I Know That God Does Not Exist

Please explain.Are banana keys a hypothesis? Crab chairs?Dark matter is a hypothesis - there is evidence pointing in the direction that *something* exists... and we call it dark matter.
God isn't like this, though. There is no evidence pointing in the direction that *something God-like* exists... God is on the level of banana keys and crab chairs. For the ideas of God that are physically supportable - yes.
And, as you agree, we look and there's nothing there. In this sense, God is a failed hypothesis and we know He doesn't exist. Yes, we do.
Unless you have another, reasonable/rational area where we should look?This is the thing with God.There have been plenty of reasonable/rational ideas for where we should look:-The sun is powerful - look in the sun
-Something controls the weather - look in the weather
-Love seems Godly - God is in our hearts...all originally rational and reasonable ideas at the time.
Then we looked, and there's no evidence of God.Now, all we're left with is irrational and unreasonable ideas of where to look:...um, uh... maybe... God is somewhere we cannot detect!
...perhaps... God is in another dimension we have not identified yet!
...could be... God is beyond our solar system and located somewhere else in the universe we haven't been yet!But the problem with these ideas is that there's no evidence to even point in their direction.
These ideas are not like a hypothesis (like Dark matter, or the Higgs Boson before it was found) there is no evidence to even suggest that they could be valid.
Just like banana keys and crab chairs.As well, we have the pattern of goal-post-shifting for God:God is in the Sun! -No, He's not
God is in the weather! -No, He's not
God is in our hearts! -No, He's not
...this also counts to show that in a rational, reasonable analysis... the "next goalpost" for God's location is also likely known. It will likely follow the exact same pattern.This actually places banana keys and crab chairs slightly ahead of God. Since no one has been moving goal posts for banana keys and crab chairs for thousands of years.But, regardless of which is slightly ahead or not... all such ideas without evidence to point in their direction at all - are all not rational or reasonable or logical.They are all irrational.But if you think otherwise - please explain how it's actually rational or logical to believe that something actually exists without any evidence whatsoever to support such an idea in the first place. Included in all rational conclusions of knowing something doesn't exist. Absolutely.
And the only reasonable conclusion based on what we do know about God is that we know God does not exist.

I only say it after a critic fails because it does not make sense itself.Repetition doesn't make something more valid.
But repeating the idea after a failed critic is certainly valid. If it is a theory in QM - then there is some level of evidence for it. Likely mathematical evidence.
If there's no evidence to suggest it's possible at all. It would not be "a theory" in QM. Absolutely.The Higgs-Boson was a theory before we found it.
Dark Matter is a theory now.We did not know about the Higgs-Boson 10 years ago.
We do not know about Dark Matter now.But... there was evidence that suggested the Higgs-Boson existed 10 years ago - that's what formed the hypothesis and what we tested - and we happened to find it.
There is also evidence that suggests Dark Matter exists - that's what the hypothesis about Dark Matter is formed on. We still don't know - but maybe one day we will.God is not like this.
The reason we do not know about God is because there is no evidence to support the idea that God actually exists.
There used to be... the sun, weather, in our hearts... but we looked and found nothing.
Now there is no more rational reason to believe God exists anywhere. No evidence to support the idea that God might actually be behind something or located somewhere.
This is not the same as multi-verse theory in QM, or the Higgs-Boson 10 years ago, or Dark Matter now.Since they are not the same - your critic again fails.
And therefore, my conclusion remains valid.
Therefore, it's valid for me to repeat it again: I know that God does not exist. There is evidence that multiverses may exist.
There is no evidence that banana keys or crab chairs exist.
There is no evidence that God exists.I do not know that multiverses do not exist.I do know that banana keys and crab chairs do not exist.
I do know that God does not exist.

Because we have searched for God for thousands of years and found nothing.
And, now, there is no evidence that supports that God even *may* exist somewhere. God isn't an irrational idea because of an opinion.
God is an irrational idea because there's no evidence that God could exist anywhere.

