I Know That God Does Not Exist

Why not?
Just like (many, many) years ago we knew the earth was flat. Are you saying that new information wasn't able to let us un-know that?I don't think you understand how knowledge works. Nonsense. The claim is not that God doesn't exist everywhere. It's that He doesn't exist somewhere (all of our available information.)

Stile calling green, flourishing trees "dead trees" is logical and rational if the context includes that Stile gets to decide such things as well.The problem for you is that "knowledge" has a framework.
And what you're talking about is an irrational search as far as that framework is concerned.Otherwise - we can't know that ringo can bake cakes. Oh? Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?It may be rational to look for anything to see if it exists.
But it's also irrational to suggest that irrational ideas (ie - ideas only real in our imagination, with no link to reality) should have any effect on our rational, tentative knowledge conclusions based on the information available to us.Please, continue - you're wonderful at proving my point.

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not. No it isn't.
It's a tentative claim that I know God doesn't exist according to the current information available to us.Did you forget what knowledge actually is?Edited by Stile, : Forgot extremely important "I know" part about my claim...

Here it is again:

quote:

---

Is it rational to look for "something-that-tells-us-that-ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes, and-only-currently-thinks-he-can?"
Is it rational to allow this very irrationally-real (ie - real idea in our imagination) to tell us that ringo does not know if he can bake a cake?

---

My answer to the final question is "no."If your answer to the final question is "yes" - then you have your error in logic (allowing an irrational idea to effect a rational knowledge claim.)
If your answer to the final question is also "no" - then we agree. We've done this already:

quote:

---

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

---

You are claiming that because I am unable to demonstrate that we won't find God behind dark matter - then I cannot say "I know that God does not exist."
You're wrong about God for the same reason you're right about cakes.It's the same logic.
Both items are about proving a negative.
Can't use it on cakes without using it on God, too. If you want to be rational about it, anyway.Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes

But you haven't demonstrated it yet. Again:

quote:

---

But you are unable to demonstrate that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when we check behind dark matter.
Therefore, according to you, you don't know if you can bake a cake or not.

---

Have you demonstrated such a thing?
If not - how can you claim that you know how to bake cakes?You're the one saying you need to demonstrate such a thing for God, but not for cakes.
I'm the one saying such a thing can be dismissed as irrational for both. I'm not claiming we can un-know something in this context. I'm claiming that you can't demonstrate away the doubt.
You can't demonstrate the doubt away for you knowing how to bake cakes.
And in the exact same way - you can't demonstrate the doubt away for knowing God doesn't exist.So - if you accept that this inability to demonstrate away the doubt means we cannot know God doesn't exist.
Then you must also accept that the same inability to demonstrate away the doubt means we cannot know ringo can bake cakes.Your position is shown to be absurd. Here it is again, from the first opening message:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things. Message 1

---

And the last few times I specifically reminded you about it:

quote:

---

All knowledge is tentative.
All knowledge is based on the information available to us.
Therefore, we can leave these out as they are redundant Message 1880

​

Here's the argument in a nutshell again:

​

-all knowledge is tentative
-all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us
-things we know not to exist do not have a link from imagination to reality
-within the information available to us, we do not have a link from the imagination of God to reality
-Therefore, based on the information we have available to us the tentative conclusion is that "I know God does not exist."
-Because all knowledge is tentative, and all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us: we can remove this text as it is redundant. Message 1893

​

And, since all knowledge is 'based on the information available to us' - we don't have to say that because it's redundant Message 1979

​

Since all knowledge is "according to the information available to us" we can drop that part Message 1980

---

I'm not worried about scoring goals.
I'm worried about accurately describing what "knowledge" is and remaining within that framework. Again - you're free to suggest your own.
So far - you can't even know that you can bake a cake. Again, from the same text your quote came from:

quote:

---

If your answer to the final question is "yes" - then you have your error in logic (allowing an irrational idea to effect a rational knowledge claim.)

---

Bolded this time to stand out.

Answered in Message 2068 above.

Interesting.
Please, repeat this demonstration of you baking a cake behind dark matter.
There's a scientific community that would find it very interesting. That's not the question.
There's no question you can bake a cake if we limit ourselves to our available information.
Just as there's no question God doesn't exist if we limit ourselves to our available information.The question is - Can you demonstrate-away-the-doubt that we won't find out that you actually cannot bake cakes when you attempt to bake a cake behind dark matter?
The question is - Can we demonstrate-away-the-doubt that God doesn't exist behind dark matter?My answer is that these questions are irrational as there is no link between their imaginary ideas and reality.
All our currently-available-information supports that a new location won't change how you bake cakes as this hasn't happened anywhere else.
All our currently-available-information supports that no God will be found behind dark matter as no God has ever been found anywhere else.Your answer seems to be that we can't demonstrate away this doubt for God, but we can for cakes. Why?
I'm the one being consistent, clear and descriptive.
You're the one remaining vague to attempt to hide within contextual ambiguity while refusing to focus on the actual questions being presented to you so you can cling to an obvious inconsistency.The absurdity of your position is on display.
Your inability to address it is clear.
The required correction is obvious.There isn't much more to do here.
You are unable to move the discussion forward.

