I Know That God Does Not Exist

How do you know *anything* for sure?My response to this now is the same as in the first post:

quote:

---

But how do we *"know"* for sure-sure's and absolute truth's sake?
We don't.
But this is not a problem with "knowing" anything. We can't really ever *"know"* anything, even positive things.
I drove to work today, it would be extremely rational and reasonable for me to say "I know my car is in the parking lot." Of course I don't
*"know"* that as it could have been stolen. But saying so is still rational and reasonable. It is rational and reasonable because it is based upon the data I have found and analyzed. In obtaining new data (say, walking outside and noticing my car is missing), it is rational and reasonable to update my position.

---

Of course, if you have an actual answer for this question, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you. Not quite.
You're taking one aspect of the argument and acting as if it's the only part.
There are multiple aspects to this argument.The idea that the non-interventionist deity is irrational does not allow me to *know* that God does not exist.
It allows me to ignore the possibility that this should cause doubt on knowing that God does not exist.The reason I know God does not exist is because there have been many, many rational (verifiable) ideas of God presented in the past... and all of them, when checked, come up with the same answer: there is no evidence for God.
As well, this searching/checking has been going on for thousands of years.That's what allows me to know that God does not exist.The part about ignoring irrational ideas just allows me to hold onto that conclusion in the face of "but... but... what about this idea no one can test at all!!???"
If you can't even know it might exist in order to test it in the first place... then it doesn't make sense to allow the same idea to add doubt to the previous conclusion that is based on testing and checking things we can actually test and check.
Rationality follows the pattern.
So far, the pattern of "Does God exist?" is a big "Nope" for every and all areas we've ever been able to check.
In order to add doubt to that, you cannot simply offer up another testing location.
Even if another, rational-and-checkable testing location is offered up - the default answer without even checking is "No, God does not exist there either" simply based on thousands of years of rational-and-checkable locations being offered and them all coming up with no evidence.At this point, the only rational way to give doubt to the knowledge that "I know God does not exist" is to provide actual evidence to the contrary.
The same as it is with Big Foot or Zeus or Santa Claus or any other thing we've looked for and found nothing over great, long periods of human history. You only provided a link.
If you think one is better than the others - specify and we can discuss that one.
Without that, my only option is to take the "first one" from that list, and assume that's the most important one: The argument that "because something is beautiful - therefore it must have been created" is easily proven to be false:1. Beauty is subjective.
Just because you find something beautiful doesn't mean someone else does.
Does this mean God "must exist" for some but not for others?
This is impossible, as God either exists (for all) or does not (for all) as this is the nature of "things that exist."
Since the argument leads to a contradiction - the argument is false. Or, at a minimum, it's not consistent and therefore not rational within itself.2. Beautiful things are created by accident without requiring a creator all the time.
Although not all would agree, perhaps "most" would agree that the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) are beautiful.But they are not created by an intelligent being, nor do they require a creator:

quote:

---

WHAT CAUSES THE NORTHERN LIGHTS?
The Northern Lights are actually the result of collisions between gaseous particles in the Earth's atmosphere with charged particles released from the sun's atmosphere. Variations in colour are due to the type of gas particles that are colliding. The most common auroral color, a pale yellowish-green, is produced by oxygen molecules located about 60 miles above the earth. Rare, all-red auroras are produced by high-altitude oxygen, at heights of up to 200 miles. Nitrogen produces blue or purplish-red aurora.

