I Know That God Does Not Exist

Except that every single god that has ever existed by virtue of having been created by people is exactly that same. How could you ever possibly differentiate between them? Word salad (and I really don't like that term). If they don't need this god-person, then why bother to seek him? If they don't need to commune with it, then why bother?None of that situation makes any sense.Ironically, your threw in "the way *they* imagine God *should behave*". But isn't that what you do?Have you started to adopt Faith's MO of denouncing that reflection in the mirror?

We do have enough information to say we do know according to the information we have available to us.
If there was a rational reason to suggest that we should get more information first - that would be a reason to think we don't have enough information.
But - no such rational reason exists.Therefore, according to the information available to us - We know God does not exist. It was always wrong.
But - it was rational. Because it followed from the logic.
If it was irrational - you would be able to show the logic it wasn't following.What part of "we have no rational information to indicate that a NWP exists - therefore, we know that no NWP exists based on our available information" is not rational?You do understand that "rational" doesn't equate to "correct" - right?Same thing with God.

Of course it is.
That's exactly what 'rational' or 'logical' means: following a pattern. Not true.
The patter is set: whenever something new comes up - we don't find God there.
This pattern has worked for thousands of years.
If you want to suggest that this pattern is no longer going to continue for God - what is your rational reason to think so?You don't have one.
Therefore - your suggestion is irrational. You are confusing "rational" with "correct."
A rational conclusion says nothing about reality.
Reality defines reality.I admit that if we follow rational thought all the time - then we would never search for a NWP and therefore never find it.
However - I fully support that those with such passion should follow their irrational ideas - that's how progress can be made.
Of course - if we followed all irrational ideas, we wouldn't get anywhere either (we'd all be stuck - afraid to move so that the killer lasers we can't see don't touch us.)There needs to be a balance, and we need to identify which is which. Okay - what was it?If there's a rational reason to think the NWP actually existed - then the search is rational.
What was the link from imagining the possibitlity of a NWP existing that would suggest that one actually exists?Same with God - it's just that so far there's no rational reason to think that God actually exists.
What is the link from imagining the possibility of God existing that would suggest that God actually exists? That's not a rational reason to suggest that searching for the NWP will conclude in finding a NWP.
That's not a rational reason to suggest that searching for God will conclude in finding God.Again - you're taking a very general idea of 'rational' and attempting to apply it onto another specific context.It doesn't work like that - that's a strawman.I'm not trying to say "it's impossible to have a rational reason to search for anything at all!"
I'm trying to say "there's no rational reason to think that any search will result in finding God."As long as I'm right about the specific I'm talking about - I can conclude: I know that God does not exist.

Yes, I think it's rather obvious as well.So strange that so many others think it doesn't have to apply...

The irrationality of the belief in God is still a ongoing debate though and atheist evidentialist will never concede the opposing view that it is not irrational. Get in line this debate has been going on for some time. As I said, you can say "You know God does not exist." And you can say "You know other universes do not exist." But do you really?

"Debating" something doesn't mean it's actually in contention.
Showing that any belief-that-something-exists is rational is easy: Show a rational connection between the item and reality.I can do this for all things we know to exist. 100% of them.
Can't do it for God. In this sense ("...do you really?") we don't know anything at all.
Because no knowledge is absolute.
We don't even "really" know we're actually using the internet to post these messages - we might only think we are.I do, however, know that God does not exist as much as I know that Santa Claus does not exist.But people don't say "I know that Santa Claus doesn't exist as much as I know that the Boogeyman doesn't exist."
They just say "I know that Santa Claus doesn't exist."In the same way... I'm also just saying "I know that God doesn't exist."

I don't think that "makes sense" at all. If God was omnipresent, it would "make more sense" for Him to be detectable by anybody. Consider people who seek ghosts or Loch Ness monsters "with all of their hearts". They are predisposed to finding what they're looking for, even if what they're looking for isn't real. Nobody needed to commune with electrons but we looked for them anyway - and we found them. Nobody needs dark matter but we're looking for it anyway. They won't find Him if He doesn't exist. They certainly might find Him without wanting to or without expecting to. The idea that you have to believe to find Him is ridiculous.

If you had zero information, you could say the same thing. It's a meaningless statement. On the contrary, there is no logic that concludes that a Northwest Passage couldn't exist. It was always irrational to pretend that we "knew" it didn't exist. We just didn't know that it did exist.

Then not finding the Northwest passage in 1800 meant we would never find it. Not finding dark matter in 2000 means we will never find it. That doesn't make any sense. Logic follows rules - and those rules don't change with time or depend on what we know. What was logical in ancient Greece is still logical today.If it was logical to look for the Northwest passage in 1500, it was logical to look for it in 1600 and in 1700 and in 1800. Not finding it was no logical basis for thinking it would never be found. The pattern was set: whenever something new came up - we didn't find the Northwest Passage there.
That pattern worked for hundreds of years.But that pattern was wrong. See above. Patterns are not infallible. We should not say we "know" they are. A real example shows that your logic doesn't work - i.e. that your thinking is irrational. It's the same thing we keep telling creationists about micro/macro evolution: There's no reason to think you can't get there from here. If you want to claim that there's a barrier, you need a rational reason to claim there's a barrier. Again, it's always rational to search. You have it backwards. What was the link from imagining a barrier to suggest that one actually existed?If you're aimed directly at the Azores, there's a barrier - but you can see open water on both sides so you have no reason to think there's an impenetrable barrier. Same with the Northwest Passage - there was always more open water to explore.Same with God. There is more open water to explore. It's a rational reason to think they might exist. That's the only reason we ever search for anything.

