I Know That God Does Not Exist

Evidence required. Who?Evidence required.

That's not my perspective. It seems to be Sarah's perspective.I'd say that belief in anything without objective evidence may be irrational - but I'm not sure that's universal either. I don't think the product of your imagination is necessarily irrational.

I have never said otherwise. I have said that not finding something is no guarantee that it doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say that that is universal either. No you have not. I have asked you repeatedly to spell it out and you always refuse to do so. Just list the logical errors. That's all you have to do. That's only one idea. It doesn't make all ideas about God irrational. I'm not sure it's a contradiction anyway - we've had reams of discussion about that on this forum without coming up with a definitive answer.

My position that you don't understand what rational means? I have defended it. I have pointed out that you keep bringing up things like evidence and falsifiability which have nothing to do with rationality.

How would one go about obtaining evidence that would satisfy you?

Let me know when and I’ll host a small party of 20 or so at my favorite pizza place where he/she/it can show us his majik by putting an end to our world’s need/penchant for war and put an immediate and permanent end to hunger and disease.Since it’s such a small party she could whisk us away to another galaxy to another planet to another intelligent species where she promises to stop torturing them as well as all others in the universe.Then we could return to the party where the media is set up for a press conference where it would explain itself and its reasons and beg our forgiveness for the countless millennia of torture and evil it inflicted on the universe.And then pick up the tab.That would help.I’m not set on the agenda. Open to the specifics. Have him call me and we can discuss the details.

I doubt I can move this discussion along but I've just got to butt in.It seems to me that rational decision making must involve "reasoning". You reason your way to a conclusion. Yes?To reason you need some inputs. That is some facts to reason with/on.If there are no facts as input there can be no rational decision making.

So if you prayed to God, you would be willing to lay down your accusations against Her long enough to allow God to inform you of His(Her) presence? You must be willing to set aside any preconceived anger or irritation you would have should such a Deity prove real. You can always quibble with Him later.1) Assume for the sheer sake of argument and pursuit of evidence that God as I present Him hypothetically could exist. If you cant go that far, you wont get evidence the way that you jokingly(semi seriously) demand it.
2) Say the following prayer---to yourself and to any hypothetical Deity Whom Might be listening:GOD, Yahweh, Fred, or whatever I should call you: I first off admit that I feel silly and superfluous uttering this prayer but am doing so solely because my internet acquaintance says it will work. I am not so convinced, but I will for this moment open my mind,heart and soul to anything you seek to confirm or show me. I lay down my right to be critical of you personally, though I reserve the right to continue being an atheist cultural critic. Hey, I am giving you (You) my permission to inform me of your existence. At this point, honestly, I can and will do no more. For this prayer...this moment...I open my defenses. Have at me.3) Say no more. Give this prayer a week. You need only sincerely say it once.4) Tell me any conclusions not preconceived or expected after this week. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Do the inputs need to be facts? Can't you reason on "ifs"?

Eleanor Roosevelt can fly.Reasoning: if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings she could fly.

Let's see a god worth my praying to first then we'll discuss whether my accusations against her are worthy.

Yes, you can reason on non-facts. So I guess if you use that anything can be "rational".So the discussion is over? The word has no meaning?

Good example. The premise is false so the conclusion is suspect - but the reasoning is sound.

No, the word has meaning. Suppose I said, "All circles have three sides. Therefore, my dog is a coffee table." That would be irrational because there is no logical connection between the premise and the conlusion. But if I said, "If a dog is a wooden object with four legs, then my dog is a coffee table," that is logically sound, even if the conclusion is absurd.