---

This can be simulated in laboratory conditions as well as happening naturally in parts of this planet and others.
It is a by-product of the conditions that makeup our planet.3. Moving into the irrational argument. Which is exactly what this is - at it's core.
If you want to push this argument further: "But... but... what if the conditions required were put in place only by a creator deity??!!!"
Again - you're no longer even attempting to take something we know exists (beauty) and apply a cause. Now you're attempting to simply take an idea with no evidence behind it, and use that as evidence itself for... itself?
There's absolutely nothing "reasonable, logical or rational" about that.Or perhaps this argument isn't supposed to imply "beauty necessitates a deity-creator," but only shows a likelihood that one could exist.
This is possible, as we know some intelligence can create beauty.
Of course, to imply that we should academically consider that a deity-creator can create beauty, at all, we need to be able to support this position.
What is the support?
This is supposed to be an argument for a creator-deity's existence, but there's no support to imply that they are required to exist in the first place.
This shows what the argument is: grasping at straws - trying to hold the idea itself up with the idea itself.
Such a tactic doesn't work scientifically, academically, logically or rationally.The only way this argument "is rational" is in the following form:"If you accept that beauty must come from intelligence... then since we see beauty in nature - nature must come from a creator-deity (intelligence.)"This is a rational argument.
Of course, if you don't accept the foundation for it (which is easily shown to be false, as I've just done above) - then there's no reason to think the conclusion has any chance of being correct.
In order to be considered rational - the argument needs to be entirely rational - not just reside inside a "rational bubble" that falls apart as soon as you look at reality. Because it is a claim about reality.But, please, if you do think one of those other arguments is rational - just specify it and we'll take a look.
Of course - you'll have to be prepared to defend that it is, in fact, rational.

Your misplaced insults only show that you're reaching. Further and further. The "rational idea" is rational because there's evidence that the idea may be a possibility.The "not yet tested for evidence" part isn't that there's no evidence for the possibility, it's that there's no test done yet for the conclusion (not the rational idea.) Wrong again.
I really don't think you understand what "rational" means:1. A rational argument that depends on evidence:In order to know when keys do not exist on tables, we look on the table for keys.
-Keys do not exist on the table.
-Therefore, we can rationally say "I know that keys do not exist on this table."2. A rational argument that does not depend on evidence:A tree is labelled as "a dead tree" whenever I decide it shall be so, based on my feelings alone.
-See that green, flourishing tree over there? I decide it is "a dead tree."
-Therefore, I can rationally say "that green, flourishing tree over there is a dead tree."Therefore "rational" doesn't necessarily depend on evidence.
Sometimes it does.
Sometimes it doesn't.
A "rational" agrument is one that logically follows from it's premises.
It doesn't require the premises to be based on evidence or not. Right.
And, the method of "knowing if things exist or not" that gives us the most confidence in our conclusions is as I've described in the opening post. Here it is again in condensed form:#1. Ensure the claim has evidencial support that it even exists in the first place.
#2. If it does - then search for evidence of the claim where it should be (do this for a reasonable amount of time.)
#3. If you find conclusive evidence - then you can say "I know this thing exists." (Computers, cars, sofas...)
If you find evidence that leads to more checking, then you can say "I don't know if this thing exists or not." (Dark Matter, Higgs-Boson-10-years-ago...)
If you find no evidence - repeat at #2 for a reasonable amount of time. If you continuously find no evidence, then you can say "I know this thing does not exist."It works for all things we know to exist, and all things we know to not exist.
Put God through it - and we know that God does not exist.But, please, if you have a better method (a method that gives us more confidence in our conclusion) than that as described based on searching for evidence... feel free to explain it.
There's a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Let's be clear: Just "a reason" isn't enough.
We need a reasonable reason. Or, because we're talking about "rational" - we need a rational reason.That is:"A reason" to think the computer in front of you doesn't exist is because you might be dreaming your entire life.
But this is not "a rational reason."
Therefore - we can still say "I know the computer in front of ringo actually exists" (assuming we've checked for it, of course.)"...you might be dreaming your entire life..."
is "a reason."It's just not a "rational reason."So stop saying "a reason" is good enough - because it isn't.
It has to be reasonable. And in the context of whether or not something is rational - it obviously has to be rational.If it's not rational - it's irrational.
And, obviously, we can't have "a valid, rational idea" that only has "irrational reasons" supporting it... that would be an obvious contradiction. And, therefore, the idea would then not be "a valid, rational idea." Reasoning within a rational argument depends on support. Support from the premises of the argument.
Although evidence is always a kind of support, support does not have to be evidence (see declaring a green, flourishing tree to be "a dead tree.") Depends on what you mean by "valid."
If you mean "logically valid" - then no, the validity of the conclusion does not necessarily depend on evidence (again, see declaring a green, flourishing tree to be "a dead tree." ...a logically valid conclusion that does not depend on evidence as support.)
If you mean "valid with what we know of reality" - then yes, the validity of the conclusion depends on evidence - as described by the method I've been using.
...But this is only because this method I've been describing is known to give us "the highest possible confidence" in our conclusions about reality - something we've had to learn over the last few thousand years.Careful now - you're almost in total agreement with my argument.

