I Know That God Does Not Exist

Then this is our main difference.If you can't know a negative (in the context of things existing) - then I fully understand why you don't agree with this argument.
Although it has nothing to do with "God" or whatever the subject may be - it's all subjects in knowing a negative's existence.
I accept this critic.I don't think it changes the argument, because the argument already describes how we "know things" - including negative concerning existence.
If you don't agree with how we "know things" - then obviously you will not agree with the argument.If you refuse to accept the following examples:I know that unicorns do not exist.
I know that leprechauns do not exist.
I know that chimeras do not exist.
I know that ManBearPig does not exist.
I know that Thor/Zeus/Ra does not exist.Then, I would agree that it is consistent to also not accept:I know that God does not exist.However, if you do accept "knowing" that any of the above examples do not exist... then my argument does consistently follow to say that you can equally also know that God does not exist.Would you agree to that?Now - how to identify which usage of the word "know" is more common amongst the population?
I would assume that my usage is more common - I would assume that most people have no problems saying that they know unicorns/Zeus/ManBearPig all do not exist. I don't think it would be common for people to say "I don't know such things - because I don't think any negatives in the context of things existing can be known."
Although I agree it is a valid position, I'm just saying I think it's "less common."Remember - this all started from Message 980 where you accused me of "But you're just rigging the game so you can't lose."If I'm the one using the normal, most-people-use-it definition of the word "know" and you're the one using a more-rare (but not "wrong") definition... I kindly ask you to retract your accusation that I am "rigging the game so I can't lose."I am not rigging the game that people *must* use my definition.
I am only saying that *if* they use it - then knowing that God does not exist is a consistent, rational conclusion as well.
And, I'm claiming that "my definition" is, at a minimum, well within common-usage of how people use the word "know" for things in current first-world-level society.I am not claiming that all people must use the word "know" this way all the time.

All knowledge includes the acknowledgment that it is "based on the available information."Your dissent, again, is irrelavent. Right - and there's math that provides evidence for this, yes? Correct - it's a belief with no evidence, yes?
Unless you can provide some? My arguments are not based on incredulity.
My arguments are based on the same thing all our knowledge is based on - the information we have available to us.
I completely agree that our extremely limited amount of information is not "complete" in any way.
And yet - we do use this information to "know" things. Fully incorporating the idea that future contradictory information may alter what we "know."None of this changes that I know that God does not exist.

I wanted to add something to this in order to make my position clear.My previous answer:

quote:

---

My arguments are not based on incredulity.
My arguments are based on the same thing all our knowledge is based on - the information we have available to us.
I completely agree that our extremely limited amount of information is not "complete" in any way.
And yet - we do use this information to "know" things. Fully incorporating the idea that future contradictory information may alter what we "know."

---

I wanted to note an example of what may be "information" to get me to change my stance:1. If there's any evidence that any of these multiple universes actually do exist beyond there being "just math" to support their possible existence.
2. In this newly found universe there is evidence that some things obey "different laws of physics" than how things are done here.This would, in theory, throw all our current conclusions about God out the window.
We would be back to "Hey - that sun is powerful - maybe God exists there?"At least for a while.
Then, maybe we sort through all these new physics and find that although they are different - things still always have an evidence-based reason for being what they are. This would revert back to "I know that God does not exist" until evidence was found to the contrary.I hope that adds some clarification on how "knowing things according to the available information" works.

I was annoyed that you copied-and-pasted a large group of "arguments" and expected me to read and respond to each one.You did it once - and I obliged... but you didn't engage any of my responses at all.
You simply moved on to doing the same thing again - copying and pasting another large group of "arguments" and expecting me to respond to each one.This is inherently dishonest and rude.Dishonesty and rudeness always irks me.
Sometimes I can control it - sometimes not so much.
I apologize if my remarks were inappropriate. But my offer stands - pick them one at a time and we can go over them all you'd like. Whichever order you'd prefer - it just has to be one at a time. It can certainly appear that way.
Especially since the only way to know is to actually show me evidence and see if my mind changes or not.It can also certainly appear that I'm just waiting for evidence before I "know" something - which is what we all do for every other non-God subject. Accordingly to the evidence.
Change or get new evidence, and my mind will be open to be changed or admit a new idea. Not specifically, no.
I'm challenging anyone and everyone.
If anyone or anyone can provide evidence that I should think differently - I will. Again, just like all of us do with every other non-God subject. I'm just applying the same process to God. I'll be here.

