I Know That God Does Not Exist

When you go against the evidence, it's easy to "maintain" anything you want that's incorrect.
I've told you many, many times - if God does exist - I certainly do want Him in my heart helping me - why wouldn't I?This doesn't change the fact that there's no evidence that God exists in my heart - or yours.
This doesn't change the fact that things with no evidence are irrational to posit.
This doesn't change the fact that in a rational, reasonable sense - I know that God does not exist. I accept any and all emotional responsibility.
Now what happens to your argument?Do you alter it to adjust to the new infomation?
Or do you dig in your heels - insist I must be lying, and continue to pout?

You dare accuse others of hubris? You are the one with the hubris thinking your personal religious belief is correct in the face of all the evidence counter to it. You are the one that asserts some sort of secret knowledge based on anonymous bronze age and classical age writings. Writings that you manipulate to mean things that the plain reading does not make any mention of.
You have the audacity to accuse those that do not claim any secret knowledge of hubris? Maybe you do not know what hubris means. Us nontheists do not claim to have the answers. We claim there is not enough data to understand how things began and there is no data to show there is a god like character. You call that hubris? Self-awareness is another word you should learn. And all this evidence has been shown to not be evidence at all.

What I see here is an attempt to pull things along by mis-placed context.Let's parse it a bit: There is no evidence of this. There is evidence of a man named Jesus doing people things during the time that the Bible is describing, yes - but you are correct, it is far from conclusive. There is no evidence of God's existence.
It is therefore rational and reasonable to dismiss Him as a myth or discredit the sources who claim His existence.
Just as we do with Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs.If a claim is made without evidence - it is irrational.
If a claim is made with evidence - it is rational.There are no claims of God's existence that come with any evidence for God's existence.
They are all irrational.Therefore - from what we do have rational evidence for or "from what we know" - I know that God does not exist.

The hubris is in thinking there's a creator of all things seen and unseen who wants to be buddy-buddy with you. Evidence is lacking period. If you have any evidence, you have to be able to show us what it is. Again... again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again... show us the f**king arguments, just one or two teeny, tiny little arguments. Give us a chance to show you where they go wrong. Don't just assume that they are right and we are wrong. Nonsense. You are the one who throws out the Bible when it doesn't fit your apologists' pronouncements. I am the one who is trying to get you to respect the Bible. No, the jury is not out. You were out to lunch when they came in and gave their verdict. Again... I am the one who is supporting what the Bible says. If your apologists have any arguments worth listening to, present them. Stop saying "argue" when you mean "assert". And stop asserting that nonsense. I have told you many times that it's a lie.

Not existing doesn't make it an irrational concept. The sharkfin soup is what defeats your whole argument. There is no place where it is "supposed to be". Sharkfin soup does exist. You're just looking in the wrong place. The same could apply to God. Still wrong.

That's true.
What makes it an irrational concept is the "no evidence" for it part.God is an inherently irrational concept.
Because there is no evidence for the concept.The word "exist" doesn't have to be in there at all - it is irrelevant to the idea being irrational or not. You're moving goalposts here.Sharkfin soup has evidence that it exists.
God does not.What applies rationally to Sharkfin soup - because there's evidence for Sharkfin soup - does not apply rationally to God - because there's no evidence for God.You're trying to say they are analogous in this context - but they're not.
One has evidence, the other does not.I only tried to say they are analogous in the way we identify if things exist or not:1. Is the concept rational?
2. If rational - where is it?
3. Look there to see if it's there.With Sharkfin soup:1. Is the concept rational? - Yes.
2. If rational - where is it? - It is on McDonald's menu.
3. Look there to see if it's there - It is not.Therefore I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.With God:1. Is the concept rational? - No.
2. N/A
3. N/AI know that God does not exist.I am not shifting goalposts - it is the same process flow for both.
You are the one attempting to say that point #1 for Sharkfin soup should say that point #2 or #3 for God is rational. It doesn't work that way. God doesn't make it to #2 or #3... just like Santa Claus, banana keys and crab chairs. I never claimed that Sharkfin soup does not exist - do you think I did? Perhaps that is your error.
I only claimed that "Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu" to show an easy example of how we identify things not existing: looking where they are supposed to be.Sharkfin soup not being on McDonald's menu only allows me to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
I have never claimed to say "I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist." Still correct - actually.Your critic is mis-applied, as I've described to you many times now.
You seem to make the same error again and again - taking context from one aspect and attempting to use it on another aspect to imply that it's incorrect. This mis-application of ideas is why your identification of an error is incorect in itself.If you really think you have something here... then walk through the easy steps I've provided.How is Sharkfin soup's #1, #2, and #3 the same as God's #1, #2 and #3?They appear completely different to me - although they do both us the same process and goal posts.