Not meanginless.
When was the last time we had zero information?We had information before we were even humans... I don't think your NWP analogy even works in the first place.There was a rational reason to think a NWP might exist for those who searched for the NWP.
At least - as long as Europe has been somewhat mapped and investigated.They know land masses exist.
They know when they haven't searched new land masses - sometimes there's a water way through, and sometimes there isn't.
They know that "water passages" sometimes exist.Therefore - there's a rational reason to suggest that "a water passage" could exist in an as-yet-undiscovered area.
This is a rational link between imagination and realtiy.This exists for the NWP.
This doesn't exist for God.There is no "other Gods" that we've actually identified while doing searches.
We have done plenty of searches for God - and all of them have come up with nothing.You are comparing:
"looking for a water passage"... when we know previous searches-of-unknowns can produces the existence of water-passages
to
"looking for God"... when we know previous searches-of-unknowns have never produced the existence of a GodYour analogy is confused and doesn't align with what you're attempting to show.

No, of course not. But when the strength of the available evidence points one way that is the way to look.Cannot say other universes do not exist. More appropriate to say other universes may indeed exist because some of our established theories lend themselves to solutions that point in that direction as possibilities. Grounded in the rigours of their mathematical extensions these solutions provide ample scientific reason to pursue such studies.A god proposal, however, provides no such intellectual underpinnings and other than wishful thinking provides no reason to pursue such studies.So we have on one side at least some evidence born in the mathematics from our present physical theories and on the other side nothing but null results for every observation, mathematical or otherwise, we have been able to conduct over X000 years.Which one seems more viable a possibility?I would have more faith in the possibilities of other universes than in gods.But still, I agree with you. This god thing is a perennial favorite for discussion and disagreement and will continue as long as people refuse to read the tea leaves and follow the evidence that is glaringly staring them right in the face. Since there are no intellectual, moral, ethical reasons to do so I fail to see where this is an issue.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

We had zero information about dark matter fairly recently. We're just at an earlier stage in the search for God. We haven't explored the dark part of the universe (yet) so we're comparatively barely outside the Mediterranean. If it confuses you, feel free to ask questions

You're confused again - that's not what I'm saying.That's because we've found water-passages to exist before.
We have ever found Gods to exist before.If we search more unknowns - we have a rational reason to expect finding water-passages.
If we search more unknowns - we have no rational reason to expect finding God. You're free to come up with one - so far you haven't done so.
All you've ever done is attempt to come up with examples where you can confuse the use of terms like "rational/irrational" and "correct/incorrect" or say a pattern is something that it's actually not.You're not being reasonable. That's irrelevent.
What's relevant is: is it rational to expect that a search may conclude with "a water passage exists" or "God exists?"With water passage - this is rational, because our previous experience shows that sometimes water passages exist.
With God - this is irrational, because our previous experience shows that God is never found.You have yet been able to deal with this difference. The rational reason for a barrier is: there is no link between the imagination of God and reality.
If you don't think that's an actual barrier - supply the rational link between God and reality. Or you can even supply a rational reason to think that a link between God and reality might exist (like a working mathematical model that can also predict God.) Not the same with God.We have discovered water passages to exist.
We have never discovered Gods to exist.How is that the same? That's not true at all.
Many people continue to irrationally search for evidence of a Flat Earth, or a World Wide Flood, or many, many other things.What is the rational reason?You have never, ever been able to supply this. Just fill in the blank: The rational reason to think God may actually exist in reality is _______________.Do that, and my conclusion falls to pieces.
Of course - you can't - which is why my conclusion stands.

Uh Yes is kinda does.
debate
/d’bt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: debating
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
"the board debated his proposal"
synonyms: discuss, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over,contest, controvert, moot; informalkick around/about, bat around/about; archaicaltercate
"the board debated his proposal" That is because you are a evidentalist atheist who believes that the belief in God is irrational.The number three is something that exist only in our minds. If I ask you to show me the number 3 you can show me three things etc.. and what the concept of 3 is.
But you can not show me 3. What if God is like that? Can you show me evidence of a idea? Ideas exist do they not. What if God is like that? There are concepts of multidimensional spaces that fundamental elements and forces could be manifesting our very reality in. They can not be comprehended by the human mind and yet they these dimentions may exist. Could God be like this? I do not know, but there is room in my universe for the possibility.IMO, the scientific method is the best way to gain knowledge since it has no agenda, or mission. Science adjust as new facts and theories come to light. Yet some things are just guesses based on nothing more than "If this where true it would explain XYZ." Yet some folks are so dogmatic in their non-belief that God is irrational and hence meaningless to consider.
I know that the fictional myth of Santa Clause does not exist. And I know the fictional myth of God does not exist. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about something more than fiction. Those are bronze age beliefs trying to describe something that may defy description.Yes it could be just a irrational delusion. You could be right Stile. But I do not know you are.

Who cares?
That's not what I said, was it? Even before we got to the Mediterranean - we knew that water passages sometimes exist.
We still have nothing to suggest that Gods might exist.Your analogy does not align. I prefer to show how you're wrong.
It seems to work for everyone but you - but I find it entertaining to watch you spin around and run into the same wall again and again and refuse to notice it:Imagination is not reality.