I Know That God Does Not Exist

You're the only one who is talking about absolutes. Our available information can be added to. It can not be subtracted from. Events that have been observed can not un-happen. No it doesn't. Once a cake has been baked and observed objectively and peer-reviewed, it can not un-exist. The observation can not be un-observed. The event can not un-happen. No it doesn't. The negative can be reversed. The positive can not.If I failed to find something yesterday, I can find it today. But if I did something yesterday, I can not make it not-have-happened today. You're confusing "change" with "overturn". New information can change the interpretation of old information but new events can not make old events un-happen. New observations can not make old events un-have-happened. That's one reason. When a statement is likely to be provocative, it's extra-important to use precise language. On the contrary, it's irrational to use vague language when making a language claim. You can also watch France not exist if you're looking in the wrong direction. That doesn't make France un-exist. You're still confusing everywhere with anywhere. If I can bake a cake anywhere I can say I know how to bake a cake. But if you haven't found God somewhere, that is not sufficient evidence to claim you know that He doesn't exist anywhere. You need to search everywhere before you can make a rational knowledge claim.

Why wouldn't I? As long as Stile is wrong, I'll continue pointing out where he is wrong. I do but that isn't what this is about. This is about using language properly.

The point of this thread is to define the epistemology behind what it means to *know* if God exists or not.Just saying you know it doesn't count.
You have to explain how you know it, and why that method should be considered useful.See here: Message 2122In this thread, I'm searching for any God that exists.In life, I'm wishing that a helpful God exits.
If my internal protection prevented God - I am suspect as to how much God is allowing anyone to find Him, as I do not have any internal protections I can control that aren't already fully open.

When I say that knowledge is not absolute? How strange of you to think so. Irrelevent.
Our conclusions based on those observations can always be updated. Depending on the specifics you're talking about, you're either irrelevant, or wrong.
Take a good look at this:

quote:

---

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."

​

Message 2122

---

Are you saying "knowing ringo can bake a cake" has no doubt to it?If yes - you're wrong. Every claim of knowledge has doubt as we don't know everything.
If no - then explain what sort of doubt it is, as I have.My explanation shows that it's the same doubt as for "knowing God does not exist."Your explanation shows????I'm very interested to know how you're measuring this doubt and saying that one's doubt is higher than the other.
But you never seem to get around to this part.You just say "positive thing are irreversible!" without explaining it.
And then you say "negative things are reversible!" without explaining it.When you explain it, you'll see that it gets into the doubt surrounding the claim.
And that this doubt is equal for both.Or, perhaps not - maybe you do understand something I don't - but if you can't explain it, then I highly doubt it.

But... I don't think such a thing.

quote:

---

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."

---

That's what I think.I am as confident that we will not find God beyond our available information as I am confident that we won't find out that ringo can't actually bake cakes beyond our available information.Both could happen.
Both doubts are included in our knowledge claims.

But you can not "update" the conclusion that I baked a cake any more than you can "update" the conclusion that the earth moves around the sun. Those events have been observed and measured. The past can not be undone. If I was saying that, I would be saying that.What I'm saying is that that is a proper use of the word "know". It is observable. It has been observed.Not observing something is not in the same league with observing something. It is not proper to say you "know" a negative just because you have not observed it (yet). On the contrary, I have addressed that point many times. The difference is between something that has been measured and something that has not. It is rational to have more doubt about something that has not been measured than about something that has. We can "know" more about something that we have observed than something we have not. I've given you examples: You can not un-bake a cake. You can not un-see me make it. You can not un-eat it. But I have explained it: Something that has not happened (yet) can be reversed by simply making it happen.I've given you examples: You can reverse not finding the Northwest Passage by finding the Northwest Passage. You can (possibly) reverse not finding God by finding God.

You seem to think that the conclusion of you baking a cake is a "checkmark in reality" that you can absolutely bake a cake.This is not true. We have no answer-book to reality. We have no way to ever identify such absolutes.Is it not possible that what we think of as "a cake" could change in the future and you're wrong today? (therefore, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Is it not possible that what we think we conclude ringo doing could change in the future and you're not doing actually doing what we think you are doing today? (therefore, again, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)Answer "No, that's not possible - those are strictly impossible" and you've got me.
Of course - you'd be insane because you don't know the future as much as I don't know the future.If you can't say those items are strictly impossible - then I'm right.The doubt is there.
The same doubt is there.
The same rational doubt is there.I know ringo can bake cakes.
I know God does not exist.For exactly the same reasons.

It has nothing to do with absolutes. It's just that you can't go backwards in time. No. No more than it's possible that the earth will stop being the earth or the sun will stop being the sun or the earth going around the sun will change to the sun going around the earth. I do know the future in that I'm pretty sure the earth will continue to move around the sun. Repeating the error won't make it go away. The reasons are different. You know I can bake a cake because you can watch me do it and you can confirm the result. But you can't watch the Northwest Passage not being found and conclude that it doesn't exist; it might be found tomorrow. Your existing information includes the fact that there are places you have not looked.One is a done deal and the other is a deal that may or may not be done tomorrow. Different.

