I Know That God Does Not Exist

A concept doesn't need evidence. There is no evidence for unicorns but it is not an irrational concept. There's a whole realm of literature - science fiction, fantasy - built on concepts that are not evidenced but not irrational. But you were looking in the wrong place for evidence of sharkfin soup. You can't claim there is "no evidence" if you're looking in the wrong place. As long as you make the mistake of calling God an irrational concept, you will come up with the same wrong conclusion.

Again, rationality has nothing to do with evidence. You are claiming (Message 1302) that, "God is an inherently irrational concept." It is not.

Believing that the concept is real may be irrational. The concept itself is not. You're moving the goalposts again.

You have not explained in any way how the concept of God is inherently irrational. You just keep asserting it. If you want to redefine irrational" along with "know", etc., it's going to be difficult to figure out what your "context" is.As long as the logic is internally consistent, the concept of God is not irrational. Thus, it is not different from the concept of sharkfin soup. If you contrive to search only in places where you don't expect to find them, you can claim non-existence of either, but your claim will not be very convincing.

You assert but you don't explain. What is wrong with the internal logic?

So explain how the concept of God is not logical or reasonable. But that doesn't agree with the definition that you just posted. You can't just arbitrarily dictate that something must exist to be a rational idea. Of course I disagree. See above. Again, evidence has nothing to do with it. If there was evidence to support the premise of God, then the conclusion that God exists would be true. But the premise does not have to be true for the logic to be valid. The logic is not about existence. Galloping goalposts. I have never said that either of those is rational.I have said that the concept of God is no less rational than the concept of sharkfin soup. The evidence for either may or may not be available - depending on where you look. You can contrive not to find evidence for sharkfin soup by deliberately looking in the wrong place. That does not mean that sharkfin soup does not exist and it does not mean that the idea of sharkfin soup is irrational. Goalposts moving again. You said yourself that you looked only on the McDonalds menu for sharkfin soup. As far as your investigation is concerned, sharkfin soup does not exist. And by your logic, the concept of sharkfin soup is irrational.

What, specifically, is irrational about it? We have thunderbolt-throwing technology of our own now.

Yes."a chunk of glowng, superheated plasma with an electrical current running through it" is your imagination. Substitute rocket-propelled grenade and then explain how the image is irrational.

Get your detector fixed. The Greeks may have described it in a different way but there is nothing irrational about the idea.

You would be wrong.They exist, so they fit even Stile's definition.

Rationality is not about what you prefer.

I asked and you didn't answer: What specifically is irrational about the idea? Where is the lack of logic?

Nobody's forcing you to accept a sensible worldview.

If you're going to ignore what I say, this could take a long time.I did point out that that is your description of God. We don't have to accept the Gospel According to Sarah Bellum literally, do we?I did point out that the Greeks might possibly have construed some technology more advanced than theirs - some technology even such as ours - as literal lightning. But it doesn't have to literally be lightning for the idea to be rational.So let's try again: Do you have any rational reason for thinking the idea of God is irrational?

Does rationality have an expiry date? I would think that rational is rational, regardless of the time frame.You and Stile both seem to be making the mistake of confusing rational with right. I say that an idea can be rational whether it has any basis in reality or not.You and Stile are calling all fiction irrational. I say that the logic/reason/rationality are separate from the truth value of the premises.