Absolutely true.
And, again, included in all reasoning.If all we ever see are white swans, and we all searched for black swans as best we could, for thousands of years... and we never-ever saw a black one... we would be reasonable and rational and justified in saying "I know that black swans do not exist."This doesn't mean black swans cannot, or don't exist.
And as soon as one is identified... I would change my position. Right.
And the more we searched and found nothing... the more weight we give to "or may never find it."
The less we searched and found nothing... the less weight we give to "or may never find it."We searched for Zeus for a few hundred years. Found nothing.
Seems like we're all honky-dory (except for ringo) in saying we know that Zeus does not exist.We searched for God for a few thousand years. Found nothing.
Why not also say we know that God does not exist? Only one aspect - the aspect that shows how an irrational question (one without evidence to support it in the first place) can be ignored.
As we do with knowing unicorns, leprechauns, big foot and Zeus don't exist. That's up to them - and they're being irrational.
"The historicity" ("Traditional thinking") for anything has proven to be a terrible way to identify truth. Therefore, it should be ignored in place of evidence - which has a fantastic track record. I am saying there is no evidence for God - do you agree?
I am saying, therefore, that God belongs in the list of things we don't have evidence for - do you agree?
When we don't have evidence for something, I'm saying we are valid in claiming we know it does not exist - do you agree? (ringo doesn't - this is a fair position to take... you just also cannot claim to know that unicorns don't exist... or that Zeus doesn't exist... or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist... they're all the same.)If you think "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist." is valid - it is the exact same argument to say "I know that God does not exist."You can agree with both - which is my argument. I say that both do not exist.Or you can agree with neither - which is ringo's argument.
-this is a valid position
-I simply think this is a "less-common" usage/understanding of the word "know."
-and you should also be able to admit that if one is to use the more common understanding of the world "know" that includes knowing unicorns/Flying-Spaghetti-Monsters do not exist... then it also equally leads to knowing that God does not exist.Or you can agree with one but not the other - which is an inconsistent argument and therefore irrational

You are free to think whatever you like. That's exactly the intent here - as defined by the definition in the very first post.I've never attempted to do anything scientifically.
This entire argument is based around a simple analogy:"If I can say I know The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist,
then I can say I know God does not exist."This argument simply explains, in detail, each step in the process of that analogy. That's up to you.
Me - I like to do things I like to do.
If you do not agree on a subjective, personal level - that's fine with me.
Obviously the reasonable, rational, objective conclusion still stands:I know that God does not exist.

I do. Not a single one is reasonable, logical or rational.
Every single one has logical, rational holes. Appeals to popularity, attempts to put subjective feelings as valid grounds for objective conclusions... many, many different logical failures.
Every. Single. One.
Have you never heard any of the rebuttals? Most are also hundreds - some thousands - of years old.But please, if you think one stands to scrutiny - feel free to identify it. Phat's already spammed me with 5-10. Each one was a failure for a "reasonable, logical construct." If you don't think we've "begun the search for God..." then we haven't "begun the search" for anything at all. As we've been searching for God for thousands of years.The analogy stands:"If I can say I know The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist,
then I can say I know God does not exist."If you want to refuse saying "I know God does not exist" then you must also consistently refuse to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."I accept both of these.
Obviously - I think it's silly to refuse to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
And also, I refuse to allow someone to say they can allow one, but not the other and claim to be rational - as it does not align.

You are correct, I apologize.
I thought my implied context of "found nothing as far as evidence is concerned" was obvious. Pretend?
I don't think anyone's pretending.
I simply think many people like to say something is rational/reasonable/objective when it's clearly not.That's something almost all of us do for various subjects throughout our lives.
It's almost unavoidable being a human. A more applicable question would be whether a measurable percentage of those who claim to have been born again are any different from those who do not claim such a thing.Better health? Mentally or physically?
More wealth?
More happiness?
Better able to deal with stress?
Stronger?
Shorter tempers?
Better looking?
Any significant improvement at all?The answers so far highly imply: no.Hence: no evidence.

This is wonderful. I hope it works out for you.
What it isn't, though, is evidence that God exists. I think it depends on the subject.If we're talking about whether or not Sam murdered Dean - I think we should be scientifically certain before committing ourselves to belief at all.
Don't you?If we're talking about whether or not I love my wife - I think I should commit myself to the belief and screw any scientific reasoning.
Don't you?Since there are, obviously, different areas where one should apply "being scientifically certain" or "belief" - I find it important to understand the difference and when each should be applicable.
I think that anyone thinking either should "always" be employed is missing a great deal of life one way or another.That being said, I think that "knowing if God exists or not" is part of the "being scientifically certain" area - as it deals with a description of reality we live in. It does change the definition... for you, anyway.
Most people, however, do not think "Spirit" is only definable as "the Holy Spirit as described in the Christian religion."
In this sense... discussing the human spirit does not change the definition of Spirit at all.

Why would I do that?I don't think there is a scientific definition for spirit.

