I Know That God Does Not Exist

Sure, once a concept is proven wrong - lightning, flat earth, whatever - if you continue to ague for it, you're irrational. But you need the evidence that it's wrong first.Here we're arguing something doesn't exist because there's no evidence; not that we have a proven alternative that rules the something out.Our argument is that atmospheric conditions make lightning not Zeus. Our argument isn't that we haven't found Zeus yet so he doesn't exist (even though the lighting does).

You're still confusing wrong with irrational.

Don't be stupid. I have participated more than you have. You're the one who refuses to answer a simple question.

Anybody who has read the thread can see that that isn't true.

That's what I've been asking you. Why do you refuse to answer?You have made the positive claim that the idea of God is irrational. It is up to you to back up that claim. So how do you decide if an idea itself is irrational? Since I've been saying the same thing all along, maybe we can hope that you are finally making some progress.

As part of the flat earth scenario people are given the postulate there is no curve to the horizon. This is false, of course, it’s just that they could not see or measure the subtle curve that was indeed there.That they believed this postulate true makes no difference. The conclusion the earth is flat, rationally derived, is false, was false, will always be false regardless of the state of their knowledge at the time.The god postulate is irrational and not only has no truth value it has no logic value. Just like the no curve postulate it doesn’t matter that they believed it was rational at the time. Given the irrational postulate god there can be no logical conclusion. As long as "god" is irrational god done it is irrational, was irrational, will always be irrational.That goat herders thought the no curve postulate was true because they took the shaman’s word for it does not alter the truth value of the logical conclusion. The conclusion was false.That they thought the god postulate was rational because they chose to believe the shaman from the village in the other valley does not alter the logic value of the argument. It has none. It is irrational no matter how logical the structure of the syllogism may appear.Any syllogism containing a logically derived wrong premise will ultimately lead to a wrong conclusion.Any syllogism containing an irrationally derived premise is irrational prima facie and cannot be further considered regardless of the strength of it construction. It is like hitting a divide by zero in a program. It blows up the whole construction without any regard for what follows and cannot achieve any result right or wrong. The syllogism itself is irrational. There can be no logic value to it no matter how logically structured it may appear.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Northwest Passage. There was no link until there was. The idea was never irrational. It was never irrational to think that a link would/might be found. It was never correct to say, "I know the Northwest Passage doesn't exist." No. The lack of a link is never a given.

You can't seriously be claiming that horoscopes are rational?

Nobody on this forum is more vehemently opposed to absolutes than I am.

Their logic not withstanding since none of them can show any viable evidence of "god" they all are indeed irrational. And as such any argument they make that includes the irrationally derived "god" as a postulate is irrational.Yes, I’ve read Aquinas, Gdel, Descartes and others.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But the monotheistic gods (you know, the ones who allegedly smite villages with fire and brimstone, inflict plagues on Egypt, bring manna from heaven) are no more plausible than the thunderbolt-throwing Zeus of classical mythology.

Sigh. Your "participation" has mostly been to claim that answers you've been provided haven't been provided.Maybe you can win one of those medals for "participation"?

Yes, people do read these threads. You should try it some time.

Indeed, you have been saying the same thing over and over. Why do you expect an answer different from the ones you've already been provided? Maybe I was wrong about you making progress...

I said, "You're still confusing wrong with irrational."
Horoscopes are certainly wrong - i.e. not based on reality. But that does not make the idea irrational. That's a separate issue.If you want to claim that something is irrational, you have to show how it is irrational. You have to show the errors in reasoning. Showing that the conclusion is true doesn't cut it. Your math teacher requires you to show your work.