I Know That God Does Not Exist

Who is "us"? The idea of a deity may seem irrational to some of "us" but not to all of "us". What's irrational about that idea? Our justice system does nothing but handle offenses not committed against itself. It acts on behalf of society, so why is it irrational for a god to do the same thing? The question is: Was their thinking logical? If you want to show that their thinking was irrational, you need to point out the specific problems with their logic. Why do you continually refuse to do that? I didn't.I said that the concept is not inherently irrational.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

Well, I didn't create it - and nothing I have said in it has anything to do with translation. We're talking about a general concept of God, not necessarily even the Biblical one.

As I pointed out, that's how our justice system works. It's always a disinterested (objective) third person who decides. That's the rational way to settle disputes.

There may or may not be forgiveness involved. (Ever hear of a suspended sentence?)You're grasping at straws. Why don't you just answer my question? What specifically is it that makes the idea of God irrational? What is the problem with the logic?

So you think it's okay to talk about massive holes? So you intend to be unscientific. We already have Faith to do that. It's just a circle. We don't need you to explain it in detail.

The problem is that a hole is, by definition, a volume from which the mass has been removed. It has been de-massed. It is un-massive. You are being rational and reasonable, just like the idea of god can be rational and reasonable. You are also being irrelevant. Yes, 1450+ posts later, people are still showinh you how you're wrong. We have the same problem with Faith.

Well, of course, if some people find an elephant, you're wrong to say that elephants don't exist. No. For the umpteenth time, reasoning and logic can not be erased by knowledge. The conclusions based on the reasoning and logic can be overturned but that does not make the reasoning and logic invalid. Logic 101. An idea does not have to be falsifiable to be rational.

It means (properly) "having mass". Electrons are massive but not large. No. It doesn't. That's a misuse, particularly in a scientific context. Or, "I can not prove a negative." I've lived 67 years without ever needing that ability. I would not call that a "practical life function". You really don't understand what "rational" means, do you? The people who disagree with you in this thread are alive.

The "popular" definition is illiterate. EvC is a scientific context. No you're not. You're pretending to "know" something when you haven't done nearly enough research. Your confidence level is inflated far beyond what you can possibly justify. Then why do you keep bringing up evidence? You should know that logic/reason does not depend on evidence.

What does that have to do with anything I have said?
1. The existence of unicorns has nothing to do with whether or not the idea of unicorns is rational.
2. Belief in unicorns might be irrational but that does not make the idea of unicorns irrational. You still refuse to show what is irrational about the reasoning. We draw different conclusions today because we have different information to work with - i.e. different premises. But our reasoning process isn't necessaruly "more rational".What is it exactly in the reasoning process of the past that you think was irrational? We're not talking about belief in a idea. We're talking about the idea itself and the reasoning behind it.

Then why don't you show us where the logic is flawed? You're still confusing the reasoning with the premises. I don't believe in Hephaestus because the premises are false - or to put it another way, we have better premises today. No. No. No. You're still dwelling on the premises. Look at the reasoning only and show us how their reasoning from their premises to their conclusion is wrong. This is what I keep asking you: How did they put the pieces together illogically? Be specific.

Exactly. The idea is not inherently irrational.

I don't think that's true. Rationality is objective. The rationale behind an idea should be clear to everybody, whether they accept/believe the idea or not. Accepting an idea is based on the premises behind the idea, not on the reasoning.Of course, it is still possible to be irrational about any part of the process.

It doesn't matter. We're talking about the reasoning, not the premises. Whether the premises are right or wrong does not affect the reasoning. You can have good reasoning from good premises or bad premises. That's what I've been trying to pry out of you. If you think there was something wrong with their reasoning, what the hell was it?

I'm not talking about the premises at all. I'm talking about the reasoning.