Please explain how it's circular.If all is needed is "a reason" to be rational...
Then: "You should wear a seatbelt because I like the colour green" is rational. Because it has "a reason."
Obviously "a reason" isn't good enough for something to be rational as this is clearly an irrational idea.The reason has be applicable.
The reason has to make sense within the framework.If we're talking about "why you should wear a seatbelt" then "the framework" is "the benefits of wearing seatbelts: being as safe as possible."
Obviously "I like the colour green" isn't within the framework, it is not applicable.
It is, however "a reason."
It is, actually, an irrational reason (for this framework - "I like the colour green" can quite possibly be a rational, applicable reason for another framework.)If we're talking about "how we know things" then "the framework" is "to have the most confidence in our conclusions as possible" and our best method for that so far is as I've been describing throughout this thread.
There will be "a reason" that is rational for this framework.
There will be "a reason" that is irrational for this framework.
Just picking "a reason" because it's "a reason" isn't good enough. It has to be applicable and make sense within the framework or else it isn't rational.If you want to use a different framework - you're free to have "less confidence in the way you know things" then I do.
If you think you can describe a different framework that gives "more confidence in the way we know things" - feel free to describe it. There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you succeed. You've misunderstood again.I didn't say the rationality of the argument depends on the validity of the premises.
I said the rationality of the argument depends on how well the conclusion (which is part of the 'reasoning') is supported by the premises "within" the argument.
That is... how well your premises logically lead to your conclusion.
This has nothing to do with your premises being valid-within-reality (see me calling a green, flourishing tree "a dead tree" as a rational-conclusion-is-supported-by-the-premise, but the-premise-is-invalid-against-reality argument.)But you are getting closer to understanding what "rational" means. Please, continue if you have any further issues with the first point.

As much "certainty" as we have with knowing anything else - yes.
As it is with all things we "know" - provide evidence to the contrary and the current position will be rightfully updated.
Of course, if you do not provide evidence to the contrary, then the current position will be rightfully maintained. But my answer for "how do we know anything for sure?" is "we can't."
Which is already the current best answer from... what... 500 years ago?I don't get Nobel Prizes for using the same method we've been using for all of modern time. It is very strange that you would suggest such a thing. This is not true.
Perhaps read it slower?
Or you could try reading the following paragraph that explains the situation in the post you're quoting?
Or you could ask some actual questions instead of blaming others for your inability to understand? No.The irrational argument is used to stop irrational ideas from providing doubt upon the current conclusion.
The current conclusion was obtained from checking-where-we-were-supposed-to-look for God according to the "God experts" and finding no evidence of God for thousands of years.Nothing is abandoned, both are used.
You just can't say that I know God doesn't exist because I ignore irrational ideas. That doesn't line up. You're absolutely right.
Just as we also know that the computer in front of you actually exists as well.
Even though we may look tomorrow (or in the next 0.000000001 seconds) and it could be gone and we were wrong all along.Same contingency with how we "know" all things. Unrequired.
Nothing holds up to this standard.
We haven't verified that if we go off our tiny little planet and peek into the 5th dimension... does your computer still exist back on Earth in our dimension?
Yet - we still say we know that your computer still exists in front of you.Same contingency with how we "know" all things.We don't have to know "all knowledge" in order to know the things we know.
As long as we understand that our "current knowledge" is based on the limited information that we have available to us.
And, if that information is ever updated - then our conclusions should also be updated (if applicable.)Again - this isn't new. And certainly now something I came up with. This is how "knowledge" has worked for hundreds of years. I haven't abandoned anything, as explained. Feel free to ask more questions if you still don't understand.

