing but various cheeses?
How so?Perhaps you mean something else? Again - I've defined what I mean by "know."
It is clearly defined in the first post, and I'm remaining consistent with that position.Again - it's you who is saying "that's not the right definition for the word 'know'!"
-yet you are so far unable to show why it's not right
-and you have so far failed to provide your own rational, consistent definition when asked what you're talking aboutTherefore - it's you playing the Monty Python nonsense - I'm still using the same single, rational, consistent definition I started with. You've claimed this many, many times now.
Yet - whenever I provide an example, or a test for the way you use it in order to advance your argument - you claim "it's bollox!" and avoid moving forward.
You won't even engage my proposed examples or tests to adjust them to your liking. You just keep avoiding moving forward in anyway beyond your baseless claim.
That's why your argument falls flat - you refuse to move forward with it.

How so? Please describe why you think such a thing, and we can examine it.

Then we also cannot possibly know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.
And we also cannot possibly know that Santa Claus does not exist.
And we also cannot possibly know that chimeras do not exist.
And we also cannot possibly know that my keys are not bananas.However - we do know all these things.
It is in this same sense that I do know that God Does Not Exist.All these things all include a certain level of doubt as described:

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.

---

Without allowing for this doubt - we cannot say we know anything.
Like my keys not being banana keys.But we do know such things - we know my keys are not banana keys because of our "available information" on keys and bananas.
Does it include all information? Of course not - only a tiny, infinitesimally small fraction of "all information."
Still - it's what we have so far, so we base our rational knowledge conclusions on what we objectively know-so-far.It works for knowing my keys are not bananas.
It works for knowing chimeras do not exist.
It works for knowing God does not exist. Have you ever heard of the flat earth society?
Humanity is wrong about a great number of things in great numbers.
Popularity, actually, really is a fallacious argument. And I believe I have a rational, reasonable rebuttal for your claim that my argument is fallacious.
Your inability to show that my rebuttal is less-than-acceptable for any rational reason - tells me that your claim remains as baseless now as it was years ago.Your task is the same as Tangle's - show that your claim of a fallacy in my argument is rational and reasonable.
Back up your claim.Tell me something that you know exists... and we will see if the same kind of irrational, without-evidence doubt you're applying to God can be applied to the thing you know exists.If it can - then you are erasing the word "know" from human language. Which is silly. Of course we can know things - therefore your claim of a fallacy will be incorrect.
If it cannot - then I will bow down and accept that your claim is correct - my argument will be fallacious.But... Tangle isn't able to do this in the last 5 posts I've been asking for one.
You haven't been able to do this either (granted... this is the first I've asked you, I think, so now's your chance!)

