I Know That God Does Not Exist

Same as for anything else: Those claiming that the idea has a connection to reality need to show that connection to reality.
Without that - it's irrational for them to suggest that the idea should have any effect on our knowledge about reality.

I agree you can know how to bake a cake: There is a connection between cakes and reality and your performance. Meet those requirements and you know you can bake a cake. I am aware of the requirements, I don't doubt it's possible for you to meet them - therefore I cannot say: I know ringo cannot bake a cake.Of course, for God's existence - there is no connection from imagination to reality.
Without that - I know that God does not exist.It's demonstrated like this: There is no connection from the imagination of God to reality.
That's it.It's easy to break that demonstration for all other things we think can exist:
-ringo baking cakes
-ringo existing
-cakes existing
-ringo being a person
-people being able to bake cakesIf those all didn't exist... if there was no connection between cakes or ringo-baking-them to reality, then I could say "I know ringo cannot bake a cake."
But... there is, so I can't say it.For God?
-no connection between imagination and reality.
-Therefore: I know that God does not exist.Just provide the connection from imagination to reality for God and it all goes away.

Only if you stop saying you can't know negative things.
If you can't know negative things, then you can't know positive things either - because the reason you can't know either is the same (something not currently part of our "current information" may exist that shows it to be wrong.) It is a demonstration.
And it's simple to overcome - just provide the connection between God and reality.
Without doing that - there is no connection between God and reality.
Without a connection between God and reality - I know that God does not exist. It is backed up:
Without a connection between God and reality - I know that God does not exist.

Exactly.The only wiggle room is attempting to create confusion:Like suggesting that "knowledge" is absolute.
-it isn't, knowledge is tentative and based on our currently available informationOr suggesting that an idea of God is rational, therefore the idea-that-God-exists is rational
-this is very illogical and rather absurdOr suggesting that "we can't know negative things."
-also clearly wrong, and becomes clear when you remember that knowledge is tentative and based on our currently available information

Because knowledge isn't based on absolutes.
Knowledge is based on the information available to us. You keep making this same error. Again, and again, and again.If nobody was claiming a connection to reality - then the information available to us shows there's no connection to reality.Therefore, the tentative conclusion is that I know God does not exist - because there's no connection between imagination and reality based on the information available to us.And, since all knowledge is tentative, and all knowledge is based on the information available to us - we can leave these out as they are redundant:I know God does not exist.

But it is the same way:You can tentatively know a positive based on the information available to us.
You can tentatively know a negative based on the information available to us.All knowledge is tentative.
All knowledge is based on the information available to us.Therefore, we can leave these out as they are redundant:You can know a positive.
You can know a negative. Then explain why you can't know a negative, and why this doesn't also apply to knowing a positive.
I understand if you think knowledge is absolute.. but knowledge is not absolute - therefore your logic is in error. The reality is: There is no connection between the imagination of God and reality.If you don't think that's an accurate description of reality, I'm open to more information. Just provide it.
Without providing it - the claim of reality stands.Since there is no connection between the imagination of God and reality - I know that God does not exist.

I'm not doing this.
Are you saying we have no available information?
Are you saying people haven't irrationally searched for God for thousands of years and found nothing?

Of course 'failure to find' is a demonstration of not finding something in our available information.Again - knowledge is not absolute. Same error, again.

If someone rationally searched for God's existence - please inform us of the rational link between God and reality.
Without that, it was an irrational search.And if they found God - please inform us of the rational tests that show God's existence.
Without that, it was an irrational claim.

And no one is making a claim on lack-of-knowedge.I'm making a claim on the information available to us.
Do you dispute that we have information available to us?
And that, according to this information, there is no link between God and reality?

True. This doesn't make the search rational either, though.The search's rationality does not depend on anything found or not.
The search's rationality depends on the reasoning to do the search.If you do a search simply because "I want to find something" - this is irrational. There is no link to reality from the imagination.
If you do a search because some fact leads you to believe you'll find something - this is rational.Example:1. "If God exists, He exists everywhere and therefore is in the next room."
2. "Let's search the next room!"
3. *searches next room*You cannot say this is "rational" or "irrational."
It all depends on what part you look at.Searching the next room is rational if you accept the premise of #1.
Of course, with no link to reality - premise #1 is irrational in itself.Therefore, it's both depending on context:
The search is rational - based upon accepting the premise and logically following from there.
The search is irrational - based upon noting that the premise it's based upon is irrational to consider it's validity in the first place (there's no link from the imagination of this premise to reality.)You seem to be focusing on the search being rational because one accepts the premise.
To this - I say: who cares? Almost everything becomes rational if you make up the right premise for it.
I'm caring about a search being rationally done based upon whatever-you're-looking-for actually being a part of reality.Without a link-to-reality for the idea of God existing... this search is irrational (in the only meaningful context.)You cannot avoid the fact that "to be rational" God requires a link from imagination to reality.
This includes searches for God, and findings of God.
(One can imagine the possibility of finding God during an irrational search... if such an idea gains a link to reality... then I'll have to change my position - regardless of the search itself being irrational.)

Ah - you've just been wrong on my position this whole time. That explains a lot.Here, I'll spell it out again:I'm not claiming that because we have not found God - therefore God does not exist.
I am claiming that I know God does not exist.Here's the argument in a nutshell again:-all knowledge is tentative
-all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us
-things we know not to exist do not have a link from imagination to reality
-within the information available to us, we do not have a link from the imagination of God to reality
-Therefore, based on the information we have available to us the tentative conclusion is that "I know God does not exist."
-Because all knowledge is tentative, and all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us: we can remove this text as it is redundant.
-Therefore, "I know God does not exist."

But there's still no link.
If there's no link - then it's irrational to suggest that the search is going to turn up something that will overturn the current conclusion of "I know that God does not exist." Can you agree that, given no link to reality, the reasoning for the search for God has no bearing on the reasoning of whether or not God actually exists? In a general sense: true.
But... since we're talking about God existing in reality... rationality as far as this argument is concerned certainly does.
Any of your attempts to use the general sense of the word "rational" to apply to God's actual existence in reality being rational are just wrong. You can't do that.
Even if a search is rational to conduct (based on some other logic)... it doesn't change the fact that there's no link between God and reality, and therefore it has no bearing on the conclusion that I know God does not exist because there's no link between God and reality. Very true.But who cares?
Unless, of course, you're attempting to say that because of this... we should consider that B actually is a part of reality.
Which is illogical without showing a link to reality of B (or A).This is what you're doing. You're trying to say "look this is rational!" and then say "because this is rational... it should be considered as a possibility in reality!"
Which is understood to be totally false, illogical and unreliable.
Therefore - it's illogical - it's irrational.The only way you get to say something should be considered as a possibility in reality is to form rational link between the imagination of the idea and reality.

If you want to suggest that knowledge should be considered absolute - you can make your case.
You will be sorely disappointed.

Not true.I don't think the idea of god is irrational.
I think that thinking the idea "god is a part of reality" is irrational as long as there is no link between God and reality.Wouldn't you agree with that? I agree. Most iron age predecessors did not have the advantage of going through the Dark Ages and emerging out the other side - when we are now aware that in order to rationally consider an idea actually existing - we need a rational link from the imagination to reality. Without that - it's irrational to consider the possibility of the imagination actually existing. True.
Just simply irrelevant to the claim that I know God does not exist.
(Because, here, you are just talking about a general "rationality" - you are not talking about a rational link between imagination and reality.)