Exactly.
They are both based on evidence and knowledge in the exact same process.If they feel like they should be different to you... perhaps that is a hint that you are not being rational about it?If it doesn't actually "make sense" to you, then you should be able to explain why it doesn't make sense in a rational way without needing to resort to popularity or other subjective ideas that are logical fallacies. I've never said that.
I've said that if it can't pass that, then we can rationally disregard the idea. That's right.
Because that's how we know things - we rationally test them.
And we're talking about knowing something - therefore, it requires rationally testing.If you know of a way to "know things" that doesn't included rational testing... feel free to describe it.
If it can give us more confidence in the conclusion than rational testing... there's a Nobel Prize in it for you. You do keep saying this.
But you have yet to describe a single one.You offered a link - I took the first one (beauty = creator deity) and showed how it is not rational, logical or respectable in how we "know things."If you have another - feel free to describe it. No, they are not rational.
If you think they are - pick one and defend it. Any one you want. So far, you haven't even picked one, let alone defend that it's "rational in the sense of how we know things." It's a completely valid hurdle until you can show something that can go over it.
As of yet - you are unable to do so.Therefore, the argument stands: I know that God does not exist.

I am highly convinced that this is true.The question is... does your experience tell us anything about reality? If God exists, I don't see why He'd owe us anything at all.This doesn't change the facts on what has proven itself to be our best measuring tool of "what is real" and that God doesn't fit inside it at all.