But - you haven't baked a cake behind dark matter even once, yet. I know that.
But, apparently, you don't.
You're the one saying we have to demonstrate away the doubt by checking behind dark matter.
You're the one saying our current information isn't enough to base a conclusion on our current information. Of course it would.
If we found additional information that told us we were wrong - and you actually can't bake cakes - then we would be wrong, and you actually cannot bake cakes.
That's what new information can do - overturn previously-held tentative conclusions of knowledge. These are not the same thing.
The NWP is a water-throughway, there is evidence that water-throughways can exist in undiscovered areas before anyone went searching for the NWP.
There is no evidence of any Gods - ever. I have a detailed, specific answer for every issue you raise.You're the one who keeps claiming that "knowledge-doubt" for baking cakes behind dark matter is different from "knowledge-doubt" of finding God behind dark matter without explaining why.I'm the one that says they should be treated the same - as irrational (no link to reality) ideas that should be ignored when making tentative conclusions of knowledge based on our available information (rational knowledge claims.)Why would I move the discussion forward?
My position is solid and you can't seem to indicate anything actually wrong with it.

No.
I'm saying imaginary ideas need a link to reality to impact the tentative conclusions based on our currently available information.
What is the link from imagination to reality for luminiferous aether existing behind dark matter?
Without that - I stick with knowing that luminiferous aether does not exist.I don't know how you thought otherwise - this doesn't even make sense that you would suggest such a thing. If "every place we know" is equivalent to "all of our currently available information" - then you agree with me.If "every place we know" includes "behind dark matter" - then you fall into not knowing that ringo can bake cakes:If you think this is accurate - then you have to be open to waiting until we check behind dark matter to see if "something that tells us ringo can't actually bake cakes" exists there.
That's "something."
Therefore - you don't know if you can bake a cake.Your choice.
Agree with me, or you can't know if you can bake a cake. "The objective observations" don't change - you're right.
But new information certainly does undo old conclusions.Even the curvature of the earth, at one point we knew it was flat, then we knew it was spherical, now we know it's an oblong spheroid.The observations that led to those conclusion didn't change.
You can still look at the window, and see how some people thought it was flat.
You can still see pictures from space, and see how some people thought it was spheical.
You can still see the observations that show an oblong-spheroid, and see how we think that's more-accurate.The observations don't go away... but the conclusion (flat, spherical, oblong-spheroid) is updated along with new information.The observation that you think you can bake a cake now won't go away.
But if we find information behind dark matter that shows you're not actually baking a cake, you only think you are... then the conclusion will change.As it should.This is how knowledge has worked since we moved past the dark ages.
What you're talking about - conclusions remaining static - is dark-age epistemology.

Right.
And until that link is found - we know that the idea is only imaginary.Knowledge is not absolute - it's a tentative conclusion based on our available information. And, to me, this works for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" just as well as "knowing God doesn't exist."Both things have been found - according to our available information.
Both things have silly ideas to overturn them - looking in places with no link to reality to suggest that they should be overturned.I think they should be treated the same.
You think they should be treated differently - but you're unable to explain why this should be so. Everything you say about one is equally valid for the other.
You just say it's not, but can't explain why it's not - this is an indication that you're confused. You thinking you baked a cake is a conclusion.

