I Know That God Does Not Exist

Perhaps if we had access to the minds of believers. Keep in mind that the group known as *we* is composed of both believers and non-believers. I expect that the conclusions would differ, despite your insistence that the definition of *know* should be universal.

People have no knowledge at all on why they came to this World . . would that make them less scientific (or intellgent) people ..But their blind certainty about things they have no knowledge about looks more like a belief, and that ignorance sure looks very repugnant or despicable as well . .What about not bringing more people to this World, because it's a hundred per cent certainty that you'd be bringing more of the same..

We don't have to have a link before we look for a link.
We only have to have a link before we have a rational reason to look for a link.If the reason we look is irrational - why should it be considered in a rational analysis of knowledge?Or if we look "just to explore, to see whatever it is we might be able to see" - again, how would this rationally indicate to us that we should expect to find God?
It doesn't. Again - if we haven't looked there, then the information is currently unavailable to us.
Regardless of why we haven't looked there. Of course, the fact that we rationally know nothing is there is because we have expanded our knowledge many times before, and no indication of God is ever found in any expansion of our knowledge. And there's no rational indication that God would be found anywhere at all.
Based on the rational pattern of facts - we know God does not exist in the places we haven't searched yet. Just as we do with Luminiferous Ether.This is how we know (not A.)We know Luminiferous Ether does not exist.
We know God does not exist.They are both exactly the same: nothing in our available information indicates that they might exist within or beyond our available information.We could be wrong about either, or both.
Or we could be right.But, until we identify information showing they could exist: we know that they do not exist. But looking everywhere over thousands of years does.
No God ever found.If you disagree - just identify the one place we've looked and found God. Let's say I do the exact same experiment but with "God" supposed to be causing the difference instead of "Luminiferous Ether."
Do you have any reasonable doubt that the result will be any different?
I'm going to assume that you're honest enough to say "no - we can be extremely confident that the two results would be exactly the same."Therefore, according to your same requirements - both God and Luminiferous Ether do not exist.If you disagree with this example, you're free to run your own for verification.
Or at least identify something reasonable that would indicate that we would find a different result. Thanks for the retraction.
Let's finally focus on the facts. According to the facts.
Anyone can read the posts in this thread and see. And all the errors you claim to exist - are inconsistent, irrational, or appeals to popularity over objectivity. My facts:Any and all rational analysis ever done to any information available to us has always shows that God does not exist as much as Luminiferous Ether does not exist.If you claim to disagree, or claim errors exist - feel free to offer any fact to show how my claim is incorrect.

I don't think so.
I'm not the one confusing the word with multiple meanings. For absolutely-cannot-possibly-ever-be-wrong certain?
Of for certain "beyond any reasonable doubt?"If you mean the former - you're obviously wrong.
If you mean the latter - that's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what leads to the conclusion that I know God does not exist. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the same level of certainty we have for any and all things we declare as "certain."

Perhaps.
But "internal confirmation" is known to have more errors accompanied with it than our best-known-method of rational analysis.This doesn't mean rational analysis is right.
It just means what it is: that a rational analysis has proven itself to be our best-known-method (contain the smallest chance of being-wrong) of identifying the truth of reality.Your choice if you want to use "internal confirmation" over rational analysis.
Your choice if you want to attempt to identify-something-about-reality using a method known to be more prone to error over a method known to be less prone to error. Not at all.
They're not being reasonable.If we want to identify "something about reality" - wouldn't you think it would be reasonable to use our best-known-method over one that we know is more prone to being wrong?Of course, if we want to "feel good about our life choices" - then perhaps we shouldn't focus on our best reality-identification method.Just need to identify your priority (not always easy...) - then the "reasonable choice" is obvious.

.What about not bringing more of those who did wrong, to this World.People have no knowledge at all on why they came to this World . . would that make them less scientific (or intellgent) people ..But their blind certainty about things they have no knowledge about looks more like a belief, and that ignorance sure looks very repugnant or despicable as well . .What about not bringing more people to this World, because it's a hundred per cent certainty that you'd be bringing more of the same..

Yeh, they'll be the idiots. It's a truly stupid conceit, even your bible tells you that nobody can know that. And yet you'll ignore it. No.

No Who has blind certainty? I have no idea what you're talking about.

