I Know That God Does Not Exist

I actually agree with you, too.How do I agree with you and Tangle about whether or not iron-age people were rational when creating ideas about God(s)?
Because I think it could have gone either way.If they had irrational reasons: "I don't like storms! It must be caused by Gods!"
-Then I agree with you, this is illogical and irrational reasoningIf they had rational reasons: "People can affect nature! Stronger people can affect nature in stronger ways! That tribe says they know of really strong people called Gods! That tribe is always right about the new information they've brought to us so far! These Gods are strong enough to affect nature! Therefore - storms are caused by Gods!"
-The I agree with Tangle, this is logical (based on the information available to them), and is a rational ideaBasically - I find it difficult to estimate exactly what "the available information" was for iron-aged peoples.
Maybe they could form a rational reason.
Maybe many did not.
Possibly even both for different iron-aged groups.The only issue comes with us knowing that, today with our current knowledge, claims of ideas-being-reality need to be accompanied by a link from the imagination to reality. When that link does not exist - we know that the idea does not exist.

This is the part I'm having contention with.What does "given the irrational postulate 'god'" mean?
Isn't the postulate 'god' only irrational because we know that in order for it to be rational - the postulate that god exists requires a link to reality?"Rational" just means "logical."
If the logic of the time was otherwise - why can't it be rational?That is, consider this logic:I ask tribe B for help - they help us.
I ask tribe B to explain rivers - they explain them to us in a way that provides more fish
I ask tribe B to explain weather - they explain weather to us in a way that keeps our people safer
I ask tribe B to explain hunting - they explain hunting to us in a way that feeds our people more efficiently
...
...This creates a logical pattern of "whatever tribe B says is the right way to do things - it works better for us in reality"
Therefore, wouldn't be logical to trust/accept tribe B if tribe B says "god exists?"What would be the rational reason to not accept it?I know, in modern times, we have epistemology that tells us nothing is real without a link to reality.
But... if this epistemology didn't exist, and tribe B provided the previously-described logical pattern of "whatever tribe B says is right/better for reality..."
Wouldn't it be logical to trust tribe B in the claim that god exists?As long as it's logical - isn't it rational?I don't think "what's rational" needs to follow what's correct about reality.
I think we've discovered a way to use rationality to help us discover what's correct about reality (by linking imagination to reality).I'm just saying - I can think of a scenario where one could 'logically' (rationally) connect the dots into accepting a "god exists" claim.
Even based upon the results they receive from reality.Of course, once they learn that 'existence' requires a link from imagination/claim to reality... then it's irrational to accept the claim no matter what other logic may lead to it.
But... without that understanding... to the "information available to them" I don't see how such a logical flow can be called "irrational."

Please explain how the search for the North West Passage was rational if there was no link from imagination to reality.Did they not know "an unknown amount of ice/islands exists up north?"
Did they not know that "previous amount of ice/islands have generally had a path through them, eventually?"This is a link to reality.This does not exist for God.

Then stop implying that knowledge is invalid if it's not based on absolutes.You are judged by your actions.

I've said this many times - an imaginary idea can be rational (logical) on it's own.
Of course - this is irrelevant when attempting to make a claim about something actually existing.
Who cares if an imaginary idea itself is rational when you're actually wondering if something exists in reality or not?We know that for things to exist, there is a logical link between the imagination and reality.
Therefore - to be rational in the context of something existing - there has to be a link between the imagination and reality.To answer your question: "logic doesn't have anything to do with a link to reality."
However, to be in context of this thread: "to be rationally considered as a possibility in reality - a link from the imagination to reality is required." Fair enough.
So... from previous experience they knew "as long as we sail around long enough - we've always found a way through before."
From this - you think it's irrational for them to try and sail around long enough on a newly discovered land mass?

Then I'm glad you agree with me completely.

