I Know That God Does Not Exist

Okay. I agree with this.
Where would you like to go with it? Why would we say that?
Everything about the information available to us tells us God doesn't exist.Not only is there no God in the information available to us... we have grown our information (in limited ways)... but every time we've grown, we confirm that God still doesn't exist.That rationally should lead you to see that the information available to us is telling us that God does not exist.
Therefore - we know that God does not exist.

I have such a rational reason.1. God doesn't exist in any currently known information.
2. When our information has expanded before - God was never found in any of the expanstions.
3. This has been confirmed for thousands of years.sThis sets a pattern: When our information expands - if anyone searches for God - they still don't find Him.That is a rational reason to assume that God is not hidden by dark matter. Right... before it was found, it was rational to say "I know the NWP does not exist."
You yourself are adamant that there was no rational reason to suggest that the NWP existed.
After it was found, it was irrational to say such a thing.Currently, it's rational to say "I know that God does not exist." Of course it is.
Searching for something when there's no rational reason to search for it is irrational.How can it be anything else?

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...

"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."

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.

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.

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.

No, it doesn't.
People still debate that a world-wide flood occurred 4000 years ago.
But the idea that a world-wide flood occurred 4000 years ago is no longer in contention.No amount of "argument" changes this fact.
The only thing that will change it is evidence. Then, if God is real, you will be able to show me "God things" as much as you can show me "three things."
If you can't do that... then God remains "only in our imagination." Which is what my claim is. This is exactly what I'm claiming God is: nothing more than an idea in our imagination. I have room for possibilities too.
But... irrational possibilities do not get in the way of rational conclusions.I can rationally say: I know Santa Claus does not exist.
I can rationally say: I know God does not exist.What's the difference? I fully support irrational searches for God (or anything else.)
Just let me know when you find something.I don't let irrational searches for Santa stop me from saying "I know Santa Claus does not exist."
I don't let irrational searches for 4000-year-old-world-wide-floods stop me from saying "I know that 4000-year-old-world-wide-floods do not exist."
I don't let irrational searches for God stop me from saying "I know that God does not exist."What's the difference? That's flipping the context of "know" into absolutes.
And such a thing is incorporated in things we "know."I am saying: Based on the information available to us, the tentative conclusion is - I know that God does not exist.
But "based on the information available to us" and "tentative conclusion" are inherent in all modern knowledge. Therefore they are redundant and can be removed:I know that God does not exist.

Exactly!Once God hits the same stage in the investigation as water-passages - let me know.
I'll change my position immediately.Until then - the conclusion stands. Not true.
If this was true - we go back to not being able to know you can bake a cake.
We haven't searched all the places you could bake cakes in.
Perhaps one of those - we will identify that you actually can't bake cakes and we just thought you could earlier.Different stage of the investigation.The truth is: it is entirely rational to impose expectations before the search is finished - as long as those expectations are based on previously validated experience. Let me know when the irrational search for God hits the stage when we can rationally consider His existence.
That's when we find a rational connection between the imagination of God and reality.
When you get that - I'll stop saying "I know that God doesn't exist."Until then... it continues.
As much as we can say we know ringo can bake cakes.

Yes there is: Things that only exist in our imagination will never exist in reality: all their ends will be dead.
Our currently available information shows us that God only exists in our imagination.
Therefore, according to our currently available information - it's reasonable for us to conclude that all the ends for God-actually-existing will be dead.Therefore: I know that God does not exist.Edited by Stile, : heh... "ever" should be "never"

Such is the issue with "knowing" anything.
Even knowing ringo can bake cakes.
If we find, one day, that ringo actually cannot bake cakes, and we only thought he could before - we will go from "knowing" one thing to "knowing" the opposite overnight.We can't afford to take seriously that you think you "know" you can bake a cake? In one place at one time - yes.
Just like I can demonstrate that God does not exist at one place at one time. That's not true: what I said was:

quote:

---

We haven't searched all the places you could bake cakes in.
Perhaps one of those - we will identify that you actually can't bake cakes and we just thought you could earlier.

---

Just like what you're implying about finding God.I'm actually keeping the two analogies the same - you're the one attempting to put words in my mouth in order to say I'm 'moving goalposts.' Not true - according to you.
YOU'RE the one saying the search isn't done yet - and that we're only at "different stages" of the search.If the search is over for you baking cakes - and you don't have to consider possibly finding out that you were wrong and you actually can't bake cakes...Then the search is also over for not finding God - and I don't have to consider possibly finding out that I was wrong and I actually will find God...There's no rational reason to think we'll ever identify that you can't bake cakes.
Just as there's no rational reason to think we'll ever identify that God actually exists.

Because you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it.
You learned later that what you've been doing all this time is not "baking a cake." Nope.
I'm changing from "you know you can bake a cake" to "you know you can't bake a cake" upon learning at future date that you were simply wrong on what you thought "baking a cake" actually was. True - but you can be wrong about what you think "baking a cake" is and what it actually is. We could find evidence that suggests we should find God somewhere - then I can no longer say "I know that God does not exist."
Then we could find more evidence that shows this was wrong - and we still have nothing to say God actually exists - then I can say "I know that God does not exist" again.
Then we could actually find God - and I can no longer say "I know that God does not exist."
Then we could find out we didn't actually find God - we only thought we did, but we were wrong - and we still have nothing to say God actually exists - then I can say "I know that God does not exist again."This is how knowledge works.
Or, at least, it has since the Dark Ages.Knowledge is based on forming tentative rational conclusions from the information available to us.What use are the words "tentative" or "...information available to us" if you demand for our knowledge to never change? If you expect "knowledge" to never change, then you are expecting knowledge to be absolute - and that is Dark-Ages thinking of what "knowledge" is. Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

Are you saying no one has ever looked for God before and found nothing?Strange.