I Know That God Does Not Exist

How do you know it has no link to reality unless you look for one? What is inherently irrational about the idea? Can you read? Did you miss the phrase, "before any water passages were known"?Before any water passages were known, we did not know about any water passages in Europe. The situation was the same as not knowing any Gods exist until we look. Zero passages until the first passage was discovered. Zero Gods until the first God was discovered. Zero excuse for not looking. How can you not? We had no such evidence until we started looking. Not at all. We can use the word for distinguishing between somebody who can bake a cake and somebody who can not. Employers use the word in that way every day - and the criterion for knowledge is the ability to demonstrate that your knowledge is real, that you know how to bake a cake. We once believed that light things fall faster than heavy things. We weren't even "pretty sure" about it because we hadn't tested it. It was an empty belief, like the belief in Noah's flood. It wasn't knowledge being "reversed". It was belief being overthrown by knowledge.

I am not meaning to curtail curiosity to search and explore. I am meaning to question the assigning of intellectual legitimacy to imaginative speculations based on the idea that we cannot disprove them.

We have looked in all of our available information. None exists. There's nothing inherently irrational about an idea with no link to reality - but who cares?It is irrational to consider that an idea with no link to reality should be considered when identifying our knowledge about reality.
Which is what we're talking about. How would someone even say "I know water passages do not exist" when the idea wasn't even known?
Are you claiming that someone dreamed up the definition of water passages before they were discovered?If so - then yes, it would be valid to say:"I tentatively conclude that water passages as you've only dreamed them up do not exist according to our currently available information."
Or, since all knowledge is tentative and assessed according to currently available information:
"I know that water passages do not exist."Why wouldn't that be correct?And, of course, when evidence is acquired showing that water passages even might exist... then no one can say "I know that water passages do not exist." anymore.
Just like evidence for God is required to stop my conclusion that I know God does not exist. I see what you're talking about now, but I still don't get the point you're trying to make since I completely agree.
As such - they should be treated the same. Why wouldn't they?You're not attempting to suggest that knowledge is absolute, are you? That would be silly. And you can say "I know they don't exist" until some form of evidence is found indicating that they might actually exist.Otherwise we can't say "I know it doesn't exist" about anything, ever.
Which is silly."I know Harry Potter doesn't exist" is valid.
"I know Santa Claus doesn't exist" is valid.
"I know Tolkein's Gandalf doesn't exist" is valid.If you start allowing dreamed-up imagination to have affects on rational knowledge claims.. you also run into not being able to claim positive things.What if the dreamed-up idea is "ringo can't actually bake a cake, we only think he can but all observations of him doing so will be shown to be in error at a future date."Poof.Now no one can say "I know ringo can bake a cake." No matter how many observations or demonstrations are ever done until the end of time.Same irrational imagination having the same weight on rational knowledge claims.
Same problem. This is what I'm saying.
I'm saying we have to demonstrate that our knowledge is real.
Knowledge is not absolute.
Because of that - I am not claiming that God absolutely does not exist.
I am claiming that God does not exist anywhere within any of our currently available information.
I can demonstrate this as there's no evidence that God even might exist anywhere within our currently available information.You're the one claiming to know that I can't say "I know God does not exist" - but you cannot demonstrate that this is real. You only have imagination to show this is real. And imagination doesn't "show" anything about reality.You're being illogical.Your analogy with the NWP is an attempt to say I'm wrong because future knowledge actually overturns the idea.
But this would require me to be making an absolute knowledge claim.
You seem to suggest that someone can't say "I know that water passages do not exist." When the idea only exists in imagination at the time - and the future discovery leads to water passages existing.
This only makes sense if "I know that water passages do not exist" is taken as an absolute knowledge claim.Knowledge is not absolute.
You're being irrational by suggesting that knowledge should be absolute or it should be considered as wrong. They were as sure about it as we are as sure that Einstein's equations are correct.Most of our current information shows Einstein's equations to function perfectly.
Some of our current information suggest that it's possible that Einstein's equations do not accurately define all of reality.
We are attempting to investigate as much as we can.
Perhaps one day we'll overturn Einstein's equations as well.
Perhaps one day we'll show they're actually fine and everything fits with them.Most of their current information showed "light things fall faster than heavy things" perfectly.
Some of their current information suggested that it's possible that "light things fall faster than heavy things" does not accurately define all of reality.
Turns out - we eventually discovered such an idea should be overturned.Exact.
Same.
Thing.It's only an "empty belief" to us now - but our currently available information is a lot larger.
Please show how it was an "empty belief" to them, during their time, amidst their currently available information. You can't. Because you're wrong. We were always talking about "tentative conclusions being overthrown by new information."
Don't you remember when you brought up the term?

quote:

---

Tentative does not mean reversible. We can not un-know what we used to know.

