I Know That God Does Not Exist

Is this not tautologous?

In the context of this discussion about a god premise I contend that right/wrong cannot even be determined because the premise is irrational. It is irrational for all.It is irrational because there is not sufficient evidence to show *any* level of efficacy in the premise (other than 0) and thus the premise has no logic value, let alone truth value, in this universe. (At this time. With what we presently know right now. Future mileage may very.)Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

That has nothing to do with what I said. The general (and universal) principle that logic does not depend on its inputs for rationality can not be overruled by any specific case(s) in which the inputs are invalid. We can also say, "We are Napoleon," and we'd be wrong about that too. What we should say is, "according to the information available to us, we do not know that God exists."

You have it backwards. You need a rational reason for assuming that God is not hidden by dark matter before you can claim to "know" He doesn't exist. And it seemed that the Northwest Passage would not be up this river or that inlet - but that conclusion was both wrong and based on irrational thinking. It's not an irrational search. Claiming you "know" something doesn't exist before you finish the search is irrational. The search is essential, not "irrational".

Me too, but science, as yet, has nothing to say about god. It certainly does not say that god does not exist or have any opinion at all. It awaits evidence. Sure me too. But being wrong is not necessarily being irrational. The arguments *are* rational. They're just not scientific. Fill your boots.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

No. There was a time where "human knowledge" was based upon "whatever the witch doctor says."
Or "whatever the priest says he recieves from God."Now - our knowledge is based on rationally testing against reality.
As it gives us our best-known-way for identifying reality.It's not tautologous, it's a description of our currently-best-method.

I am contending that right/wrong is irrelevant when discussing what we know."What we know" is (basically) "our best guess at what is right/wrong based on the information available to us."
..what is actually right/wrong is our goal, but not knowable if we ever reach it. Or even if it's reachable. This, I agree with.
As long as we agree the context for "It is irrational..." aligns with "...according to our best understood method for 'knowing things.'"

Okay. I agree with this.
Where would you like to go with it? Why would we say that?
Everything about the information available to us tells us God doesn't exist.Not only is there no God in the information available to us... we have grown our information (in limited ways)... but every time we've grown, we confirm that God still doesn't exist.That rationally should lead you to see that the information available to us is telling us that God does not exist.
Therefore - we know that God does not exist.

I have such a rational reason.1. God doesn't exist in any currently known information.
2. When our information has expanded before - God was never found in any of the expanstions.
3. This has been confirmed for thousands of years.sThis sets a pattern: When our information expands - if anyone searches for God - they still don't find Him.That is a rational reason to assume that God is not hidden by dark matter. Right... before it was found, it was rational to say "I know the NWP does not exist."
You yourself are adamant that there was no rational reason to suggest that the NWP existed.
After it was found, it was irrational to say such a thing.Currently, it's rational to say "I know that God does not exist." Of course it is.
Searching for something when there's no rational reason to search for it is irrational.How can it be anything else?

That's why. We don't have enough information to say we do know. So we say we don't know. There was no Northwest Passage in the information available to us, until there was. Every time we looked, we confirmed another place that the Northwest Passage didn't exist. But it was always wrong - and irrational - to claim that we "knew" the Northwest Passage didn't exist.

Agreed. But there does come a point where the millions of null results of our examinations become millions of data points in the decision process.Think of the luminiferous aether, a no show since 1887. No one seems to have a problem claiming the aether probably doesn't exist (pending future developments if any). Adding the aether to our equations without cause would be irrational.Yet god, a no show since forever, gets some special pass on rationality? No.Until someone can show some evidence of efficacy the use of a god premise is irrational for the same reason as the aether. They are separate things indeed since irrational is not even wrong just unusable as in non-existant (holding in abeyance a vanishingly small possibility and pending future developments if any). I was in service. I've done that.I would take this as some kind of well deserved English insult except I'm not really sure I've gotten the full enjoyment of it since I'm not familiar with its use.What that mean?

That isn't rational.Not finding something in the past is not an indicator of not finding it in the future. And since we didn't know about dark matter at all until very recently, your "thousands of years" are worthless. You've been looking on the wrong menu. By the same logic, we will never find the Northwest Passage. What? There certainly was a rational reason to think the Northwest Passage existed. But there's always a rational reason to search: If you don't search, you won't find anything. That's the foundation of science.

Well that goes for everything so ... agreed.

If God exists in our heart and is found by those who seek Him with all of their hearts, it would only make sense that He would never be found by someone merely looking for objective evidence on an electric meter or an instrument designed to detect energy. Moreover, if the ones who search have already personally concluded that they don't need God...that they don't need to commune with this alleged character....except on equal terms and the way *they* imagine God *should behave*...they wont find Him.

If you change the silly use of the word 'heart' to 'mind', you have it right and it sounds rather different doesn't it?