I Know That God Does Not Exist

No. They could have searched rationally without finding a rational link. No. Even if the God they found fails all rational tests, that does not mean the search was irrational.For example, people searched for centuries for the Northwest Passage. Was the search that discovered the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River irrational? If you think so, explain why. Since the tests they performed (looking for an outlet to the Pacific) failed, does that mean the search was irrational? If you think so, explain why.And of course, the Northwest Passage turned out to be real, though practically impassible.

You are. You're claiming that because we have not found it, it doesn't exist.

That's what I've been saying all along. There doesn't need to be a link before you do the search. The whole point of the search is to see if there is a link. Not at all. I've said the exact opposite: The reasoning does not depend on the premises being true. That's not a fact. Rationality does not depend on reality.I can say that if A is true then B must be true. There is nothing irrational about that statement even if A has no connection to reality.

That's just lame schoolboy semantics.

I said that shooting down one or two ideas of God has no effect on the whole idea of God.I repeat that you don't seem to understand what rational means. If you did, you could answer my question honestly: What are the logical errors in the idea of God?

I have responded to every one of your posts. I have answered every question that you asked me. On one occasion, you said you would answer my question if I answered yours first - but you never answered mine.

Your bias is showing.And it's not the only foolish mistake you've made in this thread. Maybe you can redeem yourself by answering my question: What are the logical errors in the idea of God?

That would be your problem, not mine. You have declared the idea of God to be irrational without any clear understanding of what the idea is. Your arguments have been strawmen.

You're answering my posts. You're not answering my question: List the logical errors in the idea of God.

I think I have. I think I gave an example. Here it is again: Are you with me so far? If you have any questions, feel free to ask.Now for homework, answer my question: What are the logical errors, if any, in the idea of God?

I didn't say it was rational. I asked you to show that it's irrational. I'm still waiting.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Unbiased would be arguing in favor of an idea I don't believe in.

You're grasping at straws. I didn't "insist" on anything. My intent was to say that you addressed a tiny fraction of the problem. Even if your arguments had any value, they were equivalent to using a teaspoon to empty the ocean.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I said it can be. I gave you an example. Of course. If there was an error in reasoning, it would be irrational. That's what the words mean.A "correct" or "incorrect" conclusion has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is rational.