​

Message 2089

---

(Bolding by me.)It's good to see that you can identify your own strawman, though.Of course we can un-know what we used to know.
Because knowledge is not absolute.
That's what "not absolute" means... future information can overthrow/change/alter/un-know current information.Are you sure you think knowledge is not absolute?
You seem to talk a whole lot about knowledge being absolute.If you do think knowledge is absolute - please identify one thing, just one things, that we cannot ever "un-know" by any information we could possibly get in the future.
As future information could actually be anything at all, you cannot do this.
I can even debunk it right now:"The future information could be 'whatever-ringo-claims-to-be-un-knowable is actually un-knowable in the future.'"QED.
Your claim that we cannot un-know things we know is categorically defeated on the basis that "we do not know what we might find in the future."Reality perscribes reality.
Not ringo's (or anyone else's) imagination.You're stuck in the dark ages, clinging to absolute knowledge.Knowledge is not absolute.
Knowledge is tentative.
Knowledge is based on our currently available information.This is basic epistemology that's been understood since the dark ages.
You're free to disagree, but it's obvious how silly you are.

That's very eloquent I just like to ramble about shit.

Now THAT makes no sense at all! Something that we know exists is not something we generally argue doesn't exist. We can prove Santa Clause doesn't exist. We can't prove god doesn't exist. Dunno about chimeras, never thought about them. We can't prove Bigfoot or Nessie don't exist, but we believe they don't. This is all we're arguing about. A tentative conclusion can't be absolute knowledge. See above, it's you that's claiming certainty. If all you're saying is that you believe something to be true/not true to the best of your knowledge, then we are in agreement.

Luckily I don't spend any time at all identifying reality in storybooks marked as fiction. Now you're just being silly. I wonder how many other ways we could work out whether hobbits, orks and wizards are real if we were dumb enough to suggest that they were. And here it is again. I am in agreement with your tentative conclusion. That is not certainty. From that you cannot say that you 'know' that such a thing doesn't exist. What you can say is that given the state of our current knowledge, it is unlikely to exist.

We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there. That's an irrational conclusion. The only way to tell whether there is a link or not is by looking. Why not? That's what we did with God. For the same reason you've been wrong throughout the entire thread: A tentative conclusion should not be confused with knowledge. You're the one who keeps saying that searching for water passages is completely different from searching for gods. The onus is on you to explain why. I don't have a problem with that. That makes no sense. We can demonstrate positive things. Sure they can. You're being silly. They can see it, they can eat it, they can measure it, they can run it through a gas chromatograph. That is how we know things. And we can demonstrate that something is not in a specific place at a specific time - but we can not demonstrate that it is not in any place at any time because we are not omniscient. No I'm not. I'm not claiming to "know" that. I'm saying that you shouldn't use the word improperly. It doesn't matter whether it was an empty belief "to them". Fundamentalists' beliefs are not empty "to them" but they are still empty because they can not be demonstrated to be real. Nope. If it turns out to be wrong, we didn't really know it - and we shouldn't have pretended that we did. But of course, real knowledge like how to bake a cake, can not be undone.

How?If Santa Clause actually exists - isn't it possible that not all his powers are specifically or accurately recorded in whatever information we've currently gathered about him?How can we prove Santa Clause doesn't exist if we can't prove god doesn't exist? You need to explain this. Exactly.
Isn't all knowledge tentative?
Is any knowledge absolute?If it's all tentative - why do you get your panties in a wad when I don't explicitly say it's tentative when talking about knowing God doesn't exist? How am I claiming certainty when all knowledge is tentative? I am saying "I know that God does not exist."Based on the facts that all knowledge is tentative and all knowledge is based on our current information.
If you think any knowledge is absolute, or any knowledge is based on something beyond our current information - you're free to explain how it's viable.