That is not true. Being saved is the same thing as having eternal life and John gives us information for the purpose of knowing that we have eternal life:

I know for absolute certain that I'm typing stuff into this iPad. And I can prove it. More importantly so can you. You can not know about things that are outside our existing knowledge. By definition.But I'm off this roundabout again for another 50 pages. I'll leave you to go around and around.

You know for absolute certain that you're not mad?
You know for absolute certain that it's impossible for you to make a mistake?
You know for absolute certain that what you think about reality is actually reality?You'd be the first...
So far, no human is capable of such things. We can only prove things against the information we have available to us.
As "the information available to us" is not absolute - any proof is not absolute.
For both of us.Unless you have absolute information? Exactly.
How can you say this right after saying you know something for "absolute certain??"If you can't know things that are outside our existing knowledge, and our existing knowledge is not absolute - how are you "absolutely positive" something outside our existing knowledge will one day identify that what we currently think we know about [insert whatever here] is wrong? Once again - I haven't moved.
Just identifying all these nonsensical, irrational, inconsistent "buggerings" you keep insisting on.It's all here... the text won't disappear. Anytime you'd like to start being consistent and rational, feel free to return.

Then the millions and millions of null results over many millennia are that evidence.Null results count as scientific evidence. Just ask Albert Michelson. You telling me you don't discern an absolute "know" from a tentative "know"?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

We don't always know before we look whether or not there is a "rational link". We don't just sit in an ivory tower listing all of the "rational links" before we look for something. We found a lot of things that way. We didn't dream up a "rational link" to elephants before we found them. Again - false. If we know the place is there, that is information that is currently available to us. We can not say we "know" something is not there before we look there. No, it is not the same. We have a positive test for luminiferous either; the speed of light should be different "with the flow" and "across the flow". If the speed is the same, we can conclude (not luminiferous ether). There is no corresponding concrete test for God from which we could conclude (not God).Furthermore, the luminescent ether was expected to be everywhere, if it existed. That is not a universal expectation for God, so failure to find Him in one place is not necessarily evidence for non-existence. That's a ridiculous comparision. You can't do the same test for two different things. You might as well try to use an interferometer to find the Northwest Passage or use a thermometer to measure your height.

I asked for one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morely and you provided none. I doubt whether either Albert Michelson or Edward Morley would accept the wishy-washy "tests" that you cite as equivalent to their work. I'm telling you that I can discern an objective "know". The fact that I can bake a cake is an objective "know". I can demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt.The idea that God does not exist is not remotely similar. It can not be demonstrated objectively.Failure to demonstrate existence is not evidence of non-existence. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

You called me "ignorant" of Protestant persecutions on a par with the Catholic Inquisition, you cite a book on the subject which I'd never heard of. It's a piece of Catholic Apologetics of course. Most of the historians quoted are Roman Catholics, and I had to look up a bunch of them to find that out. One -- Stoddard -- was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism.I wrote to a Reformed site for information about this book and they did not answer me. I looked at Amazon to see if they sell it and what reviews there might be of it, found none. I could continue searching such sites I suppose but instead I read some of the first chapter myself. It's all quotes about how "intolerant" the Protestant Reformers were of Catholicism. Oh dear, they were "intolerant" of the ANTICHRIST? That is what they determined the papacy to be you know. And it's all nothing more than brief quotes to that effect with no references to historical instances of such intolerance so that one might get some idea of what they have in mind. Then there's Comte who baldly declares the RCC to be the legimate early Church despite the Reformation's work that exposed it as the heir of the Roman pagan religions and Antichrist. abe: Comte also calls the Protestants the "aggressors" against the RCC which is some kind of joke. Various Roman Catholics were protesting the corruptions of the RCC and after much study began to realize that there is nothing Christian at all about the RCC, that the whole thing is a pagan Antichrist superstition. This is apparently what Comte calls "aggression?" Right, the way the courts are the aggressors against criminals. Wow.At least as far as I've read there is nothing to suggest anything on the level of the Inquisition with its tortures and murders.In England there were many Catholic plots against the monarchy so that Elizabeth I and King James and others had to have a regiment of bodyguards. Such plotters were often beheaded. Is that "intolerance?" Well, the RCC thinks so, although it is in reality justice against treasonous plotters. Pope John Paul was allowed to go to England and treat such traitors as "martyrs." He should have been banded from the country.I may try to read more of that Antichrist-defending book, but don't know how far I'll get. You really should prove your accusation by quoting some part of it that actually proves anything by Protestants on the level of the Inquisition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.