I did not intend to imply that you were, I was agreeing with you. Agreed - and I knew this going in.
That's why the definitions were setup in the first post.
Just like any argument - if you disagree with the definitions - of course the argument will not follow.
Since the word "know" is used rather... fluidly... in differing circles, I gave it a direct definition. ***Disclaimer: The rest of this post turned into a broad summary, not so much directed specifically to ringo***I thought this too, at first (I believe I had a discussion earlier in this thread with Catholic Scientist that led me to this conclusion.)
But now - I'm not too sure.Well, I mean... I don't think this will convince those who-do-not-want-to-be-convinced (does that ever happen for anything? )... but I do think the logic/rationality is sound.If nothing else, this thread is teaching me that the only reason people do not agree with "I Know That God Does Not Exist" is for social/subjective/cultural/traditional or maybe just stubborness types of reasons.Which are perfectly fine reasons to have.
It's just not perfectly fine to have such reasons... and then say that my argument doesn't follow because of their own subjective reasons.It is perfectly fine to say "that definition of 'know' doesn't work for me.... so this argument doesn't work for me."
It is not okay to say "that definition of 'know' is not rational... so this argument doesn't work."It seems like I'm arguing over the definition of "know" with those who are not being rational... but want to be rational.
But it just doesn't work that way.You can either be confident/persuaded by your own subjective use of the word "know" and walk away from this argument... leaving this argument intact (and only applicable within it's rational scope - however large that may be.)Or you can sit and argue how "know" should be taken in a rational sense.
The problem here is that there is only 1 way to take the word "know" in a rational sense - to include a certain level of "doubt."What's being argued is how much "a certain level" is while remaining rational.
I am unable to specifically define how much "a certain level of doubt" is against an objective scale - is there even a way to measure such a thing for this type of question?
I have left this open to anyone else to provide a scale as well... I don't think one has been offered.Therefore, I've been comparing it to other examples.
If we look at other examples, and apply the same "level" - God falls into the same "no evidence" category as Santa, chimeras and banana-keys. With the only difference being "well, I feel differently about God then I do about chimeras... so this can't be applied in the same way."
That difference makes it subjective, and without evidence to back it up it's irrational - so it doesn't count for a rational definition of "know."I think I've provided enough examples to show God falls in the same category.
I've now left it to any detractors to provide their own example to rationally show that God should be treated differently.
So far, though, no one's been able to do this. I do not disagree.
But then how would we all have fun? I believe it was Modulous, years ago, that posted something like:"If I can know that bigfoot and the loch ness monster do not exist, then I can know God does not exist for the same reasons."Such a statement (with the "if" in front) didn't cause such a stir.
My argument is basically the same idea - just with the 'if / then' removed and replaced with formal definitions and structure. The "if /then" is still there, it's just not specifically mentioned. It's more of an implied "if you accept the described rational premise... then you must follow the logic through to this single conclusion."
It seems to provoke a much greater level of retaliation, even though the core idea is no different.

I understand what you're claiming.
But if your claim of a fallacy is baseless, it's baseless no matter what you call it.
And my argument would remain logical.In order for your claim to have validity, you need to back it up. That's right.The exact same reason I know Santa does not exist.
The exact same reason I know chimeras do not exist.
The exact same reason I know my keys are not bananas.What's not logical about that?
Or... are you agreeing that the word "know" cannot be used to describe anything and should be removed from all language?You seem unable to respond to this idea:

quote:

---

Without allowing for this doubt - we cannot say we know anything.
Like my keys not being banana keys.

​

But we do know such things - we know my keys are not banana keys because of our "available information" on keys and bananas.
Does it include all information? Of course not - only a tiny, infinitesimally small fraction of "all information."
Still - it's what we have so far, so we base our rational knowledge conclusions on what we objectively know-so-far.

​

It works for knowing my keys are not bananas.
It works for knowing chimeras do not exist.
It works for knowing God does not exist.

---

And repeating your baseless claim by giving it another name does nothing to advance your claim.
In order to advance your claim, your task remains the same:

quote:

---

Show that your claim of a fallacy in my argument is rational and reasonable.
Back up your claim.

​

Tell me something that you know exists... and we will see if the same kind of irrational, without-evidence doubt you're applying to God can be applied to the thing you know exists.

​

If it can - then you are erasing the word "know" from human language. Which is silly. Of course we can know things - therefore your claim of a fallacy will be incorrect.
If it cannot - then I will bow down and accept that your claim is correct - my argument will be fallacious.

---

By not doing so, you seem to be unable to do so.
This means you are unable to show that your claim of a fallacy in my argument is valid.
Therefore, your baseless claim of a fallacy is rightfully ignored.As long as you avoid supporting your claim, it will be rightfully ignored.
Why would it be any other way?

This is exactly what I'm doing."X is true because you cannot prove that X is false."
"X is God exists."
"God exists because you cannot prove that God does not exist."
-but, there's a problem... I can prove that God does not exist... therefore, this statement is false due to this proof:

quote:

---

How do we "know" things?
We first start with the assumption that it is possible for us to know anything about the existance we find ourselves in.
We then take what data we can find and analyze it.

​

How do we "know" negative statements about the existance of things?
Example: "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
This is a clear example. Obviously the way we know this is to look at McDonald's menu to see if Sharkfin soup is available. If it is is not there, this statement is correct. If it is there, the statement is false.