Yes, I completely agree.
Logical/rational does not imply "correct about reality." Ah - I see.You're saying "it was irrational - but they just didn't know it at the time."
I can kind of agree with that...But I would be more inclined to say "it was incorrect - but they just didn't know it at the time."I see correct/incorrect with reality to be something that carries over time. (Cannonballs sail through the air in parabolic arcs... whether we understand it or not... in the 1400's or today.)
I see rational/irrational to be very situationally dependent. (Something could be irrational to you, based on the information available to you... but rational to me, based on the information available to me... and rational/irrational does not imply correct/incorrect with reality...)I think anyone can have a rational idea that is incorrect.
I also think anyone can have irrational ideas that happen to be correct.There is an argument, however, that none of our ideas are ever "correct" even - they are just "closer and closer to being correct" - even our current understanding of the curvature of the earth.
But ideas certainly can be 'rational according to this information' or 'irrational according to that information.'

Oh... and by the way:

quote:

---

Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean

---

Ahahahahhaha!!!!

Yes, we do.
If you don't think so - just name one we know to exist that does not have a link from imagination to reality. Okay - I'll take your word for it.Then it was irrational.
If there is no link to reality that a NWP might exist - and they searched for it anyway, then the search was irrational.How is it logical to search for something that has no indication it might exist in the first place?
Where would you rationally even begin to search?I have no problems with irrational ideas leading to discoveries...
In fact, I support irrational searches, I've already said this many times.
I don't support calling something that's irrational "rational."

Yes, I know. You're very confused.You say you don't speak of absolutes... but then you speak of how we haven't searched absolutely everywhere... therefore we cannot say "I know God doesn't exist based on searching the information available to us."

I'll say the exact same thing another way:Just because you can imagine something does not lend any credence to that same thing actually existing. This question is too open-ended to make sense.
Rational means "logical."
Therefore - to be rational, something has to be rational based on something (the logic.)If we use my context for rational (when speaking of things existing) - I'm thinking of rational testing. Measurements that can be made, inferences based off working mathematical models... anything that works off what we understand about reality. I'm saying the two are different and unique.Correct/Incorect with reality simply is.
If it exists - it exists.
If it doesn't exist - it doesn't exist.Rational/irrational has no bearing on whether or not something actually exists.
We can have a rational idea of something that doesn't actually exist.
We can have an irrational idea of something that actually does exist.Our knowledge, however, of what does exist - is based on what we've rationally tested in reality. And a platypus can also be very rational to someone-who's-studied-them for many, many years. To such a person - a platypus may seem extremely logical. I don't have a problem with this.

You're taking the general and attempting to apply it to the specific again.Just because "an idea" can be rational against a certain set of general logic has no bearing on "the same idea" being rational against the set of logic we currently use to best identify existence of things (rational testing - links between imagination and reality... measurements or observations or inferences from existing/working models...) Right.
And if we look for God within all the information available to us and don't find God... then we can say "according to the information available to us, we know that God doesn't exist."And, since all knowledge is 'based on the information available to us' - we don't have to say that because it's redundant:We know that God doesn't exist.

Yes, dark matter is a rational aspect of our universe that may exist.What is the rational reason to suggest that God may exist behind dark matter?Have we found Gods behind other previously-unknown areas of our universe?
Or, as we've expanded our 'information available to us' is the pattern that God isn't found behind any of the new things we've searched?It seems that the rational/logical/pattern-following conclusion is that God will not exist behind the dark matter, either.Therefore - according to the information we have available to us - we know that God does not exist.
Since all knowledge is "according to the information available to us" we can drop that part:We know that God does not exist.Why would you think an irrational search should affect a rational conclusion before the results are in?

No. There was a time where "human knowledge" was based upon "whatever the witch doctor says."
Or "whatever the priest says he recieves from God."Now - our knowledge is based on rationally testing against reality.
As it gives us our best-known-way for identifying reality.It's not tautologous, it's a description of our currently-best-method.

I am contending that right/wrong is irrelevant when discussing what we know."What we know" is (basically) "our best guess at what is right/wrong based on the information available to us."
..what is actually right/wrong is our goal, but not knowable if we ever reach it. Or even if it's reachable. This, I agree with.
As long as we agree the context for "It is irrational..." aligns with "...according to our best understood method for 'knowing things.'"