I Know That God Does Not Exist

I know that God does not exist.

Is this not a fallacious argument from ignorance and incredulity?

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Granted the idea of tea pots orbiting the sun or spaghetti monsters existing are as valid as God existing. A common side step is to say that indeed God does not exist. Some theist contend God simply is, rather than exist.

A undifferentiated, manifested reality of being itself. Is one way it was explained to me. I do not know that God does not exist.

Hi all.

The premise that "I know God does not exist." is a flawed fallacious argument from ignorance and incredulity.

Saying that I can accept and agree that there are good reasons to believe tea pots orbiting the sun or God does not exist.

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, I do think scientific knowledge is possible. In fact I believe it is a superior way to obtain knowledge.

As far as what do I know?
I feel that Rene Descartes said it best.

"Congito ergo sum."

Stile writes: I don't know. I don't think so. Can you explain why you think it might be?

Hi Stile,
I agree that argument from data is a good one. But lack of data, does that mean the data does not exist?

I say again that it is reasonable to conclude the non existence of God, but to claim knowledge of such sets up a false dichotomy perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

Hi Stile,

I agree that you have a case to make a statement that you know God does not exist, for all the reason you site.

Your thought experiment on birds is a good example of why arguments of incredulity and ignorance are illogical and fallacious.

If I set a piece of meat down and say it will putrefy because there are invisible creatures in the air that will colonize in the meat and cause it to spoil. If I give you no means to confirm this you could say, "that is ludicrous."

Just because something on its face seems ludicrous does not mean it is not true.

How many times has the impossible and improbable become fact?
Think how far humanity has come from throwing rocks at the moon to actually setting foot upon it. If I told you as a paleolithic Indian that it is possible to go to the moon you'd howl just as loud as the coyotes.

So how long did it take? How much to we know now in comparison to what we did in years past? Are we at the limits of human knowledge? The thing some theist worship could be some super advanced intelligent alien race. A aphid on my tomato plant could never know what my Iphone is. What if we are like a aphid on a plant, ignorant to the multitude of complex technology beyond our sensory perception and even frame of reference.

I agree, the mythological gods/ God, orbiting teapots, spaghetti monster don't exist.
I know this too.

We may not know what God is yet.

Anything else?

The sum of one added to one equals two.

Then an example of such would be helpful....

The ideal gas law, cellular respiration, the Kreb cycle, take your pick.

Similarly, your irrational proposal that God could be on a certain other planet also has no effect on the rational statement "I know that God does not exist" which is based on a rational analysis of the data we do have.

Hello Stile,

Your statement "I know that God does not exist." being based on the premise that you find it absurd is also a fallacious argument.
Reductio ad absurdum.

So we now have argument from ignorance
argument from incredulity
argument from absurdity
Atheist by definition do not believe gods/God exist.

So stating you know God does not exist because you looked everywhere conceivable and found the evidence lacking is good enough for you. This is tautology concerning atheist.

Given a atheist audience I can see where this could be considered a statement of fact. God does not exist.

Except everyone does not hold this view. Which you then label as irrational, absurd and incredible.

If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for God... do you think it is rational to conclude that God does not exist? If we look everywhere rationally conceivable and found the evidence lacking for sharkfin soup being on McDonald's menu... do you think it is rational to conclude that sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu?

Things can be absurd, irrational, and incredible and still exist.

Lets look at the discussion on quantum tunneling from the other thread you are participating in.

Does Quantum mechanics seem rational to you?

I think it is rational analysis of our data set (using observations of reality as a 'master guide') that allows us to make the decisions of what is "closer or not" to absolute truth.

Yes this is a great statement. But that is not what you are doing.
You are saying: I know XYZ does not exist because I have looked everywhere and have not found it. It is to incredible to exist. It is absurd to think it could exist. It is irrational to think it would exist.

These are the very arguments presented against the uncertainty principle and other bizarre aspects of how reality was being described. Yet here we are today fully incorporating QM into the known body of science.

How about the Higgs? How long did it take to finally find that it does indeed exist? And if we did not find it, would we conclude it does not exist? Turn the lights off in the LHC and go home?

The problem with God is like reality he refuses to be pinned down.

As a believer, I seem to see that your argument is mixing emotion and expectation with logic, reason, and reality. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Hi Phat, I am not mixing logic with belief. I am merely poking holes in Stiles argument where I can. He is of course defending his statement "I know that God does not exist."

I do see Stiles point very clearly,
It is very common for theist to move the goal post so to speak when describing what it is they believe God is. By Stile trouncing straight to meat of the problem, namely saying it is rational to dispel the existence of God based on the absence of evidence. He can claim knowledge by pigeon hole-ling and confining his predigested term of what knowledge is. Which I applaud btw.

My only point was that if it were that simple to claim victory everyone would agree his argument is sound.

The Gordian knot comes to mind.

Panda writes: But there was a rational reason to think that it did exist. That is why they were looking for it.

Hello Panda,

Prior to the construction of Super colliders' was there any way such physical evidence would of been obtained?

Is that a problem concerning the rational for the potential existence of God? That there is no way to test such a proposal so it must be null?

They followed a rational reasoned argument that indicated that the Higgs existed.

Sure and when if no positive data presented itself what would you conclude? Data that does not exist does not mean it is not forthcoming. By this logic we would still be in the dark ages blood letting vapors, or inventing phlogiston. imo

Panda writes: Can you provide a definition of knowledge that you would agree with?

A belief that is both justified and true, in addition to having
observable and measurable evidence that can be tested and falsified.

Problem being there is no real consensus on what knowledge is, which is why I do appreciate Stile defining his terms. But that still does not exonerate him from fallacious arguments. Although he will say he does not agree they are such.

I concede to you the atheist victory. As for agnostics and theist
blow it out your arse.

Panda writes: But there is no reason to test. There is no reason to suppose that god exists. But there were reasons to think that the Higgs existed.

So we confine our inquiry to that which is only reasonable?

Seems like a argument from incredulity again.

Stile writes: It's just that something (anything... regardless of it being God or not) being "unconstrained by nature or observation" seems irrational to me

Does the propostion that reality may consist of being a 2D hologram manifesting the universe seem rational or irrational?

Does the idea of nature existing in a flux of probabilities waves rather than actual physical objects seem rational or irrational?

Does the idea that there may be a God existing unconstrained by nature seem irrational? oh you said yes to that one.

All these things are under investigation.