A concept doesn't need evidence. There is no evidence for unicorns but it is not an irrational concept. There's a whole realm of literature - science fiction, fantasy - built on concepts that are not evidenced but not irrational. But you were looking in the wrong place for evidence of sharkfin soup. You can't claim there is "no evidence" if you're looking in the wrong place. As long as you make the mistake of calling God an irrational concept, you will come up with the same wrong conclusion.

Remember our overall context - we're talking about things existing.I agree with you that "God exists" is a concept.
I will not try to claim: I know that God does not exist as a concept.
I am only claiming: I know that God does not exist.In this context:Sharkfin soup existing on McDonald's menu is a rational concept - Sharkfin soup and McDonald's menu both have evidence supporting their existence.
Unicorns and God are are not rational concepts - Unicorns have no evidence for their existence. God has no evidence for His existence.I agree that I cannot rationally claim:I know that unicorns do not exist as a concept.
I know that God does not exist as a concept.However, this has no impact on my being able to claim:I know that unicorns do not exist.
I know that God does not exist. Again - I didn't claim that sharkfin soup did not exist.
I claimed that sharkfin soup did not exist on McDonald's menu.Where else should I look for such a claim other than McDonald's menu? You are, again, confusing contexts in an attempt to make a point that actually doesn't exist.To be clear:I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.
I am claiming that God does not exist.To claim that God exists is an irrational concept - until there is evidence that God exists.

Again, rationality has nothing to do with evidence. You are claiming (Message 1302) that, "God is an inherently irrational concept." It is not.

Sure it does: believing that something exists without evidence that it exists is irrational - no?
Believing that banana keys exist without evidence of banana keys is irrational - no?This is how "rationality" has something to do with "evidence."
I agree that rationality isn't completely or only concerned with evidence. The word is rather versatile.
However - to say it has "nothing to do with evidence" is clearly incorrect.And, the context of this argument keeps the word 'irrational' closely linked to 'evidence.' In the context where the concept is concerning God's existence - yes, it is.
As is the context of Message 1302.
My very next line was "Unless you can provide any amount of evidence that suggests God actually exists?"
Clearly the context I was thinking of revolved around God's actual existence.Again, to be clear again:I am not claiming that God does not exist as a concept.
I am claiming that God does not exist.Perhaps my older context wasn't clear. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, maybe you missed it - it doesn't matter.
There's nothing wrong with clarifying when confusion occurs.You can accept this clarification - upon which the argument still stands.
Or you can cling to the incorrect interpretation - which has nothing to do with the argument, although the more you chase an obvious strawman, the weaker your credibility becomes.

Believing that the concept is real may be irrational. The concept itself is not. You're moving the goalposts again.

I've explained how this is not applicable and how I'm not moving goalposts.Again, see my #1, #2, and #3 items for sharkfin soup and God and how they apply:

quote:

---

1. Is the concept rational?
2. If rational - where is it?
3. Look there to see if it's there.

​

With Sharkfin soup:

​

1. Is the concept rational? - Yes.
2. If rational - where is it? - It is on McDonald's menu.
3. Look there to see if it's there - It is not.

​

Therefore I know that Sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu.

​

With God:

​

1. Is the concept rational? - No.
2. N/A
3. N/A

---

These are my goalposts.
They haven't moved from the first post in this thread.If you think they've moved, feel free to show how.

You have not explained in any way how the concept of God is inherently irrational. You just keep asserting it. If you want to redefine irrational" along with "know", etc., it's going to be difficult to figure out what your "context" is.As long as the logic is internally consistent, the concept of God is not irrational. Thus, it is not different from the concept of sharkfin soup. If you contrive to search only in places where you don't expect to find them, you can claim non-existence of either, but your claim will not be very convincing.

The concept belongs to the antiquity of our species, the ancient, superstitious times. Volcanoes spewing lava? Lightning blasting trees and houses? People falling in love with people they really shouldn't? Senseless evil? Beautiful rainbow? Just imagine a Vulcan hammering away at his forge, a Jupiter throwing thunderbolts, a Cupid firing arrows, a Beelzebub scheming to tempt humanity, a Voice from the heavens telling Noah someone powerful has made a deal with him and his descendants . . .It's irrational. It's powerful, moving stories, but it's irrational.

I don’t have a definition for omniscient. I don't know what it means for God to be omniscient. Pretty vague.