I Know That God Does Not Exist

You asked about beauty and I answered. What connection are you making with a deity? And, incidentally, what is your definition of "god"? We can't talk about it unless you tell us what you mean.As for "falsification" what is the statement about love that you are wondering whether or not can be falsified?

You're saying you have to look outside the peanut butter jar to find out if the jar is empty?

Now you're just being dishonest. You know that argument works for what you can see but not for what you can't. You can't "demonstrate" a negative like that. Nope. Not near enough. You haven't looked behind the dark matter yet. It's exactly the same argument though. You didn't find sharkfin soup where you looked. You didn't find God where you looked. But you looked in the wrong place for sharkfin soup. Who's to say you're not looking in the wrong place for God? The same reason we have for suggesting that sharkfinsoup may exist somewhere else besides McDonalds.

Don't be silly. You asked me for my position. I gave you my thoughts on the matter, my evidence, my reasoning. I call that my opinion because I'm discussing it with you and am willing to change my thinking on the issue if you have anything worthwhile to contribute towards changing my thinking.

I didn't get any memo on subject change.Are we still talking non-interventionist gods?I take "non-interventionist" literally. No effect on our universe.By definition there would be nothing there to see.

This is a discussion forum, not a pop quiz. We expect a little more than, "I already answered that." Elaborate. I'm trying to figure out what you think a rational idea is - but you resolutely refuse to answer, so I can't help but think you haven't thought it through. Use any definition that your little heart desires. I'm asking why you think the idea of God is irrational, so your definition is more relevant than mine. We're not talking about any "statement". We're talking about the idea of God. You're the one who brought up falsification as a supposed argument that the idea of God is irrational. So tell us how you would falsify the idea of God or drop the argument about falsification.

The argument is that in order to "rationally know something" it is required that you do "rational testing."
I didn't make this argument - this is how "how we know things" works - unless you disagree?I am not the only person saying this.
Everyone seriously attempting to "gain knowledge" since the Dark Ages has been saying this.
Again - you're free to disagree and use whatever method you'd like, you just can't call it "rational" - because rationally, it only makes sense to use our best-known method. Really?
Well then, you're the first in all of human history. Congratulations!
Please, I must have missed it though as I haven't seen any. Could you list it one more time?What was your rational test for God's existence that passed?
Or:
What is your rational evidence that leads you to think God might exist somewhere we haven't checked yet?Either one is sufficient. This is true.
But this isn't what I'm saying.
It's not correct to use the term "Science" in place of "rational testing" because Science is a few levels higher... but I'll do it anyway here to make this point:I'm not saying I know God doesn't exist because science knows nothing about God's existence.
I would agree that saying such a thing would be inadequate.I'm saying I know God doesn't exist because science has tested all aspects of God's existence that have been testable over the last few thousand years, as offered by "God experts" - resulting in no evidence whatsoever of God's existence. The only claims left (by "God experts" or otherwise) are irrational - not based on any evidence at all - these claims can rightfully be ignored as they are rightfully ignored for every other thing we know.You don't get to cutoff chunks of my argument and they say the remaining parts don't make sense to get to the conclusion.
Of course that wouldn't make sense - why would it? This is exactly what "I know that God does not exist" means, thank-you.
As you are well aware, there is nothing that we "absolutely *know* for sure" - this idea is incorporated in all rational knowledge claims.

Yes, I can.Again - you are not constantly swirling around and around looking for the man behind you who wants to kill you.
You looked, and he wasn't there.
You know he isn't there.If you don't know he isn't there - then you'd be swirling as your life is on the line.
Your actions belay your words.It is, in fact, you who are being dishonest about this.

No I didn't. I asked you to explain your position. I even gave you blanks to fill in.

If I knew he wasn't there, I'd never look over my shoulder. But there's something on the edge of my senses that suggests that something might be there, so I do keep an eye open. I do not know that there is nothing there.

We're not talking about looking for God in one specific pew in one specific church. YES! If we are honestly looking for God we have to look beyond that. We can not say that we know peanut butter doesn't exist just because we've stuck our head into one little jar.

If you say your god exists, that statement is either falsifiable or not, depending on how you define your god. A god standing on a mountaintop throwing thunderbolts - we can discuss the truth or falsity of the statement that that god exists. A god that merely "pushed the button" to start things about fourteen billion years ago and then vanished - is the statement that that god exists falsifiable?

When I described my position I also gave reasons that I took that position. If you disagree with my explanation you are free to give your own explanation.

Of course the original statement I made was not about the existence of peanut butter everywhere but about the existence of peanut butter inside that particular jar.

Then you are using the word "know" as no one else does.
And your entire argument is irrelevant to rationally using the word "know" as everyone else does.