I Know That God Does Not Exist

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I am under no illusion that I want to maintain all rationality.
I very often throw rationality out the window - it's not very fun. I like to have fun. Most of the fun I have is incredibly irrational.However, if you want to claim that getting rid of rationality is helpful in identifying reality in some way - you're going to have to show why this should be considered. Because it has been considered before, and followed - it led us straight into the Dark Ages for hundreds of years.
That kind of irrationality wasn't very fun at all.That's why I'm careful about my identification of what's rational and what's not - so I can understand what sort of situations I'm applying it to, and which ones I'm not. Sometimes it's incredibly dangerous, sometimes it's incredibly rewarding. But if you get confused, you can get left for dead. Your belief of what I'm capable of has no bearing on what I actually do. Knowledge is not absolute.
Any claim I make can easily be updated by new information.
Find this information on God - present this information about God - show the connection between God and reality.Do that, and I will retract my conclusion as it fits directly into my method for changing the conclusion. I'm not setting the ground rules for knowledge - I'm just using the same rules that lifted us out of the Dark Ages.
Seems like a pretty decent place to start after all the improvements to life we've discovered in the last few hundred years. I have no problems taking a backseat to control and definition. The majority of my "fun time" is spent pissing all over control and definition. I highly enjoy not respecting control or definition. I'm up for it whenever it's helpful.It's just that here - in defining things about reality - giving up control and definition is not helpful. It's very, very hurtful. Hundreds of years in the dark ages hurtful. Do you know how many people died then that didn't have to? Too many to count.
I'm not going to do something that's incredibly hurtful just because you say it's going to help.But go ahead, give up control and definition for driving to work - see how much it helps.
Give up control and definition for taking a plane trip on vacation - see how much it helps.
Give up control and definition when your sick and need a doctor - see how much it helps.
Do any of those - and prosper - and I will think you're on to something.
We even know that those who "give up control and definition only for God but none of those other things" don't prosper any more than anyone else.It makes it look like the only reason you're doing it is, again, cultural pressures (which I do agree are highly powerful.)As for my argument, I also have no problems with someone not accepting my argument.
People are free to have whatever thoughts they like.I am only taking issue with those who are claiming my argument "implies certainty" or that it's illogical, or irrational.
Because none of those things are true about my argument.My argument is logical and rational.
My argument is unavoidable from an honest evaluation of our current information.
My argument is tentative - it could be wrong, but it should only be considered to be wrong once new information showing it's wrong is identified.1. In explicit terms no one seems to have an issue with:
"A rational analysis of our current information demands the tentative conclusion that God does not exist."
Just like:
"A rational analysis of our current information demands the tentative conclusion that Santa Claus does not exist."2. All knowledge is "a rational analysis of our current information" and all knowledge is tentative.
Therefore - these parts can be removed from the above statement as they are redundant.
-almost everyone seems to have an issue with this
-but no one can identify any knowledge that is not "a rational analysis of our current information"
-no one can identify any knowledge that is not tentative
-lots of people have an issue, but no one can explain what that issue is other that "I don't want to accept it!"3. Putting 1 and 2 together:
Nobody has an issue for this coming together and saying "I know Santa Claus does not exist."
Everybody has an issue for this coming together and saying "I know God does not exist."
-but no one can identify why this should apply to Santa Claus and not to God without appealing to popular opinion or other cultural pressure or claiming that it somehow implies certainty even though this is strictly declared not to be a certaintyIf you want to think otherwise - feel free.
I just won't allow any otherwise-thinkers to say this is inconsistent or wrong when they cannot identify anything that is inconsistent or wrong and in their attempts they only show how they, themselves are actually being inconsistent or wrong.

