I Know That God Does Not Exist

ISIS? I don't think that fits. The Christians I hang with are never violent...either to gays or abortion clinics. They mainly feed the homeless and do outreaches at the local park with some laid back music.You may consider exclusivist preaching as militant, but that's because you live in this secular humanist PC world. Inclusivism is the in thing these days.

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.

We do now. Was it irrational to say that such things don't and can't exist before we had the capacity to observe them? You misunderstand. We have indirect evidence only for QM and invisible Santa. Santa himself is hidden from us. Children just calls him Santa because they've been told that's who it is. I think it's always rational to build models because they're all attempts to understand our universe. But I suspect that neither you nor I could tell whether there's actual 'real' evidence for the big physics stuff that people are doing these days. Incomprehensible and unprovable in many/most cases. Sorry stile this is just undergraduate bollox, the Monty Python 'what do we mean by mean' nonsense.As for the word games about 'know'. I'm using it in the normal everyday, practical way. That's good enough.

Stile your premise is on it's face fallacious and hence falls on it's face.

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.

It seems to be a fallacious argument from incredulity.You can not possibly know something does not exist based on it being to fantastical or irrational or crazy of a idea to exist.I told you this years ago.Go the the wiki page on God:
God - WikipediaLook at all of the concepts humanity has come up with concerning God.
There are some there that I agree I do not believe it either. But I am not going to say every conceivable idea of God has been examined and found to be false.Someone once said that Romeo and Juliet is a known work of fiction but that does not mean it does not say something true about love.I have no problem with your statement that you know God does not exist.
But it is I believe a fallacious argument.

As I said, the lack of evidence is objective. If you think it isn't, show how it isn't. You have it backwards. Intelligent origin is not the default. Lack of intelligent origin is the default. You're turning poor Occam upside-down again.

I'm not trying to invalidate the argument. I'm just saying that you need to use a very finely-tuned definition when dealing with such a controversial subject. The definition you are using is fine for preaching to the choir but beyond that, it's value is much less. You might as well have just posted, "I know that God doesn't exist," and closed the thread.

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.

If you do not like argument from incredulity we can switch it to argument from ignorance.
A fallacy does not show a argument to be false it just fails to give any reason why it should be true.Your belief that there is no god is reasonable and philosophically justified.But you are not saying based on looking for evidence and finding none you do not believe god exist. You are saying I know god does not exist.Your claim could be true or not. But it is not logical. based on what you are saying.Edited by 1.61803, : redundant