Perhaps this is your confusion.I'll try to explain.
Here's the two different sentences: By "correct" I'm assuming you mean "true about reality."How do we identify things that are true about reality?
The best method we have so far is to do rational testing on it. Look for evidence. If it's found, move forward. If it's not, find something that does have evidence.Does this always work without fail? No absolutely not.
Does it always, eventually, move us closer to "true about reality?" Yes.For example:Let's say we're early vikings.
We live on our land. We sail - a lot.
We know that there are other land masses, but they are all surrounded by water as well.
We know that there is a vast body of water (the ocean) that surrounds everything. And it's just water forever and ever - we've sailed it, a lot.
Many have attempted to sail into the ocean to find more land.
Those who make it back... report nothing but vast expanses of water forever.
Many never make it back.
No one ever makes it back and reports that they found some far-away land.
This has been ongoing with our best ships and best explorers for hundreds of years.Based on this information-available-to-them-at-the-time, it is rational to say "I know that no other far-away land masses exist."
Is it correct? No.
Is it rational and based on the available evidence? Yes.Let's say someone has an idea: "We just haven't traveled far enough. If we build stronger ships, and stock more supplies... we can find the other far-away land!"This cannot pass my rationality test.
It is (based on the available information) an irrational idea.You said: "If the idea can't pass that, then it can't be correct."
-but obviously this isn't true. North America does exist. They simply can't reach it and make it back to report that it's actually there.I said: "If the idea can't pass the test, then we can rationally disregard the idea."
-this means that, rationally, the vikings can still say "I know that no other far-away land masses exist." Because it is the rational conclusion based on the information they have available to them.
This happens to be incorrect about reality. But it's still rational and their best way to know about reality at the time.Do you understand the difference?Please note that this doesn't imply that the vikings should not be saying "I know that no other far-away land masses exist."
If it did, they would also have to accept many other irrational statements with just as much fervor:There is no far-away land mass that exists.
There is no Loch-Ness monster that exists in the far away ocean.
There is no Big Foot monster that exists in the far away ocean.
There is no _______ that exists in the far away ocean.
...Please note the infinite pattern.
The fact that one idea happened to be correct (when it could have also been incorrect, given different vikings on a different planet...) tells us that it is, in fact, an irrational idea based on the information available to them at the time.Of course, I have no problems with people pursuing irrational ideas.
I think those with such passion should pursue irrational ideas.I think (some) people should continue to search for God.
I think (some) people should continue to search for the Loch-Ness monster.
I think (some) people should continue to search for Big Foot.
I think (some) people should continue to search for ________.There are huge benefits for all of us.
Maybe they'll find what they're actually looking for - and we can update our information and conclusions.
Maybe they'll find something they weren't looking for, but no one else even knew to try and look for it (like the discovery of penicillin) - and we can update our information and conclusions.
Probably they'll find nothing. As is the pitfall of gambling on one irrational idea being "correct" of the infinite number of possible irrational ideas.
But... it's how progress is made.Should all our resources be spent searching irrational ideas?Of course not. First of all - we can't pick one that is "more likely" because they're all irrational - there's no evidence that any of them might exist in the first place.
And, of course, we have plenty of "rational" unknowns to chase down as well (see Dark Matter/Energy types of rational unknowns.)But should some of our resources be spent chasing down the irrational ideas that some have passion to pursue?
Of course - and I fully support this.
But there's no need to call it "rational" until there's actually evidence to go along with the idea. Because it's highly likely that it's not correct.Many have searched for Big Foot with the same information and passion that the vikings had for a 'far-away land mass.'
Should we allow this to stop us from saying "I know that Big Foot doesn't exist?"Many have searched for the Loch-Ness monster with the same information and passion that the vikings had for a 'far-away land mass.'
Should we allow this to stop us from saying "I know that the Loch-Ness monster doesn't exist?"Many have searched for ___(any irrational idea here)____ with the same information and passion that the vikings had for a 'far-away land mass.'
Should we allow this to stop us from saying "I know that ____(any irrational idea here)____ doesn't exist?" I told you, I do know them. All follow the same formula as "beauty = creator-deity must exist." Which rest on logical, rational failure. The are only rational within themselves.
Like "beauty = creator-deity must exist" is only rational in the context of:"If you accept that beauty only comes from intelligence... then the existence of unexplainable natural beauty shows that a creator-deity must exist."This, in and of itself, is a rational argument.However, since the premise ("beauty only comes from intelligence") is easily shown to be false... then there's no reason to accept this argument.
And, in applying this argument to "how we know things about reality" (which our best-most-confident-method-so-far uses rational testing...) the argument then is not rational because there is no rational testing.All of the arguments you mentioned are the same. Ontological, teleological, cosmological whatever... they are all "internally rational arguments" if you accept the premises.But this doesn't mean anything."If you accept that a tree is dead whenever I personally choose to call it so... then when I call that green, flourishing tree "a dead tree" - we know it's true."This is also an internally consistent, rational argument.
Of course, it's useless when applies to "how we know things about reality" because it does not include rational testing against reality."Internally rational arguments" have been proved to be useless for identifying the truth about reality over and over again.
None of those arguments... Ontological, teleological, cosmological whatever.... none of them include any rational testing in order to identify the truth about reality.That's why they're all ignored when attempting to identify the truth about reality.Again, if you think one should be considered - please identify how it should be incorporated in how we know things about reality. What is it's rational testing and how has it been carried out?Without doing that... you have no point.

No, I'm not. Exactly.
"A reason" isn't enough. The reasoning has to follow... which is exactly what I said when you said I'm using "rational" to define "reason" and the other way around. I'm not doing that... I'm simply attempting to describe how the reasoning "has to follow." I'm agreeing with you.
We both agree that "the reasoning has to follow."Since the reasoning does not follow: This is an irrational reason to wear a seatbelt.
One should wear a seatbelt because it keeps us as safe as possible as shown by the rational testing done on seatbelts.Let's apply this lesson to the idea at hand:"God exists because traditionally people have agreed that this is true."
The reason is "a reason" but the reasoning does not follow.Therefore, this is an irrational reason to think God exists.
One should think God exists because of the rational testing done on God existing.
Of course... of all the rational testing done on God existing - there is no evidence of God.
Just like Santa Claus and Big Foot and any other irrational idea.If I can say I know Santa Claus does not exist.
If I can say I know Big Foot does not exist.
...
Then, for the same rational-testing-reasoning (and disregarding of ideas where "the reasoning does not follow"), I can say I know that God does not exist.Thank-you for providing the premises that lead to my conclusion.