Stile has been careful to define how he uses the word "know". You are not using the same "know".Stile is attempting to capture how we all use the word in everyday language. You are using another definition that most of us mix up with the everyday usage.The whole discussion between the two of you is only about which "know" applies or is most useful. And that is exactly how most of us, most of the time, apply the word "know". When the likelihood of something is estimated to be low enough we say we "know" that isn't real. We may all have different values on "low enough" and have different values for "low enough" for different things but that is how we mean "know"We do not get all pedantic (most of the time) and say "While I am not sure about this being non existent I estimate the probability to be 0.0000001." Instead we say "bullshit".We also (other than in scientific papers) do not say things like "This suggests that the results have a bearing on the discussion at hand." Instead we say "That proves it!" Even you and I who know at some level of chance nothing is proved will still use that shorthand.

Just as silly as suggesting some imaginary ideas should prevent us from tentative conclusions based on our available information. Of course I can.When does "knowing" something ever become a non-tentative conclusion?Name one thing... any thing you like, that's actually considered a non-tentative conclusion.
One thing that is absolute knowledge that no one considers it could ever change by any information ever to be found in the future.I will provide you will the possibility of future information that will overturn it.All knowledge is tentative.
If you think any knowledge is not - explain how.If knowledge is tentative - why do you think I'm claiming certainty when I'm talking about knowing something?

And you are wrong to do so. You imply certainty Therefore, you can't 'know' in the normal usage of the word. I'm saying the exact opposite. I can only assume now that you're simply being obstinate.I'll get off this roundabout now for a while, I'm feeling a bit nauseous. I can only go round in circles for a limited time. Meanwhile, Ringo will keep you spinning indefinitely.

You are not alone in this.Gotta love this place.

All your rambling revolves around this one thing: You are wrong about how you're thinking about knowledge.Knowledge is tentative.
Knowledge is not absolute.
Knowledge can be incorrect about reality (no need for 'pretending.')
Knowledge is obtained through a rational analysis of our available information (looking at the evidence.)I'm not saying "I know God does not exist" should be considered valid knowledge because it's a tentative conclusion.I'm saying "I know God does not exist" should be considered valid knowledge because it's obtained through a rational analysis of our available information (looking at the evidence.) It is not absolute. It is a tentative conclusion. It can be incorrect about reality.If you do not think this accurately describes "knowledge" please name a single thing you think is knowledge that is not tentative..You can't do this, because it can be categorically refuted without you even needing to provide something:1. The future is unknown - an honest, rational person understands that reality defines reality - nothing else. Therefore, any imaginary idea we can think of could be found to actually be a part of reality in the future.2. Based on 1, an imaginary idea is "any conclusion we claim to be non-tentative could be overturned by some information in the future we failed to consider when initially making the non-tentative claim."3. Taking 1 and 2 together, it is categorically impossible to have a non-tentative knowledge claim.QED

If you think the word "know" implies certainty - it is you who is wrong, not me.You even agree a few sentences lower: If you agree that knowledge is not absolute - why do you think me using the word "know" implies certainty?
It doesn't make any sense. I don't even understand if you're claiming "know" to be tentative or absolute here.But, again, "know" is never absolute.
If you ever think it is - you're wrong.You can't even provide a single example where "know" should be considered absolute.
I keep telling you that I do not consider knowledge to be absolute.Then I say "I know God does not exist" and you claim I'm implying certainty?
Where from? I'll be here whenever you've had a chance to think on it for a while.
Haven't you ever heard of relativity? In reality, I'm not the one who's spinning...

Note: I actually know exactly "where from."
It's because you've been trained to give God (or a non-interventionist deity) a free-pass.You feel it's implied here.
You've been culturally indoctrinated to accept it's implied here.
It's popular opinion that it's implied here.But it's irrational to consider any of that when attempting to make a serious, rationally based claim of knowledge.This is shown by everyone who's disagreed with me.
It's over 2000 messaged in this thread and no one has a rational reason to suggest why I can't say "I know God does not exist."
But there are over 2000 messages... 2000 messages filled to the brim with feelings and popular opinion caused by thousands of years of cultural pressure.Everyone's stuck on this idea that I'm "implying certainty" by saying "I know God does not exist" no matter how many times I say knowledge is not absolute."I know Santa Clause does not exist" does not contain any of the same cultural pressure.
"I know God does not exist" contains mountains - thousands of years' worth - of cultural pressure.But "cultural pressure" has no place in a serious, rationally based claim of knowledge.That's why Santa Clause and God fit in the exact same category.
Because their only difference is from cultural pressure... popular opinion... feelings.I'm not saying the difference doesn't exist - it certainly does.
I'm saying this difference doesn't deserve consideration in a serious, rationally based claim of knowledge.