I Know That God Does Not Exist

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?

Logical Forms:X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true. You can know Santa does not exist because no one is out there defending the possibility of Santa existing. Most adults are in full agreement with you.
Same for Chimeras and banana keys.You already previously admitted to the possibility of god.
to admit to the possibility is to admit to it possibly existing.
Hence you do not know.

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.

But I don't have a position on chimeras! From the knowledge I have about biology I agree that science says they don't so there's good reason to accept that. Is that 'know? Probably. Ask me about dark matter and I don't know and will never know, I will have take whatever science tells me on trust.The questions 'does god exist?' and 'is there life on other planets?', are simply not the same as 'is that a chair you're sat on?' or even 'do chimeras exist' - I know things with different degrees of certainty. It's not binary no matter how much you want to make it so.Knowledge is owned by society as a whole, works by consensus and is not homogeneously right or wrong. Beliefs, opinions positions etc are personal, subjective. What you call 'know' when you're talking about things we know nothing of, is actually an opinion regardless how reasonable.

Maybe it would help if you told us where you think god is supposed to be, what effects you expect to see and what you expect to find - with a non-interventionist god.

Ok Santa is real. look here
Is Santa Real or Fake? Proof Santa Exists And Is True in 2022

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.

I look to the experts for that.
If you are proposing a non-interventionist god, then it's up to you to propose what they are supposed to do.If the answer is "nothing different from not existing" - then it is an irrational concept, and is rightfully ignored as much as banana keys or crab chairs.

...you can pick the one you think best shows the evidence that Santa is real in a rational way.I think it will be rather simply to show that all of them are not rational claims.Please try again.

Stile, please see my post previous to that.If it makes no sense to you then I do not know what else I can add to this discussion.
It is not logical to dismiss something because you have not found evidence for it yet.
*The evidence may be forthcoming or you have not looked everywhere or any number of things.
You agreed to the possibility but negate it's existence.
This is in congruent. Lets agree to disagree.Edited by 1.61803, : removed a word.Edited by 1.61803, : *added.

The problem here is that you want to define 'know' to mean what you want it to mean. I'm not accepting your premise. And it's based merely on word play.

Well firstly I disagree that there is no evidence for a creative intelligence but that isn't the point. However, to the point, I agree with it being objective, but lack of evidence isn't conclusive, so Stile cannot "know" that God doesn't exist.There is also lack of evidence to show that the natural processes that are available for us to study today resulted from other pre-existing natural processes. We are searching for truth so there is no default position. It is either A or B; God or no God. Occam is a philosophical approach and not a scientific one and is hardly objective evidence.

That is a total cop-out Stile. In claiming that you know God does not exist then you are claiming to be an expert.When I claim that an interventionist God intervenes as a meme in human hearts you, as an expert, reject that.Tangle asked the obvious question and you simply tried to duck it.

Oh yes, it's been a long struggle up from superstition. A struggle that has to be renewed every generation.

I believe it is human irrationality helps keeps us going and creative in our problem solving.If AI ever becomes a real thing then we shall see what absolute rationality will get us. Humanity will work itself right out of a job. Namely being human is costly and inefficient.
Think about it.