I Know That God Does Not Exist

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.

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.

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

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.

Anybody who reads the thread can see that that isn't true. You're the one who refuses to answer questions.

You're a fine one to talk. You thought I was a Christian.

I'm underlining the fact that you refuse to answer my question. That question is: What are the LOGICAL errors in the idea of God?It took you a very long time to repeat the question to me and you still seem reluctant to discuss it.

As you said yourself in another post, rational just means logical. What does the logic have to do with a link to reality? Not until they found it. Remember that they searched around the Mississippi River before they moved farther north. But that isn't true.

I haven't done any such thing.

Tell it to Sarah. Do we? No. They didn't know that. They sailed all around central North America and found nothing but more central North America. It would have been quite valid to conclude that "probably" (most likely) there was no passage. But they didn't "know" there was no passage.

I haven't done any such thing.

You have already agreed that rational means logical. So why don't you understand that the logic does not depend on the inputs? Because the logic has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. There can't be any "indication" that it exists unless you look.