And this is where you're wrong.We certainly can know that things are only imagination according to our currently available information.
And that's what knowledge is.
Knowledge is not absolute. Places we haven't looked that are not a part of our available information (as far as God is concerned, anyway.)
Your point is? Nope.
We have observed objectively that you can bake what you think is a cake.That conclusion can certainly be overturned. What if we found out that you actually aren't baking cakes and you only think you were?Are you saying that such information is impossible to find out in the future?
Is your knowledge of baking cakes absolute?Knowledge is not absolute. You keep trying to make it so. But that's dark-ages thinking. Sure we can.
We look for it. If we find it - it exists. If we don't find it - then it doesn't.
If we look through all our available information - then we know it doesn't exist within all of our available information. Exactly. And when "how many places we have left to look" is equal to "none at all within our currently available information" - then we can be highly confident.
This is called knowledge.
This is how we know things don't exist. Agreed. Yes, actually, it is you thinking you baked a cake.
Just like people "thought they sailed on a flat lake" thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of years ago.
Then new information informed them otherwise.
Just like people "thought they sailed on a spherical surface on a lake" hundreds of years ago.
Then new information informed them otherwise.We've just never had new information to inform us otherwise for thinking you can bake cakes.
This doesn't make such information impossible to come by - it's simply makes us confident in it.We don't prescribe reality with our observations.
We can't ever know our observations are correct with reality - how would we?
All we ever know is that observations tell us according to our available information.
All we ever know is tentative conclusion based on our available information.You're trying to turn your observation of baking a cake into an absolute.
But - we know that we can never have absolute knowledge of anything - because there is no "answer book" to reality to check it against.
Everything we observe is interpreted - that that interpretation can always be overturned by future information.If you disagree - you're putting on a level of "absolute knowledge" (even if it's just 'absolute knowledge of an observation') neither are ever, ever possible for us.
According to our available information, of course The more you cling to this "observations can't be un-observed" nonsense - the more your position is shown for the absolute-knowledge-holding you're trying to force into it.

That's not true.
There is a link from imagination to reality for the NWP before we found it. Again:The NWP is a water-throughway.
We knew water-throughways existed before searching for the NWP.
We knew water-throughways can be found in undiscovered areas.Therefore - I would not have been able to say "I know the NWP does not exist" before searching for the NWP.The difference is: We have no information to suggest that any gods exist.
We have no information to suggest that any god might exist in undiscovered areas.Therefore - I know that God does not exist. Agreement doesn't change anything.
Knowledge is not absolute.
You (and no amount of popularity) prescribes reality.
Only reality prescribes reality.
All our knowledge claims (even "I know ringo can bake a cake") are based on tentative conclusions from our available information.You're thinking of knowledge in absolute terms - that's Dark Ages thinking, and has been thoroughly debunked. We're talking about searching behind dark matter.
If that's within our currently available information - then we know God does not exist because we've checked there and still have no evidence of God.
If we haven't checked there yet - then it's not part of our available information.Stay with the context, ringo. Stop trying to create confusion by swapping contexts on the fly. Of course.
And objective observations don't allow you (or any amount of popular opinion) make an absolute claim about reality.The observation remains (when ringo puts these ingredients together and puts them in the oven, this thing is produced at a later time.)
Any conclusion is tentative. ("This thing is a cake - therefore ringo can bake cakes.")Do you know the difference?

That's not a link. That's an irrational idea.
What is the link?I can show you how water through-ways existed before the NWP.
I can show you how previously-undiscovered areas, when searched, sometimes show us water-throughways.Those are links to reality for the NWP.Are you saying you can show me how thunder and lightning connect to God in reality?
If not - you have no link. Link to reality vs. no link to reality is not a small difference. I didn't change my story. You're confusing context again.I said we've searched everywhere "within our current information."
I also said we don't have to search at all "for irrational idea with no link to reality." True.
This doesn't change the fact that if we can't look there - it's not available. Of course it isn't.
It's rational - as long as we follow information based on our current information.This may have been the most foolish think anyone has ever said. All knowledge is tentative - simply because it's not absolute.Again, this was stated in the very first message of this thread:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

​

Message 1

---

I'm the one saying knowledge is not absolute.
You're the one saying your claim of knowing how to bake a cake can never be overturned by future information.
You're the one making an absolute knowledge claim.

With this, I absolutely agree.
Knowledge is always tentative.Of course, that's why I said so in the very first message of this thread:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

​

Message 1

---

This makes a lot of sense for things we know exist in the first place - like looking for the NWP before it was discovered. We knew water through-ways can exist in undiscovered areas.This makes no sense at all for things we don't know exist in the first place - like Santa Claus, or Chimeras, or God.
For these such things, it makes more sense to admit that there's no connection between the idea and reality.
Therefore, we tentatively concluded that they don't exist according to our currently available information.
Aka "We know they don't exist." How many time do I have to explain that knowledge is not absolute?
Why do you guys keep claiming it is?What do you now understand about "all knowledge is tentative and based upon our currently available information - therefore, it is redundant to continue saying it over and over."If you do not agree with this, please explain one single item you know to be absolute and how you know that it's absolutely correct to reality and can never be overturned by the possibility of future information.Without doing that - you're acknowledging that all knowledge is tentative.
However - you keep saying I'm playing with words because I'm saying something is certain - when I'm the one saying over and over and over that all knowledge is tentative!The wordplay (and mind-screwing) is all on your end.Once you sort through it - there's no escaping the conclusion I'm making.
If there was an escape - at least one of you would have been able to explain it by now.