Absolutely it should limit rationality.If it didn't, we would all be constantly wondering about banana keys and crab chairs.
But we don't - because there's no evidence for them.Just like God - no evidence.I think what you intend is something along the lines of "this shouldn't limit motivation."
Which I do agree with.Feel free to search for God, or believe in God, or gain whatever-subjective-benefits you can from God.
God is a valid, useful, and powerful tool (for some) for such things.But... if you move into suggesting there's actually a rational reason to consider God's actual existence... you're going to need some evidence.
Without that evidence... I know that God does not exist. Not true. Many believe and do not care if God actually exists or not. They have experiences for themselves and would never offer their subjective feelings as something that should persuade others, or be considered rational or logical. Wrong again.
I am very open to non-physical evidence.
It just has to evidence - that's all. If you want to define "irrational" as something other than "that which is not logical or reasonable" - that's up to you.
I'll stick with the normal definition of the word. My argument appears to be rational/reasonable to all.
Or, at least, no one here has yet been able to offer a valid rational/reasonable rebuttal or critic of it.

How so? Probably none.
But I'm not that kind of person.Show me evidence, and I'll change my position.

I'm going to ignore most of your reply in order to focus on what I think is the basic level of our disagreement. I don't understand your disagreement here.
How does it not agree?I'm not saying something has to actually exist.
I'm saying there needs to be evidence that something could exist in order to hold a rational/reasonable/logical idea that there's a possibility it might exist.Examples: #1 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when a noise is heard.A sound is made behind us.
Stile: "What was that?"
ringo: "I don't know."
Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us."
ringo: "I agree." #2 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when no noise is heard.No sound is made behind us.
Stile: "What was that?"
ringo: "What was what?"
Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us."
ringo: "I don't think so." Conclusions:I am proposing that in #1 I cannot say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is evidence to suggest it might exist, even if we don't know yet (we didn't turn around.)I am proposing that in #2 I can say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is no evidence to suggest it might exist in the first place. The idea that there's something there is irrational.Do you agree with these conclusions and this usage of "irrational?"

But how is this rational in any way?I'm saying it's irrational because there's nothing to suggest that it's a possibility.
I'm saying it's irrational because we've suggested "God" as an answer for many various "unknowns" in the past over the last few thousand years - and every time we've been able to eventually test it - it turns out God is not the answer. Therefore, there's an in-place pattern of suggesting "God" as an answer and having that answer be wrong.Therefore, if we rationally follow the pattern: God is not the creator of the universe.
As well, there is no logical reason to suggest that God is the creator in the first place.How is it rational to suggest that God actually is a possibility?
-Because millions of people believe in God? - This is not a rational reason, this is the logical fallacy of popularity
-Because we traditionally associated God to things such as this in the past? - This is not a rational reason, as the pattern of associating-God-with-things has been shown to lead to be incorrect. All the time. Then suggest the hypothesis that we do not know yet.
Remember - a hypothesis is more than an idea, it is based on evidence.
An hypothesis must be falsifiable.
An hypothesis must have a valid reason to suggest it's possibility in the first place.
So far all you've offered is "God might have created the universe." - This is not a valid hypothesis. Although it is (theoretically) falsifiable, it has no evidence to suggest it may be true in the first place. May as well have the "hypothesis" about banana keys and crab chairs - but I do hope you understand why those are not valid hypothesis, yes? There is no valid "God hypothesis." Therefore there's nothing to even suggest in the first place in order to "have a possibility it could be wrong."

You're example is wrong.There is math that explains our current understanding.
If this math is rationally and reasonably extended beyond our current understanding - it suggests 11 dimensions.
This is evidence.There is no evidence for God.Show me the math that can be rationally or reasonably extended to suggest that God could exist. I understand you disagree.
What you haven't done is describe a valid, rational, reasonable explanation as to "why" you disagree.
Every attempt you've made to describe 'why' you disagree can be shown to either not apply (the reason is applicable to your example, but not to God - like this 11 dimensions idea) or it's simply wrong and shown to be wrong.That's why I don't agree with your dissent.