You are correct.It's a good thing that our "knowledge as based on the rationally-tested information available to us at the time" is not "a declaration of absolute knowledge."As humans - our "knowledge" or "the things we know" has been understood to not be "declarations of absolute knowledge" for at least a few hundred years now.
I did not invent this concept. It was formally and popularly discovered/understood during the period of time after the Dark Ages called "The Enlightenment," I believe.This understanding of what knowledge "actually is" is required in order to make progress.
Once you understand this, you can understand my argument.This understanding of what knowledge "actually is" is fundamental to modern progress. Including all of science.

Absolutely.
This works perfectly with everything I've explained.Just as it's perfectly possible to have an irrational idea that turns out to be right.
Which also works perfectly with everything I've explained. Again - please, name one.
Be prepared to defend it.And remember the context. We're not looking for an "internally rational" argument for the existence of God.
We are looking for a "rational argument" that shows we know God exists (or could exist) through how we know things: rationally testing of reality.Without that context, any "internally rational" argument for the existence of God is irrelevant to knowing if God exists or not. I'm not claiming they are internally irrational.
I agree that they are internally rational.What I'm saying is that it's not rational to use such arguments to identify how we know things about reality.
Because we know that the (current) best way for us to "know things about reality" is through rational testing of reality.
And we know that all such arguments do not include any rational testing of reality. If you think otherwise: please share.What you're doing is like saying we should rationally consider that Big Foot exists because rational models of tall hairy animals exist.I'm telling you that rational models of tall hairy animals may very well be internally consistent.
But we don't have any rational tests (evidence) to show that any of these models actually exist in reality.
Therefore, it's not rational to consider that Big Foot may exist based on the existence of internally-rational tall hairy animal models.This is why I know Big Foot does not exist.
And for the same reasons... I know God does not exist.It is irrelevant that rational models of tall-hairy-animals exist as long as they cannot be linked to any rational tests showing that they might actually exist.
It is irrelevant that rational models of Gods exist as long as they cannot be linked to any rational tests showing that they might actually exist.A rational model of an idea is not evidence that leads us in the direction of that idea actually existing.
Otherwise we would not be able to say "I know the Death Star does not exist."

Unicorns as well.But you're wrong - there are reasons to think they don't exist.
Because we've looked for them, and never found any evidence of them. Perhaps according to you - but rationally, according to the information we have available to us - I can.
Your method seems to be unique to you.
My method is how we've made progress in all our knowledge over the last few hundred years. Here you intend to use "know" in an absolute sense.
And, if so, then you're right.What you're wrong about is that "know" being used in an absolute sense isn't the meaning of the word.
Because that's not true for anything - we don't know anything in an absolute sense. Not even positively-tested things. We have no answer-book for reality to let us know that we've accounted for all possibilities.And if we use "know" as understood for the last few hundred years, in the sense of "understood in accordance with the rationally-tested information we have available to us" then I certainly can know that Big Foot doesn't exist.You are wrong about what the word "know" means.
If we use your meaning of the term - we quickly see how useless and inconsistent it is as the term cannot be used for anything at all yet clearly we all claim to "know things." Back to this, again?Where are the places He could be that we have not checked?
Why should we rationally consider that God may be there?
Remember... we're talking about if we know god exists or not.
And that depends on rational testing - unless you can propose a better method for identifying if things exist or not?
This is "the reasoning."
As we've just discussed... your response needs "to follow the reasoning" in order to remain rational.If you do not "follow the reasoning" then your answer will be an irrational proposal.
And as useless/irrelevant as "we all wear seatbelts because Stile likes the colour green."This isn't what I've been describing to you since the original post.
And, it's what you've ceased arguing against as well in order to revert back to these original issues. I think it's because you understand my explanations are actually correct - you just don't seem to want to apply them to God, yet.I am fine with you not consistently applying the same concepts we use for "knowing" everything else to God. That's your choice.