I don't understand the context of your question.In general, I see no reason why not - when a hole is extensively larger than normal circumstances of whatever-context it is. I intend to be rational and reasonable.
You can call that whatever you'd like.Your implications of rational and reasonable being useless are simply a nod that you attempt to colour things the way you want as opposed to the way they actually are. I didn't think I needed to either.
And yet... 1450+ posts later... we're still here.

What?The word "massive" does not mean "with lots of mass."
It is simply derived from the word mass.The word "massive" simply means "very large."

quote:

---

massive
/masiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
large and heavy or solid.
"a massive rampart of stone"
synonyms: huge, enormous, gigantic, very big, very large, great, giant, colossal, mammoth, vast, immense, tremendous, mighty, stupendous, monumental, epic, prodigious, mountainous, monstrous, titanic, towering, elephantine, king-sized, king-size, gargantuan, Herculean, Brobdingnagian, substantial, extensive, hefty, bulky, weighty, heavy, gross; More
2.
exceptionally large.

---

Please note definition #2: "Exceptionally large."You're not even being pedantic... as that includes being right. You're just being specifically, cryptically wrong. I would completely agree.
Of course, if you try to apply "the idea of god can be rational" to any of the context that I'm discussing God in.. you'd be wrong. Your claim on "how I'm wrong" hinges on holding a definition of the word "know" that hardly anyone uses. Including scientists.
It forces one to never be able to say "I know that doesn't exist." No matter how made up or ridiculous the proposition is.It doesn't jive with how practical life functions.
It removes the ability to say "I know a man I can't see isn't standing behind me right now and is going to kill me immediately."
However - everyone acts like such a thing doesn't exist.
No one constantly swirls in a circle trying to prevent the man right behind them that they can't see from killing them.Therefore... regardless of anyone saying it... everyone acts as if they know there is no man right behind them about to kill them immediately.
Most people don't have a problem saying they know such a thing doesn't exist - including scientists.The reasons I can say I know such a man doesn't exist are exactly the same as the reasons I can say I know God does not exist.1. When any irrational unverifiable, no-evidence-to-suggest-it's-possible-in-the-first-place place is claimed for them to exist in - it is rightfully ignored.
2. Any rational verifiable place they've been claimed to exist has been checked.
3. Results are that there is no evidence of their existence.Your method in showing "how I'm wrong" includes an irrational clinging to a definition of the word "know" that not a single person alive adheres to in a practical sense.I'm good with that.

The word "properly" is incorrect, here.
It only mean "having mass" in one specific definition.There are other definitions.
The other definitions are popular, and normal enough to say that "The most common adjective among the population is "massive" but I don't think it should be used at EvC to apply to holes" is your personal opinion and should be ignored because it's quite eccentric. It is not "a misuse."
It is a misuse in a scientific context.
Just as the scientific context is a misuse in the normal context.Since we're being normal... what do you think is correct? Wrong again.
I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm trying to know it with as much confidence as we know anything else. Then the way you "know I'm wrong" is applied inconsistently and should be ignored for that reason. Pick your poison. Yes, I do. And none of the swirl in circles trying to get away from the man behind them trying to kill them - right?
Therefore - they all do not use your definition of "know" in their practical life.You're proving my point.

If you're going to continue arguing that using "massive" is only correct when talking about mass - you're just wrong.
Here at EvC or anywhere else, including "scientific context" except for an extremely small scientific context dealing specifically with mass. Wrong again.
We've searched more and longer for God than almost anything else in human history.
You're defining the word "know" out of existence again. Because it's rational to support your ideas with evidence when discussing how we know things - since that's how we know things.
If you don't understand this - I think it's you who doesn't understand what "rational" means. It does - when the logic/reason applicable to the process describes the use of evidence.
I think what you mean is that "rational" doesn't necessarily depend on evidence.And then you'd be correct.Of course, you'd also have to define the logic/reason you're using the term "rational" to apply to as well.
Like this:"If I accept the premise that evidence isn't required to know things... then it is rational to know that God may exist as a possibility."This would be rational.Of course... accepting such a premise, when we all know that evidence is the best way to know things by far - is irrational in itself.
Why pick a less-than-best method for "knowing things" when you want to "know things?"
When it's just as easy to pick the best method?
-That isn't reasonable or logical.
-That is irrational.If anything - your antics are showing that you really don't understand what "rational" means.

I never claimed to be able to disprove them in a scientific sense.
I claimed that they are not reasonable or rational to cling to in the sense they provide a valid excuse for not being able to say "I know that God does not exist."You're welcome to prove me wrong - again, just identify your best one.
Your continued claims that one exists, but your reluctance to identify it - shows that you don't even stand behind your claim. Yes, we do know that.
Again, for the same reasoning:#1. Is there any evidence to suggest that the idea exists at all in the first place?
-FSM? No evidence.
-God? No evidence.
Therefore, both ideas are rejected as "irrational" in the first place. There's no need to proceed to looking for evidence to support either.