Because 'testimony' is not evidence.
Popularity is not evidence.
Tradition is not evidence.All of these things are known to be terrible reasons to try and "know" things. Because they are highly likely to be incorrect. Stop spamming me and attempting to overwhelm me with garbage.
I already took the time to get into and explain why one of your other spamming requests was invalid. You didn't stick with any of those arguments - why would this package of spam be any better?If you think something is very convincing - pick it.
Let's discuss it.
One at a time.
If you think something better - lay aside your initial topic and shift to another.But do it one at a time.Your previous spam message shows that your "spam" is nothing more than subjective desires.
If you think you have more, or that subjective desires should be taken to imply truth about reality - please attempt such avenues.Just do it one at a time, like a reasonable person.

I thought this deserved it's own reply.Thor, Ra and Zeus are not either "loved or hated with a passion."
They are simply given a generic "meh" of traditional beliefs that are now known to be incorrect.I think that Jesus Christ will one day join them.
Not as someone who will either be "loved or hated with a passion."
Just as another traditional belief that is now known to be incorrect. Deserving of the same feeling of "meh" we all give to Thor, Ra and Zeus.

"Possibly correct because of popularity" is a logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies are not rational.There is also no philosophical argument that can be used to support God in a rational sense.
That is - you cannot use any philosophical argument to support "God" and also not use the exact same philosophical argument to support "Zeus" or "Thor" or "Ra" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or banana keys or crab chairs or any other everyone-understands-it-is-not-real non-evidenced entity.In this sense - it's either irrational to suggest "God" as a likely conclusion but not allow the FSM or banana keys or crab chairs to have the same status.
OR
It becomes an argument of popularity again - which is a logical fallacy. I'm just using the definition we use all the time and applying it to God.
It is, actually, you who are "fiddling with words" in order to apply something to God but not apply it to banana keys or crab chairs.Hypocrisy also does not sway me into acknowledging your disagreement as valid.

There are mathematical understanding of our current universe.These valid mathematical understandings can be extended (by the rules of mathematics) to suggest that other universes may exist.
This is evidence that other universes may exist.
Therefore - I cannot say "I know that other universes do not exist."There is no evidence that banana keys and crab chairs exist.
Unless you know of some?
Do you know of any valid mathematical understandings of our current universe that can be extended (by the rules of mathematics) to suggest that banana keys or crab chairs might exist?
Do you know of any other avenue of valid evidence that may suggest that banana keys or crab chairs might exist?The current answer is "no."There is evidence for the possibility of other universes.
There is no evidence for the possibility of banana keys or crab chairs.That's the difference.
If you are unable to understand this difference, please attempt to describe why.
I have another post to ringo in Message 1399 describing this same difference:

quote:

---

Examples:

​

#1 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when a noise is heard.

​

A sound is made behind us.
Stile: "What was that?"
ringo: "I don't know."
Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us."
ringo: "I agree."

​

#2 - Stile and ringo are both sitting in a room when no noise is heard.

​

No sound is made behind us.
Stile: "What was that?"
ringo: "What was what?"
Stile: "I think there's a possibility something might exist behind us."
ringo: "I don't think so."

​

Conclusions:

​

I am proposing that in #1 I cannot say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is evidence to suggest it might exist, even if we don't know yet (we didn't turn around.)

​

I am proposing that in #2 I can say "I know that nothing exists that made a sound behind us." - there is no evidence to suggest it might exist in the first place. The idea that there's something there is irrational.

​

Do you agree with these conclusions and this usage of "irrational?"

---

If you do not think this difference is worthy of differentiation - please explain why.

