I Know That God Does Not Exist

I think I see where you're confused. First of all, an idea that is not falsifiable cannot be established (or disproved) by reasoning. Therefore it is not rational. Second, whether or not I personally like the idea of a deity is neither here nor there. I don't like what some have done in the name of their deities, but that's a different issue. Third, a wrong idea may indeed be constructed in a rational form, such as, for example, the old idea that there are only four elements and every substance is a combination of those, but in light of new evidence it may be seen that the wrong idea was indeed arrived at irrationally, though at the time that idea may have been the best people could have done with what they had.I hope that clears things up for you.

Proving or disproving an idea depends on evidence - i.e. premises - not on reasoning about the idea itself. What might clear things up is if you would answer the question that I keep asking you: What is it, specifically, that is irrational about the idea of God? List the errors in reasoning and explain why each is an error.

In my mind, IF God existed, the idea would not be falsifiable. God is not simply a concept within our mind. The idea itself is plausible and rational(reasonable) ringo is asking you to hypothetically discuss whether belief in such a deity is rational. If you limit ratonality to ideas that can be falsified, you basically state that human wisdom itself is the source for any and all possible deities. Which is itself irrational.

While the concept of falsifiability depends on evidence, that merely describes what to do to falsify ideas that are falsifiable (if the falsifiable idea actually turns out to be false). Unfalsifiable ideas are, as the word suggests, not falsifiable. In fact, unfalsifiability is a technique that can be used to make arguments that boil down to, "You cannot prove me wrong, therefore I must be right." This is not a rational argument. One could say that right now, on the planet Altair IV there is an Id monster, but nobody has seen it, it leaves no visible traces and it will disappear before any sentient being sees it. There is no rational argument here.

But still, all that could have been faked, couldn't it?So you are no more certain that there have been passenger pigeons than you are certain passenger pigeons are extinct. But in one case you say "I know" and in the other case you say, "I would not say 'I know' there are no passenger pigeons.'Why is that.

It's hard to follow what ringo is thinking. It appears ringo desperately wants to say that there is something rational about the idea of a deity because the ancient Greeks had deities and also were logical people.It doesn't matter. I mean, the Greeks "rationally" decided that women shouldn't vote. Does that mean we should "rationally" conclude the same thing.

the idea of women voting has changed and we now see it as rational. Perhaps in your mind the idea of the rationality of a Deity has also changed. ringo essentially asked you to imagine one and(I'm assuming a personal one such as Jesus) give us your hypothetical reasons why such a concept is not rational. At least thats how i understood him. Im amazed, by the way that ringo and Tangle are actually supporting the argument of a believer! In conclusion, I will state that the idea of a Deity,(a knowable friendly One, at any rate) has to include the premise that such a Being is not a product of the human mind. Only then can you deal with the aspect of whether such a Deity (Jesus will fit nicely) is in fact rational or irrational as a possible belief and concept. To insist that evidence must be the standard for even allowing for such a Deity limits the entire belief paradigm to the human mind---and you and Stile both have predetermined that without evidence, the Deity cannot exist. Im proposing that a Deity need not conform to the traditional standard of evidence, since that would present the Deity as fact for 100% of the population when the scripture suggests that the population needs to decide individually whether or not such a Deity has any place in their mind and heart. This involves surrender and as jar would argue "parking ones brain at the door". Of course jar also believes that God does not pick and choose but essentially saves everyone...which allows for a 100% evidential standard. I would argue that only those who want such a Deity will even be allowed to find this Deity. This is likely by the will of the Deity itself.

If a thing exists, but there is no evidence of its existence, then there is no difference between a universe in which it exists and a universe in which it does not exist.

It became a cultural meme. Religion is taught not revealed.No one on earth ever, independently, without being told about it beforehand, felt the need to pray to Jesus.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

That's the deistic god concept and it can't be disproven.But we can't know that it's absolutely wrong either. We just say that it's so unlikely that for all normal purposes it's at best irrelevant and almost certainly an error.What I find interesting is that the two self-proclaimed deists here - Percy and RAZD don't chip in here.

The confusion is understandable.
I certainly understand that this is what it's intended for... and what the proponents of the argument want it to be... but is it?Let's take it through this process.
Just let me know which step you don't agree with:1. How do we know things exist?
-through rational testing
Do you agree or not? There's no sense in proceeding unless you agree with this.
But I'll lay out the rest anyway, to be open and speed things along:2. If we know things through "rational testing" and the question is "What can we know about the status of God's existence?" then it seems entirely rational that any argument for/against this idea will need to do some rational testing.
Do you agree or not? Again, no need to proceed if you don't agree.3. Where is the "rational testing" in the ontological argument?
Please just point it out. I don't see any.
Without any rational testing... the argument simply doesn't apply to the task at hand - it's irrelevant and irrational to think that it does.The problem with the ontological argument is the same as the problem with the beauty = creator deity argument.
From this explanation on Ontological arguments:

quote:

---

More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.

