I Know That God Does Not Exist

My reply above, which I'm tired of pasting and re-pasting, is an answer to your question. Now you're unhappy because you say it isn't a "direct" answer to your question?If you're not going to respond to my argument, at least tell me what, in your opinion, is insufficiently direct in my post?

An excellent example.
We do know that unknown, mundane, physically-existing species exist.
We've found plenty, and found plenty more over the years.This is evidence that more could exist in places we don't know about.
Again - what is the evidence leading us to think God could exist somewhere we don't know about?These are not the same.
You cannot use "I know that no new species exist" as a similar statement to "I know that God doesn't exist."We have rationally-tested reasons to expect new species and keep looking for new ones.
We have no rationally-tested reason to expect God or to keep looking for God. But you didn't demonstrate that you can bake a cake in all places.
Perhaps you're not actually baking cakes - you only think you are, but you're wrong.
Why is that ignored?Why is it acceptable to place on God's existence?If you can rationally answer this contradiction in your claims of knowledge - then I will need to adjust my conclusions.
Without doing that, I'll stick with my consistent process of obtaining knowledge - and I know that God doesn't exist. There is no rational reason that God could be anywhere. Can you provide one? Thank-you for building the inference that gives us rational evidence to suggest that God does not exist.
Now, if we do this over the course of human history, for thousands of years, looking everywhere we possibly can... we turn this "rational inference" into "rational knowledge" just like anything else. I'm afraid this isn't being done in a vacuum.You are right, that if this was the first and only place people ever said God existed at... you'd have a point.
But, that's not what happened.
The thousands-of-years of inference-building did happen.
And it takes precedent.Just like the thousands-of-years of inference building that people can bake cakes.
It may not be true - if we find an eventual place that shows us we've been wrong all this time.
But it the rational inference leads us in that direction.
Therefore - the idea that "some place, some time (behind dark matter, say)" should cause us to doubt that people bake cakes - is irrational (although it may be true.)
Therefore - we know that people bake cakes. And I cannot say that I know ringo cannot bake a cake.Same with God.
We follow the existing precedence created by thousands of years of data building the inference into knowledge.
I know that God does not exist.
One more irrational idea that god may exist "some place, some time (behind dark matter, say)" causing us to doubt that God does note exist - is irrational (although it may be true.)
Therefore - we know that God does not exist. And I can say I know that God does not exist.If I provided a rationally-tested argument that people are not actually baking cakes... wouldn't you say you could no longer say "ringo can bake a cake?" After all - this new knowledge would destroy what you previously thought was true.Same with God.
If you provide a rationally-tested argument that God might actually exist... then I can no longer say "I know that God does not exist."

Then there's the question, "What do you mean by god?"If you're too vague, claiming that your god started everything fourteen plus billion years ago by creating the Big Bang and then went away forever, you've given us something that's not falsifiable, so there's no point discussing it.If you're too specific, claiming that your gods stand on Mount Olympus and one throws thunderbolts down at us sometimes or claiming that your god flooded the entire planet to the depth of several miles a few thousand years ago, then the evidence shows your claims aren't rationally based and there's no point discussing that either.

Although I've been going in depth and great detail as to "why" this is true...
...I completely agree.No one seems to be able to find a God that is in "the sweet spot" where it would actually be rational to consider the idea one way or the other.
Which is why I've also claimed that this argument works for "all concepts of God or God-like deities" and have left that definition completely open.I'll change my position as soon as someone provides a rational argument to the contrary.My claim is, basically, can be reworded to say: there's no rational evidence leading toward the existence of any God in any sense.I don't think many would argue with that.
But take the exact same concept and say: "I know that God does not exist" and they get all riled up... even though they cannot rationally explain why they're riled."There's no rational evidence leading toward the existence of Big Foot in any sense."
Doesn't seem to cause anyone an issue (other than ringo - but his claim is irrelevent to rational knowledge anyway) to say: I know that Big Foot doesn't exist.But substitute "God" for "Big Foot"... with an even greater level of "no evidence" for God than Big Foot (greater in the sense that the search for God-evidence has gone on longer than the search for Big Foot-evidence) and folks have irrational issues they refuse to call irrational, even though they can't argue why it should be considered rational.It's quite fascinating (to me, anyway.)

A new word I learned a few years ago on this forum is ignosticism:

quote:

---

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition. It may also be described as the theological position that other theological positions assume too much about the concept of god.

---

At the very least, there can be no productive discussion about whether some god-person exists until all sides can agree on some kind of proper definition of "god".Myself, I don't see how we could arrive at a proper definition, since there's no way for us to observe, let alone detect, any supernatural thing that might possibly be construed to be a god. All we can do is to try imagine such a thing, which means that we would have to make a god up.Furthermore, even if a god did actually exist, it would be not only be unobservable and undetectable to us, but also beyond our comprehension. So we would still need to make up a version of that god that our mere human minds could wrap itself around.So then, all the gods do exist, because we created them. That is how we can know so much about them in such great detail, because we also created their stories.

I would not say I "know" there are no passenger pigeons. I would say that nobody seems to be able to find any.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Er yes. But, for example, the ontological argument for the existence of god is exactly applicable to whether god exists or not. And it's rational.It seems that internal consistency means something other than being rationally consistent to itself and its argument, and nor is externally consistent anything to do with, well what exactly? so I admit to be struggling here.

quote:

---

That's what I've meant from the very beginning of this thread when I've said the argument needs to be rational.

---

I don't know many people that would call people like Descartes irrational. Wrong maybe, but irrational no.Is Rene Descartes' ontological argument irrational?

A direct answer would fill in the blanks as I asked you to do. It is becoming pretty clear that you can't do it.

The fact that there are places we haven't looked. I don't care if you alter your conclusions. Most of us seem to recognize already that your conclusions are wrong. I'm just adding my two cents to the reasons why they are wrong.

I'm going to ask you to fill in some blanks first.1. Do you understand the post I've copied below? ________ (Yes or No)2. Do you disagree with the post I've copied below? ________ (Yes / No / Don't understand the post)

Another interesting question is, how do people come to believe in a deity in the first place?Fear and ignorance might have affected Neolithic tribes who couldn't do anything about the weather or volcanoes or attacks by lions and tigers and bears (Oh! My!).But later on . . .

Perhaps someday we will develop powers like that of the Krell in Forbidden Planet and be able to produce our own gods. Or demons, at least.

Yes. Of course I disagree and I've already explained why. Nothing in that post shows irrational thinking, which is why I keep asking you to point out exactly what is irrational about it.An idea you don't like is not necessarily irrational. An idea that is flat-out wrong is not necessarily irrational. An idea that is unfalsifiable is not necessarily irrational.So, will you finally debate in good faith and answer my question?

Would you say that you know that at some time in the past passenger pigeons existed?You might, but you couldn't know for certain, could you? There could be a vast conspiracy, complete with fake textbooks and doctored museum specimens.Nevertheless, we do say that at some time in the past passenger pigeons existed, but now they are extinct. And we don't lose any sleep over the imaginary possibility that those statements may be incorrect.

I think I could say I know it, based on the concept of "know" that I have been using. I could show you a stuffed passenger pigeon or a skeleton.