Then keep turning around and around to stop the man behind you from killing you.Unless, of course, you know he's not there because you checked. Feel free to point a single aspect that actually makes sense to it being "unique to me."I can say "I know that Big Foot doesn't exist."
I don't swirl around constantly unknowing that a man is behind me about to kill me. Of course we do.
We found lots of species that actually do exist because we're not wasting time searching for Big Foot - because we know he doesn't exist. But you're not consistent in this, are you?Your reason for not knowing things don't exist is "because we haven't checked everywhere."
Well, we haven't "checked everywhere" that you actually know how to bake a cake.
Perhaps we'll find a place where you do not, actually, know how to bake a cake and all the cakes you 'though you previously baked' were not cakes.But you don't consider that, do you?
Why not?Because it's not rational - there's no evidence to suggest such a place may exist in the first place.
Just like I've been telling you. Not true. There is evidence that people bake cakes. You are a people. Therefore, I cannot say "I know ringo can't bake cakes."
Just give me evidence God exists and such logic will apply to God, too.
Without that evidence... I can say "I know God does not exist" based on the previous evidence of looking-where-God-should-be for thousands of years and finding no evidence of God.
Just as if there was no evidence of your ability to bake cakes... I could say "I know that ringo cannot bake a cake" if there was previous evidence of looking-for-people's-ability-to-bake-cakes-for-thousands-of-years and we found no evidence of people being able to bake cakes.I'm consistent.
You're not. And what is the rational reason to suggest He could be there?
Without that - your answer doesn't "follow the reasoning" to suggest that God might exist there.
Without that - your answer is as irrational, and useless, as "we wear seatbelts because Stile likes the colour green."It would be "a reason" but not "a reason that follows" from the context.
By your own admission - this is not enough. Would you like to go through the explanation again?
We've already done this and corrected your understanding of how 'rational' can mean different things in different contexts. You need to apply the correct context in order to have correct meaning:

quote:

---

Stile writes: Then: "You should wear a seatbelt because I like the colour green" is rational. Because it has "a reason."
ringo writes: The reasoning has to follow. Your example doesn't.

​

Exactly.
"A reason" isn't enough. The reasoning has to follow... which is exactly what I said when you said I'm using "rational" to define "reason" and the other way around. I'm not doing that... I'm simply attempting to describe how the reasoning "has to follow." I'm agreeing with you.
We both agree that "the reasoning has to follow."

​

Since the reasoning does not follow: This is an irrational reason to wear a seatbelt.
One should wear a seatbelt because it keeps us as safe as possible as shown by the rational testing done on seatbelts.

​

Let's apply this lesson to the idea at hand:

​

"God exists because traditionally people have agreed that this is true."
The reason is "a reason" but the reasoning does not follow.

​

Therefore, this is an irrational reason to think God exists.
One should think God exists because of the rational testing done on God existing.
Of course... of all the rational testing done on God existing - there is no evidence of God.
Just like Santa Claus and Big Foot and any other irrational idea.

​

If I can say I know Santa Claus does not exist.
If I can say I know Big Foot does not exist.
...
Then, for the same rational-testing-reasoning (and disregarding of ideas where "the reasoning does not follow"), I can say I know that God does not exist.

​

Thank-you for providing the premises that lead to my conclusion.

---

If you do not agree with your own statement that the "reasoning has to follow" please, explain.
Why does the reason we wear seatbelts need to follow the benefit of seatbelts?
Why does searching for God's existence in a specific location not need to follow rational testing... our procedure that gives us our highest-confidence-level in knowing things?
If it does... how does "God could exist behind dark matter" follow rational testing?
What rational tests lead us to believe that God could be hiding behind dark matter?This is your inconsistency.

