I Know That God Does Not Exist

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

---

Yeh, we've done all that. Many, many times. I'm not going there again, it's just wordplay.The fact is that we can never be sure about an absence of something if the thing that is absent is potentially non-trivial and outside the bounds of our existing knowledge. It simply remains unknown and possibly unknowable, not certainly non-existent.

So every imagined deity, fairy, phantasm is to be considered viable, albeit to a vanishingly small degree, because no one can show it doesn’t exist? We are required to give it some modicum of credence because we cannot prove a negative?I disagree. The standard for even the smallest consideration is some evidence of viability, not the lack thereof.Unknown? Unknowable? Until there is an effect upon this universe the phantasm does not exist.

What's irrational about it? We have as much of a link as we had for water passages before any water passages were known. But you haven't shown that there is no link to reality. You're assuming the conclusion. We know there is a place. Not being able to look there is not an excuse for pretending you "know" what's there. Tentative does not mean reversible. We can not un-know what we used to know. That's precisely why we should not say we "know" something when we're only pretty sure.

That's a pretty fair question. Let me ask you one. Do you think that fairies are in the same category of unknown as a mainstream god?

What kind of thing is a mainstream god? Naw, I'm not going to do you that way.I see no difference in any imaginary phantasms.Is there something special about Shiva or Cthulhu or Yahweh versus Tinker Bell or Puck or Morgan le Fay?

Some supposed phantasms are actually real, some are invented, some are intuited, some are small, some are big, I see quite a bit of difference myself. But I hope tangle comes along soon and gives his two cents' worth.

Well, think, when your brain is dying, you are sinking straigt into the world of those same imaginary phantasms, they then make you experience them as the superior reality. And your expectation of your final death is futile because the biological "clock" of your brain is stopping too.

There is a difference in that the creators of Tinker Bell, Puck and Morgan tell us they are not real and the readers of their *fictions* do not believe them to be real.However, I believe them all to be fiction - some more obviously so than others. Yahweh does not sit on a cloud.But the existence of a non-interventionist, deistic god is a different category of idea. Nothing is known about such a being, it can't even be imagined. To me, it's a daft idea and doesn't exist, but that's just my belief. I certainly can't say I know it to be true in the same way that I know Tinker Bell is a fiction. For Tinker Bell I have proof.

You asked if AZ saw a difference between a fairy and a mainstream god. I don't think you addressed that.

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.

It has no link to reality and yet you suggest it should be taken into account when we're describing reality.
That's illogical.
That's irrational. Are you insane?
Water passages exist in Europe, no?
Did we not know water passages existed in Europe before searching for the NWP?How many Gods do we know exist before searching for God behind dark matter?How can you possibly call those equivalent links to reality? We have evidence that water passages existed before the NWP.
We have no evidence that any God has ever existed.The fact that we don't have any evidence of any God ever existing is "showing that there's no link to reality" for God.You're free to disagree - but it's only rational for you to disagree if you show how this is wrong. That is - show evidence for any God ever existing. Not being able to look there isn't being used as an excuse to say I know God isn't there.
I know God isn't there because is no link between God and reality. God only exists in our imaginations as an idea.
If you're suggesting God may actually exist as more-than-an-imaginary-idea behind dark matter - what is your link to reality to suggest so?Without that link - you're suggesting that something that only exists in our imagination should affect our claims about reality.
That's illogical, irrational dark ages thinking.Since there's no rational reason to suggest that God actually exists behind dark matter - that's why I know He's not there. If this is true - then we cannot know anything and the word is useless.We once knew light things fell slower than heavy things. But it was tentative, and reversed when we learned more information. We un-know this now and replace it with something better.
Then we knew all things fall according to Newton's equations. But it was tentative, and reversed when we learned more information. We un-know this now and replace it with something better.
Now we know all things fall according to Einstein's equations. But it is tentative, and may be reversed if we learn more information. We might un-know this and replace it with something better.They were all beyond "pretty sure" status in their time.Your definition of "know" is useless to describe how we actually know things.

This is a terrible way to go about identifying reality.What if Tolkein died before saying his books were fiction?
Does that mean we then treat them as a possibility in reality?What if the population decides to treat Tolkein's writing as real?
Does that mean we then "know" it to be real?What if the population decides that God was actually as made up as Zeus?
That's when it's okay to say we know God does not exist? Because of the above? No - this is all irrational drivel.If you want to be rational and logical about what we know - then we have to have rational and logical guidelines that everything follows.
God is in the same boat as Santa and Chimera and Tolkein's works and Tinker Bell, and Puck... they all have "no link from imagination to reality."Appeals to popularity or appeals to feelings are irrational and have no place in a rational discussion.If you really think a non-interventionist, deistic god should be in a different category - you need to say why and defend it in a rational way. No appeals to feelings or desires or imagination. No appeals to authority. No appeals to popularity. No known-to-be-logical-failures-when-identifying-things-in-reality.
You haven't done that.
No one ever has.That's why a non-interventionist, deistic god is the exact same category.It's easy to get him out - just show the link between imagination and reality.
Of course, no one has ever found one yet - but that doesn't change the tentativity of the conclusion.

Only because their creators are lost to history and cannot attest to their genesis? Is that your standard?We are still left with un-evidenced, unknown, unknowable phantasms that have no effect on anything in this universe.Again, I ask, is such an idea to be considered viable just because no one can show it doesn’t exist? Are we to give such ideas credence only because logic does not allow proof of a negative?There should be a stronger standard for our intellectual considerations than just an inability to show/deny efficacy. Our considerations should be reserved for those ideas that have shown their efficacy as more than creative imagination.I prefer a positive reasoning for our considerations. We have seen where negative reasoning is not productive. It is no better than merely hoping on an emotional whim.Any idea that has no effect on this universe is non-existent by definition. A non-interventionist deity is such an idea. Any idea that cannot show evidence of efficacy, or a reasonable probability of efficacy, should not be given any level of serious intellectual consideration. Such is only a play toy for our imaginative amusements.Your mileage may vary.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I do support such a statement (and I've probably said it myself even) but only in the right context.That is, there is some level of "serious intellectual consideration" that I think should be given to irrational ideas.
Especially searching for things that have absolutely no evidence of them.If think that those with such a passion should search for evidence of ideas that currently have no link between imagination and reality.
I just think they should call it what it is - an irrational search with no weight in a rational discussion of current knowledge, but something they feel very passionate about and want to continue with.I think it's important to freely search for anything - many leaps and bounds in science have been made by irrational discoveries (like penicillin - a scientist was doing a rational search for a different idea, but discovered penicillin.)
I certainly don't think a lot of resources should be put into irrational searches... but those who do irrational searches (and/or discoveries) should not be be prevented in any way.There's value in "the general explorer" who isn't looking for anything specific - just looking to see what can be found.
A rational search would be restricted to searching for something specific. That is, if you don't know what you're searching for - how could you have evidence to point you in any direction? "I'll know it when I see it" is a great searching reason - it's just not rational as it doesn't follow any rules or logic.Therefore, if "serious intellectual consideration" means "don't even try to search" - I'm against that context for this statement.
But, if "serious intellectual consideration" means "rational evaluations of the current state of our knowledge" - I'm in full support of this statement.