That's good.
Because it's always tentative.
Always. Why?If you understand knowledge is always tentative.
And I understand knowledge is always tentative.Why should I be more explicit about how tentative it is?That's like saying we shouldn't call you "ringo" but we should call you "ringo, member of EvCforum.net"

I completely agree.What you have failed to do is identify why "I know that God does not exist" is not specific enough, but something like "I know ringo can bake cakes" is specific enough.I have, actually, described to you in detail why their levels of specification are treated in exactly the same way.Here it is again:1. How do we know things?
-From a rational analysis of our available information to form tentative conclusions
-The more rational analysis that's done, and the more our tentative conclusion is confirmed accordingly, the more we "know" the thing.2. Rational Analysis
2a. Positive things can be known by a rational analysis that results in a positive conclusion according to our available information
-"I know ringo can bake cakes" can be rationally analyzed by seeing if ringo can put ingredients together and produce what we call a "cake"
-the more often ringo bakes cakes in various places he can do so, the more we "know" ringo can bake cakes according to our available information
-it would be fair to say that if ringo has baked 100 cakes in 100 different places... in the last 20-50 years: we're fairly confident that we can say "I know ringo can bake cakes according to our available information."2b. Negative things can be known by a rational analysis of looking for them that results in a negative conclusion
-"I know God does not exist" can be rationally analyzed by looking for God everywhere we can and seeing if anything God-identifying is found
-the more often we look for God everywhere we can and find nothing, the more we "know" God doesn't exist according to our available information
-it would be fair to say that if we look for God everywhere we can and find nothing hundreds of thousands of times... in the last few thousand years: we're fairly confident that we can say "I know God does not exist according to our available information."3. Doubt
3a. Positive things can be doubted
-perhaps the observation we think gives a positive conclusion - actually does not, and future information will show us that we were wrong the entire time - the observation actually falsifies our tentative positive conclusion
-perhaps what we call "a cake" is updated, and all previous "ringo-made-cakes" were not actually cakes at all
-perhaps our observations of ringo's-cake-baking-results are updated, and we can now identify that whatever-ringo-bakes no longer actually matches what we call "a cake"
-these sorts of doubts always exist, for everything, positive or negative
-it would be fair to say "I know ringo can bake cakes according to our available information including doubt that our observations could be wrong or are incomplete."3b. Negative things can be doubted
-perhaps the observation we think gives a negative conclusion - actually does not, and future information will show us that we were wrong the entire time - the observation actually falsifies our tentative negative conclusion
-perhaps what we call "God existing" is updated, and all previous claims of "God does not exist" were actually God the whole time
-perhaps our observations of God-not-existing-results are updated, and we can now identify that whatever-God-exists-as was actually present the whole time
-these sorts of doubts always exist, for everything, positive or negative
-it would be fair to say "I know God does not exist according to our available information including doubt that our observations could be wrong or are incomplete." What you have failed to do is show why "I know that God does not exist" smacks of trolling but "I know ringo can bake cakes" does not.When rationally analyzed in the exact same way - we actually see that we should have more confidence in our tentative conclusion that we know God does not exist than we should have in our tentative conclusion that we know ringo can bake cakes. Based on the limited (20-50 years) experience we have of observing ringo baking cakes vs. the vast (thousands of years) experience we have of observing God not existing.You've been free to explain why or how "I know ringo can bake cakes" is not as vague as "I know God does not exist."
But you've failed to do so.
Every time you bring something up - it either equally applies to both, or is in favour of giving more confidence to knowing God does not exist.But, again, feel free to explain why you require one to be specific but not the other.
If you do actually identify a rationally-applicable reason - I have no problems immediately changing my conclusion.Until then - I know that God does not exist.