---

The argument takes an "if THIS, then GOD MUST EXIST" form. Then they go on to suggest that the THIS part could be real because some people feel it would be nice.But we know that "feeling that it would be nice" is a terrible, irrational way to "know things."
The best way to "know things" is through rational testing.
What is the rational testing that leads us to believe that THIS (whatever the ontological argument is using as it's premise) might actually be real?If that is not included... then the same problem exists: There's no rational reason to lead us to even think that the argument's premises even might actually exist. Therefore, the argument cannot rationally be applied to lend weight either way to the status of God's existence.And we're left with the only rational testing we've ever done on God: Looking for the past few thousand years where the "God experts" said we should look... and we've found nothing. I would not call Descartes irrational, no.
This is, however, irrelevant to the task at hand. In and of itself as an argument?
Again, take this argument: "Trees are "dead" if Stile deems them to be so. Stile says that green, flourishing tree is dead. Therefore, that green, flourishing tree is a dead tree."
It is also a rational argument.But it doesn't apply to the task at hand, does it?
Let's see if Descartes' ontological argument applies to the task at hand.Here's an explanation of Descartes' ontological argument. He seems to have presented two major versions. They both depend on "Descartes (idea) that God's existence is ultimately known through intuition" ...I'll leave that as a major red-flag hint that this isn't going to work out for Descartes. I'll list them both:

quote:

---

Version A

• Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
• I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
• Therefore, God exists.

​

Version B

• I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
• Necessary existence is a perfection.
• Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.

---

Version A relies on the premise "Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing."
Easily shown to be false: I can clearly and distinctly perceive a horn to be contained on a horses head - like a unicorn.
But unicorns do not exist, and such horns do not exist on horses.
Therefore, this is a failed premise.Version B relies on the premise "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being; necessary existence is a perfection"
Easily, again, shown to be false: Necessary clarity on the status of existence is a perfection as well. Obviously you and I don't have clairty on the status of God's existence.
Therefore, this is a failed premise.On top of showing how the premises fail... we don't even have to do that.
We can understand from both Version A and Version B that no "rational testing" is being done to know about God's existence.
Descartes is relying on his "intuition" to know God's existence.
But we know that "intuition" is a terrible way to "know things." As such, the argument is irrational when attempting to apply it to "knowing the status of God's existence."Although Descartes' ontological argument may be "a rational argument."
It does not pass the process of being rationally applicable to knowing anything about the status of God's existence.
Because we "know things" through rational testing.
And Descartes' ontological argument does not include any rational testing.
Therefore it would be irrational to apply Descartes' ontological argument to the task of attempting to "know something" about the status of God's existence.I hope that clarifies things.

But there are places we haven't looked to verify that you can bake a cake.
What if we go to one of those places and realize that you only think you've been baking a cake all this time, but not really?
And yet... you claim to know that you can bake a cake.The fact is... we don't have to look in all places.
Because our knowledge isn't based on absolutes.
Our knowledge is based on the rationally tested information available to us.Therefore this continued issue of your is an irrational issue, and can rightfully be ignored. "Recognize" is one thing. You're free to feel like you recognize anything you'd like.I'm concerned with rational testing - which is how we know things.
None of you have provided any rational tests to show that God even might exist.
I have also provided rational tests that show why every single one of your "reasons why I'm wrong" is either flat out wrong, or inapplicable because it's irrational and you simply desire it to have weight in the argument.

I also think that question is interesting.
But I haven't spent as much time focusing on it - so my thoughts may be immature.I do think, though, that it evolved.
Starting with, as you say: So now we have a general, vague concept of "something greater than humans" that "helps humans" to inspire hope or "can do things humans are incapable of" to inspire motivation to achieve greater heights ourselves. I think this is a simply evolution of the idea.
Have you ever heard of the "My Dad can beat up your Dad" game/argument/issue with children?It's a natural progression:I can lift this rock!
I can lift this bigger rock!
My Dad can lift that massive rock neither of us can move!
My Dad can beat up your Dad!
...
My Dad is infinity + 1!Continue this immature, greedy, self-absorbed argument and you get to "a perfect God."
We know that (some/many) humans are immature, greedy, self-absorbed creatures.
Why wouldn't the argument grow into the "perfect deity" level?Omnipotent? All benevolent? Always existing?They're the end-game of the "my Dad can beat up your Dad" game.Am I right? I dunno.
But it really does seem to fit...Edited by Stile, : Added letter that was chopped off in originally-incorrect copy/paste of quote

Things were clear before. You're still wrong for the same reasons because you're still saying the same things ;-)Essentially you want to exclude any argument from consideration except those that can be physically tested. You waffle a bit about this testing, but it resolves to using some form of scientific methodology. This renders everything else you say about being rational redundant. Just apply the normal tests that modern science uses to test reality.But if you do that you hit the problem that science can't test whether a non-interventionist god exists or not.At this point you say that you therefore know that he doesn't and I say that you can't know but a rational person would form the provisional conclusion that he doesn't exist and if he does it doesn't matter.

Which means it has no effect on our universe, our reality. It does nothing. It means nothing. Why consider its existence?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.