​

Example: "I know that Santa Claus does not exist."
This is more like the "I know that God does not exist" claim. But, again, the idea is the same as the previous example. We look for where the thing is supposed to be (North Pole? Chimneys during Christmas Eve night?) and see if the thing is there or not. In the case of a 'being', we are also able to check to see if certain things are done that this being is supposed to do (do presents appear underneath Christmas trees or in stockings hung on the fireplace mantle?)

​

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.

---

I can prove that God does not exist the same we prove all the things we know that don't exist.
I look where God is supposed to be, or the effects God is supposed to cause, and don't find anything.
Just as I look where chimeras are supposed to be, or the effects of chimeras, and don't find anything. This sounds like terrible reasoning based on an argument of popularity.
Why would I care if "most adults" agree with me or not?
I'm more inclined to look at what can objectively be shown.
Objectivity does not require other's "agreement" - it merely requires their honesty.
Through being honest, they will be forced to agree.It's the honest, multiple observation that matters for objectivity - not "agreement" in a popularity sense.I don't know "Santa does not exist" because other adults agree.
I know "Santa does not exist" because I've looked where Santa is supposed to be, and the effects Santa is supposed to cause... and find nothing. Just as I already admitted to the equal irrational possibility of chimeras and Santa and banana keys, yes. No. Admitting to an irrational possibility is not admitting to the idea possibly existing in a rational sense.
Why would it?That's the logical conflation error you are making. Rationally, I do.
Irrationally... I do not know. But who cares about "irrationally knowing something?" Seems like a useless oxymoron of a concept, to me.Again, the only way you can show this rational method is invalid is by providing me with an example where you know something exists - and I am unable to identify an irrational reason to cause doubt.If you can do that... then I can no longer ignore the irrational reasons for doubting God's existence.If you can't do that... then the irrational reason of "there might be evidence for God... somewhere..." also does not prevent me from knowing God does not exist - and the conclusion remains valid.For the record - so far you're unable to do that.

That's not a problem - that's why I asked for you to give an example that you do know about. "Is that a chair you're sat on?"Is that your example?I can say I know I'm sitting in the chair I'm in.
There is an irrational idea that adds irrational doubt - though:Perhaps I only think this is a chair.
I have not searched everywhere and every when.
Perhaps somewhere, or some when, we will identify evidence that shows this is not a chair, it is actually a crab and I am wrong.According to me - this is an irrational doubt based on an irrational idea (an idea that does not have evidence to support that it may exist in the first place.)
According to me - I can ignore irrational doubts when making a rational knowledge claim.
Therefore, according to me - my chair exists.But what about your chair?
Does your chair exist?What about the irrational doubt? Does that not affect your claim that your chair exists?Can you say: "the idea that my chair is actually a crab exists is only based on irrational (non-evidenced) ideas - equivalent to imagination - therefore it can be ignored and I know that my chair does not exist as a crab."
I can.
And I am open to the idea that one day, somewhere... we may identify that my chair actually is a crab, with evidence.
If that happens - I will update my position on my chair.It seems to me that if we follow your lead in taking on irrational-doubts... not even you can consistently say that your chair exists. It might be a crab.If you, too, can actually say your chair exists (because you ignore the irrational crab-doubt), why not also say: "the idea that God exists is only based on irrational (non-evidenced) ideas - equivalent to imagination - therefore it can be ignored and I know God does not exist."Based on exactly the same concept of how we know things.If you think you can say one, but not the other - why is that? What's the difference other than accepting or not accepting the irrational doubt due to your personal, subjective experiences (cultural/social tradition?) This is not true when we move onto rational knowledge based on evidence, is it?
Again, you're attempting to add in your "bollux" and conflate definitions. Next you'll accuse me of doing it when I straighten it out again?
If I have not been clear, I'll say it again - this entire thread is based on rational knowledge obtained as described in the first post.