That's just a claim.
That's not an identification of why it should be accepted.This is all you've ever done.
Made claims with no details as to why they should be accepted. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. I don't know.
I'm only saying that "I know ringo can bake a cake" is as specific as "I know God does not exist."
Message 2122You're the one saying one's more specific than the other but not saying why or why it should matter in a rational analysis of our knowledge - which is what we're talking about. I don't care about kinds or types of cakes. The process of knowledge, the doubt included - is all exactly the same for everything.
I care about you explaining why your claims of "this is enough specification!" should be taken seriously.You're basically saying "I use specified information!" And only saying "ringo-can-bake-cake has enough specified information!" and "God-does-not-exist does not have enough specified information!"... but you're not explaining what "specified information" actually is, or how to measure it.
You're basically hiding in your claims the same way ID proponents hide in theirs - saying "there's a measure! it's obvious! and obviously it agrees with the conclusion I want!" but not explaining how it's measured or why it's obvious so no one else can do a similar analysis.I've explained my method, and how to measure it.
Message 2122Now: your turn. You can watch me not find God. You can not find God. You and anybody else who cares to test my knowledge can test my knowledge. I'm not saying it's not specific.
I'm saying it's not more specific than "I know God does not exist."You're the one saying it is, but not giving any details of how you measure it in order to say so. I agree.
Unfortunately, we understand that "provocative-ness" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion. I agree.
Unfortunately, we understand that "people questioning things" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion. Tested! Nice! Testing is understood to have value when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Unfortunately, for you - we have tested "I know God does not exist" according to our available information a lot more often than we've tested "I know ringo can bake a cake." Therefore - this would mean we have more confidence in "I know God does not exist" than "I know ringo can bake a cake."Testing is actually part of my method for identifying when "enough is enough."
Unfortunately, it ends up agreeing with my conclusion - and disagreeing with yours.
Message 2122I agree - it was part of my intention, even.
Unfortunately, we understand that "provocative-ness" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Probably depends on the audience.
But, again, we understand that "considered trolling" means nothing when doing a rational analysis of human knowledge.
Therefore, if this is your method of measurement - it's irrelevant.
And irrational to think it has any weight in the discussion.

But if you watch me not find God - you can also confirm that we didn't find God.
And if you watch me not bake a cake - you can also confirm that I didn't bake a cake.I don't understand the point you're trying to make that they're both the same - I agree. The point is: how does ringo do this distinguishing? How do you know you baked a cake? What sort of rational analysis shows it? What sort of doubt is involved? Why is the same rational analysis and doubt not apply to God existing?I've explained Stile's way of distinguishing. And it works equally for cakes and Gods.
Message 2122Of course I can.
I have, and it's working flawlessly.
We've discussed it for over 2000 messages. If this is the implication to ringo - then it's a problem with ringo.
The only way this is an implication is if you subscribe to judgements of popularity or "provocative-ness" or "trolling."
But, as we are well aware - these are terrible methods for determining knowledge.
Therefore - if these things are implied for ringo when ringo sees a determination of knowledge - then there's something wrong with ringo.To those who understand a rational analysis in determining knowledge - there is no such implication at all.Again, in my method I've described how it's all according to our available information.
Why do you limit "knowing ringo's ability to bake cakes" to our available information but not "knowing if God exists or not" to our available information?
What is it that implies to you that you should treat them differently?Information that isn't currently available to us could show us that ringo actually cannot, and has never baked a cake.
Information that isn't currently available to us could show us that God actually does exist.When such information comes around - we update our tentative conclusions.This is my consistent method.Your method seems incredibly inconsistent.
When knowing if ringo can bake cakes - you seem to ignore information that is not currently available and focus only on information that is available.
When knowing if God exists - you seem incredibly focused on information that is not currently available to us.Why the double standard?
What's ringo's method?
Is there any consistency or is it just put together adhoc to agree with ringo's desired conclusions?
We have no idea because you've never explained what your method is, and everything you suggest is loaded with inconsistencies that you refuse to explain. Are you saying that more searching (observations) doesn't lead to stronger conclusions?
Are you saying that we have more observations for ringo-baking-cakes than we have for God not existing?
Are you saying that one observation of God existing isn't enough to overturn my conclusion?If you're saying anything else... the point you're making is irrelevant to the discussion. I really wanted to discuss this.
I really wanted to defend this.
You've been instrumental in showing exactly how robust and defensible my argument is - I'm very thankful.So - no. In that sense, it's not trolling at all.Of course - if you think it's trolling - then I guess it is to you, I just don't care - you've shown an affinity for inconsistency and irrelevancy.