It was never modified.
I simply assumed that the context didn't have to be explicitly defined. I thought it was obvious, I was wrong. Of course an argument doesn't just need to be "rational" to cause doubt that I know God doesn't exist."1 + 1 = 2 based on a normal base-10 number system" is rational.
But that has no bearing on whether or not we know God exists, right?"Being rational" obviously isn't enough - why would it be?"Externally rational" isn't correct either. I don't care if something is rational towards another issue.It does, however, have to be rationally applicable to what we're looking to get an answer for. Why wouldn't it?
I can't believe this has to be explained...I am claiming that "I know God does not exist."And you're wondering why an argument-intended-to-cause-doubt-to-this-conclusion needs to be rationally applicable to this conclusion?
Are you serious?"How we know things" is obviously an important aspect to this context.
"How we know things" is obviously done through rational testing - it's been like this for hundreds of years now - unless you'd like to provide a better method?
Therefore the argument-intended-to-cause-doubt-on-"Knowing that God doesn't exist" needs to rationally be applicable to rational testing on God's existence.Why would anything else matter?
If a "rational argument" doesn't do any rational testing on God's existence... how can it possibly cause any doubt or any confidence in knowing the status of God's existence?
It would seem to be entirely irrelevant - no?Without rational testing - it's avoiding how we know things. If it's a serious argument to identify how we know God exists or not - why would it do that?
That's not rational.That's what I've meant from the very beginning of this thread when I've said the argument needs to be rational.
It needs to rationally apply to the problem at hand.
Why should anyone care if "it's rational" towards anything else? Scientific knowledge formalizes and rigorously enforces "rational testing."
I don't require that level.
But I do require "rational testing" as that's our best way to "know things." Why wouldn't it be applicable since we're attempting to "know something" about God's existence? No. I deny it because I'm attempting to make it easier for my opponents.
I could require scientific levels - but this isn't necessary.Science is just more formal and rigorous about it's rational testing.
I only require informal and non-rigorous rational testing.
I don't care if you can show a rational test 100 times to form an average that God must exist within a 99.5% confidence level (science level.)
I just care if you can show a rational test once to form a rational idea that God might actually exist (my requested level.) And it's included in all knowledge.
Or, at least, it's included in all knowledge that's allowed us to progress once the idea was incorporated since the Dark Ages.
I'm sure some people wrongly think "know" is an absolute truth-claim.Edited by Stile, : Correcting befuddled sentences.

An excellent example.
We do know that unknown, mundane, physically-existing species exist.
We've found plenty, and found plenty more over the years.This is evidence that more could exist in places we don't know about.
Again - what is the evidence leading us to think God could exist somewhere we don't know about?These are not the same.
You cannot use "I know that no new species exist" as a similar statement to "I know that God doesn't exist."We have rationally-tested reasons to expect new species and keep looking for new ones.
We have no rationally-tested reason to expect God or to keep looking for God. But you didn't demonstrate that you can bake a cake in all places.
Perhaps you're not actually baking cakes - you only think you are, but you're wrong.
Why is that ignored?Why is it acceptable to place on God's existence?If you can rationally answer this contradiction in your claims of knowledge - then I will need to adjust my conclusions.
Without doing that, I'll stick with my consistent process of obtaining knowledge - and I know that God doesn't exist. There is no rational reason that God could be anywhere. Can you provide one? Thank-you for building the inference that gives us rational evidence to suggest that God does not exist.
Now, if we do this over the course of human history, for thousands of years, looking everywhere we possibly can... we turn this "rational inference" into "rational knowledge" just like anything else. I'm afraid this isn't being done in a vacuum.You are right, that if this was the first and only place people ever said God existed at... you'd have a point.
But, that's not what happened.
The thousands-of-years of inference-building did happen.
And it takes precedent.Just like the thousands-of-years of inference building that people can bake cakes.
It may not be true - if we find an eventual place that shows us we've been wrong all this time.
But it the rational inference leads us in that direction.
Therefore - the idea that "some place, some time (behind dark matter, say)" should cause us to doubt that people bake cakes - is irrational (although it may be true.)
Therefore - we know that people bake cakes. And I cannot say that I know ringo cannot bake a cake.Same with God.
We follow the existing precedence created by thousands of years of data building the inference into knowledge.
I know that God does not exist.
One more irrational idea that god may exist "some place, some time (behind dark matter, say)" causing us to doubt that God does note exist - is irrational (although it may be true.)
Therefore - we know that God does not exist. And I can say I know that God does not exist.If I provided a rationally-tested argument that people are not actually baking cakes... wouldn't you say you could no longer say "ringo can bake a cake?" After all - this new knowledge would destroy what you previously thought was true.Same with God.
If you provide a rationally-tested argument that God might actually exist... then I can no longer say "I know that God does not exist."