This is, actually, what's wrong.If you go down this route - then we are unable to ever know anything.
Because there's always a premise that anything we "think" we know - we actually do not.
If "having a premise" is enough to raise rational, reasonable doubt - then we can't know anything.But - we do know things, don't we?
And, we also know negative things like "banana keys do not exist," don't we?This is because "a premise" is not enough.
It needs to be a valid premise - there needs to be evidence behind it. You are right.
And I didn't say "I know banana keys will never be invented or ever known to exist in the future at any point."I said "I know banana keys do not exist."
-which includes, as all knowledge does, an understood qualifier that this is based on current information and future information may adjust the statement.All you have to do is actually show me evidence of a lock that actually uses a banana as a key.
Do that - and I will retract my statement and I will no longer say "I know that banana keys do not exist."
But - don't do that... and I'll continue to be valid in saying that such things don't exist.Just like with 11 dimensional math.
I cannot say "I know that 11 dimensions do not exist in our universe."
We really don't know either way - but there is evidence suggesting it's possible - so I can't say it.Just like with God.
I'm currently valid in saying "I know that God does not exist."
Just show the evidence that leads to the contrary (it does not have to be 100% conclusive... it only needs to be valid evidence that suggests the contrary is actually possible.)
Do that - and I will retract my statement.
But - don't do that... and I'll continue to be valid in saying "I know that God does not exist." The "idea of the possibility of them existing" has nothing to do with it.
It's the rational reasoning that we have evidence that they might, possibly, exist.I can say "I know there is no planet in our universe that is 100% covered in asphalt roads."
It is certainly possible to have such a thing. It may take a few decades/hundreds of years.. but, with enough people such a feat could be done here, even.But, there's no evidence that such an endeavor is complete, or even attempted to do so.
In fact, there's evidence that implies such endeavors should be avoided (we would die without any natural vegetation or resources.)Therefore, without evidence to suggest that the idea *might* even exist in the first place: I can say "I know that there is no planet in our universe that is 100% covered in asphalt roads."Is it correct for all time in the future?
This is irrelevant. Just as all knowledge includes this caveat.But it is rational and reasonable to state such a conclusion due to the information we currently have.
Until, of course, evidence does come along to suggest it is being done (or was already done.)

Let me further explain.Yes - you are correct that simply "dismissing this out of hand" is not rational.But that's not what I'm doing.
We do not live in a vacuum of information (you've used this argument yourself, I believe?).
It is, actually, a rational possibility. Until, of course, we look for God. Which we have. And we see that every single one of these people who's personal experience leads them to claim that God exists in a rational, reasonable place - they're incorrect. We find no evidence that God actually exists in that place. For thousands of years. Therefore, we now have a pattern, and it is rational to follow that pattern.With this information (which does exist, and you and I are both aware of it) - the claim to popularity certainly can be, rationally, "dismissed out of hand." In fact - it would be irrational not to do so. You would have to ignore the evidence we already have that God does not exist. Name your best one.
Let's look at it.
If I cannot equally apply the same argument to suggest that other Gods might exist (like the FSM) or that banana keys or crab chairs might also exist... then I will accept that you are correct.Of course, if I can do that... if there's no difference between the support for God and the support for the FSM or banana keys or crab chairs... then I expect for you to accept that I am correct.But please stop claiming you can do it... just do it already.
If the first one doesn't work out, you're free to find another - even. There is no time limit when evidence can be provided to show me to be wrong. Right.
"Reasonable" doesn't mean "some people may find it nice to attribute results to this explanation rather than any others."
"Reasonable" means "something implies that this particular explanation should be accepted above any others."Does that seem rational to you?

At least we are moving forward instead of repeating and talking past each other.
Let's try to get even more clarity on our disagreement.I understand that you do not want to say "I know that banana keys do not exist."Before I get further into that... is there anything you are aware of where you would definitely say "I know that ________ does not exist?"Anything at all?
Contradictory ideas like square-circles?
Clearly made up ideas (and against current evidence, this case evolutionary evidence) like ManBearPigs?
An idea of your own example?