I Know That God Does Not Exist

Ok, that's your view Let me guess, you will decide which? And science has no disputes? Ha!
But, in general, science provides real answers while philosophy provides good arguments. So I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that there are rational arguments that are not scientific. Sure. But are you going to tell the best philosophical minds in history that they are irrational? You might say, like several have, that they're wrong because of this and that, but being wrong is not the same as being irrational.

Yes, I completely agree.
Logical/rational does not imply "correct about reality." Ah - I see.You're saying "it was irrational - but they just didn't know it at the time."
I can kind of agree with that...But I would be more inclined to say "it was incorrect - but they just didn't know it at the time."I see correct/incorrect with reality to be something that carries over time. (Cannonballs sail through the air in parabolic arcs... whether we understand it or not... in the 1400's or today.)
I see rational/irrational to be very situationally dependent. (Something could be irrational to you, based on the information available to you... but rational to me, based on the information available to me... and rational/irrational does not imply correct/incorrect with reality...)I think anyone can have a rational idea that is incorrect.
I also think anyone can have irrational ideas that happen to be correct.There is an argument, however, that none of our ideas are ever "correct" even - they are just "closer and closer to being correct" - even our current understanding of the curvature of the earth.
But ideas certainly can be 'rational according to this information' or 'irrational according to that information.'

Oh... and by the way:

quote:

---

Re: Don't Pee In My Ocean

---

Ahahahahhaha!!!!

Tell it to Sarah. Do we? No. They didn't know that. They sailed all around central North America and found nothing but more central North America. It would have been quite valid to conclude that "probably" (most likely) there was no passage. But they didn't "know" there was no passage.

I haven't done any such thing.

Wow. You missed the whole boat, didn't you.We are not comparing belief in god with belief in flat earth.We are comparing the efficacy of evidence and the logical analysis of that evidence (or lack thereof).The contention here, Faith, is that by today's standards the flat earth conclusion was scientifically defensible, logical and wrong while the "god done it" conclusion wasn't even wrong but irrational because the god premise was and is irrational.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What??? So is there anything that we know to exist that is not rational?
Or are you saying by virtue of existing it is rational.
Because a platypus is one of the most irrational creatures I have ever seen.And when first described was met with disbelief and mockery.
But they do exist.

I'll let the science decide. There. Fixed it for you. Oh, Tangle, my man, I've been telling philosophs that since before the internet was nothing but dial up bulletin boards. So true. But when it is I'm here to let 'em know that too. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes, we do.
If you don't think so - just name one we know to exist that does not have a link from imagination to reality. Okay - I'll take your word for it.Then it was irrational.
If there is no link to reality that a NWP might exist - and they searched for it anyway, then the search was irrational.How is it logical to search for something that has no indication it might exist in the first place?
Where would you rationally even begin to search?I have no problems with irrational ideas leading to discoveries...
In fact, I support irrational searches, I've already said this many times.
I don't support calling something that's irrational "rational."

Yes, I know. You're very confused.You say you don't speak of absolutes... but then you speak of how we haven't searched absolutely everywhere... therefore we cannot say "I know God doesn't exist based on searching the information available to us."

You have already agreed that rational means logical. So why don't you understand that the logic does not depend on the inputs? Because the logic has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. There can't be any "indication" that it exists unless you look.

I'll say the exact same thing another way:Just because you can imagine something does not lend any credence to that same thing actually existing. This question is too open-ended to make sense.
Rational means "logical."
Therefore - to be rational, something has to be rational based on something (the logic.)If we use my context for rational (when speaking of things existing) - I'm thinking of rational testing. Measurements that can be made, inferences based off working mathematical models... anything that works off what we understand about reality. I'm saying the two are different and unique.Correct/Incorect with reality simply is.
If it exists - it exists.
If it doesn't exist - it doesn't exist.Rational/irrational has no bearing on whether or not something actually exists.
We can have a rational idea of something that doesn't actually exist.
We can have an irrational idea of something that actually does exist.Our knowledge, however, of what does exist - is based on what we've rationally tested in reality. And a platypus can also be very rational to someone-who's-studied-them for many, many years. To such a person - a platypus may seem extremely logical. I don't have a problem with this.

I said no such thing. I mentioned the dark matter, for example. We have not searched the dark matter, which constitutes most of the universe. That's a very, very, very long way from "absolutely everywhere".

You're taking the general and attempting to apply it to the specific again.Just because "an idea" can be rational against a certain set of general logic has no bearing on "the same idea" being rational against the set of logic we currently use to best identify existence of things (rational testing - links between imagination and reality... measurements or observations or inferences from existing/working models...) Right.
And if we look for God within all the information available to us and don't find God... then we can say "according to the information available to us, we know that God doesn't exist."And, since all knowledge is 'based on the information available to us' - we don't have to say that because it's redundant:We know that God doesn't exist.

Yes, dark matter is a rational aspect of our universe that may exist.What is the rational reason to suggest that God may exist behind dark matter?Have we found Gods behind other previously-unknown areas of our universe?
Or, as we've expanded our 'information available to us' is the pattern that God isn't found behind any of the new things we've searched?It seems that the rational/logical/pattern-following conclusion is that God will not exist behind the dark matter, either.Therefore - according to the information we have available to us - we know that God does not exist.
Since all knowledge is "according to the information available to us" we can drop that part:We know that God does not exist.Why would you think an irrational search should affect a rational conclusion before the results are in?