I Know That God Does Not Exist

We did not pretend to "know" the luminiferous ether did not exist until the search for it reached a definitive conclusion.

No. Our available information is that there are places where we have not looked, so no definitive conclusion has been reached. I have never disagreed with your methodology or your conclusion. I only disagree with your terminology. Claiming you know (not A) when you don't know A is incorrect. You're pretty sure about (not A). You don't know.

Michelson and Morley had a method for detecting the ether. So far, the search for God is at a stage before Michelson and Morley, so it's premature to make a conclusion that Michelson and Morley didn't make until after their experiments.

Name one experiment that has been done that is equivalent to Michelson-Morley.

That is not relevant to what I have been saying in this thread. I'm just saying that it is not appropriate to claim we "know" (not A) when in fact we just don't know A.

And yet you haven't named even one experiment equivalent to Michelson-Morley that would lend legitimacy to those "null" results.

If we know there's a place we haven't looked, that's information too. We can't ignore that information when we make a conclusion. Wrong.In the case of cars, there is not equivalent "I do not know A", so the example is not relevant.In the case of luminiferous ether, there are experiments to confirm (not A); there are no such experiments in the case of God.Likewise in the case of baking cakes, the cakes are experimentally confirmed. Not at all. We "know" (not A) in the cases of luminiferous ether and cakes because of experimental evidence. We do not "know" (not A) in the case of God because there is no experimental evidence. You're confusing popularity with objectivity. You're being consistently sloppy. Not knowing A is not the same as knowing (not A).

Nothing semantic about it. It's just demanding the same scientific evidence for your claim as for anything else. Without objective empirical evidence, your claim of "knowing" something about God is no different from Faith's.

It isn't unreasonable doubt. That's an unreasonable requirement. If we had to have a link before we look for a link, we'd never find anything. And we haven't looked within all of the information available to us - we know of places that we haven't looked. The fact that we have no way of looking there (yet) is not an excuse for pretending we "know" something about those places. Looking out the window and not seeing God does not qualify as an experiment. Nonsense. The Michelson-Morley experiment had two distinct possible outcomes - either the speed of light was different parallel to the "ether wind" and perpendicular to it or it was the same. There is no equivalent test for God or not-God that will yield one of two distinctly different results like that. And nothing I have said has anything to do with popularity. According to Stile? I'm not the one who's making a claim. You are. I'm just pointing out the errors in your claim. If you had any facts, you could show them but all you're doing is claiming to "know" (not A) when you really just don't know A.

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).

And nobody here is doing that. I care because you're contradicting yourself. You say we've looked everywhere, according to our available information and now you're saying you don't even care if we've looked everywhere because you've already made up your mind. Because we haven't looked there yet. Our current information was that there was a continent of land blocking Europe from Asia. We could not say we "knew" that there was no passage through it until we looked in all of the places that we knew existed. That's a God-answers-prayer test, not a God-exists test. Really? What specific test did you perform in the sun? That's a God-controls-the-weather test, not a God-exists test. That's a God-created-a-flood test, not a God-exists test. No. It's not the same. If luminiferous ether is required for the propagation of light, than it has to exist everywhere where light can go - i.e. here, in our back yard, where the experiment was done. But the idea of God does not require Him to be everywhere. The assumption was that a luminiferous ether was "needed" for light to propagate. That assumption turns out to be wrong.There is also an assumption that God is needed to create life, keep evil at bay, etc. There has never been a Michelson-Morley-equivalent experiment to disprove that assumption.

You have it backwards. It is not irrational to search everywhere that we know exists. You're wrong about that. We're pretty sure that dark matter exists and we haven't looked there. It isn't beyond our available information. It's beyond our present ability to search there. Similarly, we knew that there were places we had not yet searched for the Northwest Passage; it would have been foolish to claim we "knew" the Northwest Passage did not exist before we had the capacity to search those places. We're not changing the definition of God. We're recognizing that God is not defined as narrowly as luminiferous ether. That's why we can't draw simplistic conclusions about God. I've looked for elephants on my couch and didn't find any. That doesn't mean elephants don't exist. Non sequitur. We're not changing the definition of God. We're saying that your definition is inadequate. You're trying to define God out of existence.

No it isn't. It's unreasonable to stop looking. Nothing is more than imagination until it is. And you knowing that the Northwest Passage didn't exist had the same reasoning. But the reasoning was wrong.

We've been through that. Your time-travelling conspiracy theory is worthless. It throws all possibility of objectivity out the window. It's just as reasonable as imagining a Northwest Passage existing in places we haven't yet searched. I've asked you for examples of real tests that have been done, equivalent to the Michelson-Morley experiment. You haven't been able to cite a single one. And I'm saying that you don't have a "rational analysis", since you haven't done any actual tests and you haven't even done a cursory look-around in all of the places available. We've been through that. What has happened can not un-happen. What has not happened can possibly happen. We've been through that. Before the specific Northwest Passge, there was a time when no water-throughways were known - i.e a time when all water-throughways were only imagination. That's where we always start.