I Know That God Does Not Exist

I see your point. I will argue that God by definition simply can't be "placed" anywhere. Not sure how to argue this...I simply feel it to be true. Perhaps we should attempt to define God as best as we can. Only if we can define Him can we "place Him" anywhere.

Well, we do have evidence that at least one universe can exist.
How much evidence do we have that at least one God can exist?This is the difference. Well... "telling" me isn't really enough.
But if you could show me.. that would be plenty.You don't even have to show me that the equipment actually works... just that there's a theory showing that the equipment should work as the theory is based on already-known-to-work things.Once you do that - I cannot say "I know a Matrix world does not exist."But, as long as there's no link from the imagination of a Matrix world to the reality of a Matrix world - I can say "I know a Matrix world does not exist." "Telling" me things is inadequate.
People tell me things all the time that have no relation to reality."Showing" me things actually exist in reality is adequate.
"Showing me that things might actually exist in reality based on a model that accurately-represents-reality-as-best-we-currently-understand" is even adequate. I just need a link from imagination to reality.I need it for the FSM before I'll stop saying "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
I need it for Santa Claus.
I need it for God.Strange, indeed, that many will agree with me for the FSM and Santa, but not for God when the amount of rational evidence in favor of existence is worse for God than the others. (We've been irrationally searching for God for a lot longer than the others... still with nothing to show for it.)Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

Well, this is just wrong.
The idea of God can be placed anywhere.What you should be arguing is that just "placing God" anywhere - doesn't actually mean it's correct.That is a good argument."Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know God does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."This is a valid, unassailable argument.
And it works for everything:"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know Santa Claus does not exist - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know people bake cakes - does not mean that this is correct."
"Just because it's a current rational conclusion that I know the earth is a oblong spheroid - (roundish) - does not mean that this is correct." I'd agree with that as well.Really, I think people should stop worrying so much about what "our current rational understanding" is of God.
Who cares?
If you want to believe - believe.
If you don't want to believe - don't believe.But to try and argue that 1+1 does not equal 2... or that "our current rational understanding" of God is something other than "we know God does not exist" is absurd.It only shows how much one doesn't understand math... or how much one doesn't understand what "our current rational understanding" (aka "knowledge") means.

Of all the things you have said this is the most convincing. Touche'However scientist do not even know what 95 percent of the universe is.
Think about that. All that you think you know that there is evidence for and only 5 percent of what comprises our universe is known. That is a pretty big question mark Stile. I get what you are saying though, it does come down to whether or not belief is rational or not. And as long as there are scientist and philosophers that are on both sides there will be debate.
You can say you know that God does not exist. I will go along with Pascal.I found this story to be interesting.
Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou.BBC Earth | HomeScientists Have Created The Largest Ever Virtual Universe Inside a Supercomputer : ScienceAlertEdited by 1.61803, : few links

Thank-you.
It's what I've meant when I've been saying things like "there's no rational reason to think God can exist in the first place."
But I've always found comparisons more... engaging. It is difficult to guess which comparison will 'click the best' for which other-person, though. I think this is an excellent argument for "in considering what we know now - those who come hundreds/thousands/millions of years after us will likely laugh at us for thinking we knew what we knew."And I entirely agree with that.
For all things. Including "verified" history, current "validated" physics.... ALL our knowledge will likely be seen in a laughably far-from-being-accurate lens to those who will eventually learn much more and have a much-more-accurate view of things in their "available information."And as vehemently as I'm defending "I know God does not exist." I would equally vehemently fight anyone thinking "our current knowledge will be the same 100/1000/10000xxx years from now!"It just doesn't change that our knowledge is based on "our" available information.
And whatever conclusions we draw from our woefully limited pool. All the more reason we should have clear definitions in our mind for the following:-rational (following logic)
-irrational (not following logic)
-correct (according to reality)
-our knowledge (tentative conclusions based on currently available information)A feeling of "psychology 101" is nice - like seeing a cool magic trick.
But serious study/thought of "what we can know" requires strict definitions and understanding the limitations of such definitions.And... I really do agree with the Einstein quote you posted... that imagination (and in turn... irrationality) is more important than what we understand (rationality.)

You can't do that with waffly preachy words You have a bad habit of knowing the other side of the argument but not being able to answer it. Juries don't stay out for long, life goes on. I think that too. With the exception that I don't believe that your mind is in anyway content. Why would anyone even try? It's a bullshit idea. Forgive me Phat but you do not seem to be a content individual. It seems to me that religion is your consolation for poor health and a low paid job. Or just people with ordinary lives - with all that entails. If there really was the loving god that you think there is, why do people need comfort? God as opium? That's the best you can do? Neither you nor I know whether that's true or not. But I suspect that desperate people find their consolation in god quite easily. Faith found what she needed to find, was she right? I don't need to find solace anywhere. That's the mistake you keep making time after time. Needing solace is not normal, it should be an exceptional thing, necessary in rare situations.

Not even from your new PM and Brexit?? Not even a nice cuppa can provide solice for that i bet.Edited by 1.61803, : proved to provide

That's a pretty silly rabbit-hole to be going down. If that was true, we really couldn't know anything. I have never made any such demand. I have been telling you that knowledge can change - in this context, from no knowledge to some knowledge. When we have no knowledge, we can not legitimately claim that we know.

I'm saying that you have to look. You said, "Things that only exist in our imagination will never exist in reality: all their ends will be dead." I'm asking how you can know they don't exist in reality unless you look? How can you know that "all" of the ends will be dead before you look at all of the ends?

Why? I can find mosquitoes without wanting them or needing them. You seem to be arguing against yourself. You picked a fine time to start paying attention to the scriptures. Why don't you pay attention to what Jesus said?

Exactly.
Why do we not go down that rabbit-hole?
Because it's irrational - there's no link from the imagination to reality that suggests such a thing would actually be viable in the first place.Just like God.

We have looked - scoured all of our available information.You're asking me to look outside of our available information - with no link from imagination to reality that the search even *might* produce a positive result.That's the silly-rabbit hole we don't go down.
We don't go down it for ringo-baking-cakes.
We don't go down it for God.

Nope. We don't go down the rabbit-hole of "you only thought you did - you didn't actually do it" because it's a completely separate issue from what we've been discussing.We are accepting that I can actually bake a cake. We are accepting that we have searched for God. Unless we accept that we do have a connection to reality, there is nothing to discuss.But of course we don't know whether there is a link from imagination to reality until we look for one. We can not say the idea is irrational before we look. And we can not say that we "know" there is no link when there are still lots of places to look.

No we haven't. Dark matter. Nope. Dark matter.

That's not the rabbit hole.Rabbit hole for cakes: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that you actually don't know how to bake cakes?
Rabbit hole for God: How do you know that sometime in the future you won't learn that God actually exists?Same rabbit hole. We have looked - scoured all our available information.
Scoured all our rational projections for unavailable information.Nothing.Well... nothing but the above irrational rabbit holes, of course. Sure we can.If there's no rational link from imagination to reality that gives us a reason to look - then looking is irrational.That's exactly how we avoid the cake rabbit hole.
That's exactly how we avoid the God rabbit hole.Same process.
Same rabbit holes.
Same reasoning to ignore them.