You're avoiding the questions:

quote:

---

Is it not possible that what we think of as "a cake" could change in the future and you're wrong today? (therefore, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)
Is it not possible that what we think we conclude ringo doing could change in the future and you're not doing actually doing what we think you are doing today? (therefore, again, the conclusion would be "updated" according to the new information.)

​

Answer "No, that's not possible - those are strictly impossible" and you've got me.
Of course - you'd be insane because you don't know the future as much as I don't know the future.

​

If you can't say those items are strictly impossible - then I'm right.

​

The doubt is there.
The same doubt is there.
The same rational doubt is there.

---

If you think there's no doubt in knowing ringo can bake a cake - if it's a "done deal" - then you're suggesting such knowledge is absolute. Cannot ever be wrong, no matter what we learn in the future.And - that's easily shown to be wrong as we do not know what the future may hold.Just answer the questions.
Is there doubt in knowing ringo can bake a cake?If yes - how is this doubt measured as "greater" than the doubt in knowing God does not exist?Be specific.

No I am not. I am saying it's objective. Do you understand the difference between objective and absolute? I'm saying that events that we have observed in the past can not be undone in the future. Nothing we learn in the future will make the eruption of Vesuvius not have happened. Nothing we learn in the future will make World War Two not have happened. Nothing we learn in the future will make baking the cake not have happened. No more than there is doubt that Vesuvius erupted or doubt that World War Two happened.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Of course. I'm saying that your distinction is irrelevant.Do you understand the difference between "there is doubt in I know ringo can bake a cake" and "there is no doubt in I know ringo can bake a cake?" Sure. But who cares?You observed ringo to bake a cake here and now.
I've observed God to not exist here and now.If there's still doubt in "I know ringo can bake a cake" - who cares if your observation cannot be undone when looking to identify how much doubt is in our knowledge? Or doubt that God does not exist.It's all the same:Knowing you bake a cake is based on all the objective observations that ringo can bake a cake here or there or anywhere we can test based on a rational analysis of the information currently available to us.
Maybe if our information expands - we will identify that our previous objective observation was irrelevant, and the new information shows that ringo never actually did bake a cake, or that what we call "cakes" were not actually cakes.
But - we accept this doubt, and we accept our objective observations of our current information to form the tentative conclusion of: I know ringo can bake cakes.
Therefore "I know ringo can bake cakes."Knowing God does not exist is based on all the objective observations that God does not exist here or there or anywhere we can test based on a rational analysis of the information currently available to us.
Maybe if our information expands - we will identify that our previous objective observation was irrelevant, and the new information shows that God has always existed, or that what we call "God" is actually something else.
But - we accept this doubt, and we accept our objective observations of our current information to form the tentative conclusion of: I know God does not exist.
Therefore "I know God does not exist."Exactly the same process.
Both use objective observations based on our current information.
Both include doubt that our conclusions based on those objective observations could be wrong if/when our information is expanded.
Both accept the doubt and form a tentative conclusion.
Both short-form the statement.What's different?
Unless you're able to "rationally measure doubt" and identify how "doubt that a positive conclusion based on objective observations could be overturned by new information" is less than "doubt that a negative conclusion based on objective observations could be overturned by new information" ... you're stuck with only your previous claims of "provocative-ness" or "popularity" or "trolling" ... which are all understood to be irrational for rationally measuring doubt.All you're doing is truncating "I know ringo can bake a cake according to our currently available information" to "I know ringo can bake a cake" and expecting it to be taken more seriously than truncating "I know God does not exist according to our currently available information" to "I know God does not exist."But your expectation is nothing more than "provocative-ness" or "popularity" or "trolling."
As the methods and truncation are based on exactly the same process.

So basically you can say that I, Stile know today that God does not exist. What you may or may not know an hour from now, a day from now, or a week from now may be different.And I admit that as a believer I have bias. I believe that God exists regardless of whether any or all of us *know* it or not. I also speculate that when the parables had God saying "depart from me I never knew you" they were people who either thought they knew God or were confidant that He never existed to begin with. Of course, sheer speculation.

What we can say based on what is actually written is that they were people who claimed not just to know God but to be followers of God.

There isn't - no more doubt than there is in the eruption of Vesuvius or the Second World War. An event which can not be undone removes all reasonable doubt that it happened. There's a huge difference. Billions of people doubt your conclusion that God does not exist. It is not an objective conclusion. But on the other hand, hardly anybody doubts my conclusion that World War Two happened. It's an objective conclusion.

In the same sense that this statement applies to everything that anyone claims to know ever... yes.
Because that's how knowledge works. Again, this is the same for anything we know.
Reality is reality.
Our knowledge of reality is (hopefully) the-best-we're-capable-of-at-the-moment.