I Know That God Does Not Exist

So you aren't using the term "know" in the way that it is used you are instead using it in a way that you think it should be used.....Why should the term "know" be used in the way you suggest?What is wrong with an epistemological stance that recognises the role of tentativity and fallibilism in knowledge and knowledge acquisition?Yours is a silly absolutist stance.

Why is it that when confronted with what should be an un-contentious example that we can all agree upon as something which is almost certainly non-existent theists feel the need to start throwing terms like absurd around?What is or is not absurd is entirely subjective. I may well find your concept of god absurd. So let’s put aside assertions of what is absurd and what isn’t.I am trying to establish a baseline. I am trying to see if we can both agree that we know that the immaterial unicorn in question doesn’t exist.Do you agree that we can know this? Or do you claim that we cannot know this?

That's called fallibilism.Are you denying that science can lead to knowledge? Because all scientific knowledge is potentially fallible. It might be wrong. Indeed some of it very probably is.

quote:

---

Fallibilism (from medieval Latin fallibilis, "liable to err") is the philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world. In the most commonly used sense of the term, this consists in being open to new evidence that would disprove some previously held position or belief, and in the recognition that "any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in light of new evidence, new arguments, and new experiences."[1] This position is taken for granted in the natural sciences.

---

Wiki on FallibilismEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No.I think that some of our present scientific knowledge might well trun out to be wrong.

Are you suggesting that an established scientific fact has never been overturned? Ever? How the hell am I supposed to know which of our presently established scientific facts is going to be wrong? It depends if you call the complete replacement of a world view and understanding of reality a "tweak".Relativity and QM were paradigm shifts that fundamentally and significantly changed our understanding of reality. Things that transformed what we thought were the facts regarding the universe and the natural laws that govern it's behaviour.But I am guessing you are going to call the difference between Newtonian gravity and General relativity a "tweak" because it suits your argument better.I am guessing that the notion that things are probability smudges rather than things with a concrete position will also qualify as a "tweak"....

Did we used to scientifically know the position and momentum of particles?Now we know that we couldn't actually know that.

Ask a Newtonian physicist about his ability to measure the position and momentum of a particle and he will tell you his ability to do so is limited only by the accuracy of his measuring instruments.But Heisenberg will tell him he is wrong.Ask a Newtonian physicist about time and he will tell you it is absolute and that this has been verified by every one of the most accurate time measuring devices he has ever encountered.But Einstein will tell him he is completely wrong.These are not "tweaks". These are opposing and mutually exclusive knowledge of what the scientific facts are. In what sense was absolute time not established? It's the height of arrogance to claim that what you know cannot possibly be wrong.

Swap "very" for "pretty", add in the evidence strongly favouring gods as made-up rather than real entities and change "sure" for "absolutely certain" and that is exactly what I am saying when I use the term "know".I haven't seen any evidence that points to God and I have seen a great deal of evidence that implies God is a product of human invention so it seems very unlikely that He exists - but I don't know for absolutely certain.I haven't seen any evidence that points to the Sun failing to rise tomorrow, so it seems pretty unlikely that it won't - but I don't know for absolutely certain.I haven't seen anything to indicate that the laws of chemistry pertaining to cake baking are about to fundamentally change overnight so it seems very unlikely that my known procedure for baking cakes will result in a lasagne tomorrow - but I don't know this for absolutely certain.In short - I know God doesn't exist. I know the Sun will rise tomorrow. I know how to bake a cake.My knowledge is tentative (i.e. uncertain) and potentially fallible. But still I know these things.

But the standard you are applying results in nonsenical drivel.You don't know the Sun will rise tomorrow and you only know how to bake the cakes created in the past but don't know how to bake a cake in the future.It's ridiculous and, in terms of practical communication, unworkable.

Definitions of knowledge that incorporate infallibility or insist that we can only know things that have already happened are unscientific and useless in any practical sense. We have seen the ludicrous results of such definitions in this thread.Scientific, evidence based knowledge is tentative and potentially fallible but still the most reliable form of "knowing" we have.To insist that the question of God demands a greater degree of certainty than any other scientific evidence based conclusion is just special pleading.ALL of the scientific evidence tells us that gods are humans inventions rather than real things. So it is perfectly valid to say that we know (tentatively and potentially fallibly) that God does not exist.

Isn’t T=0 effectively the point at which time (and space) come into existence in the Big Bang?