I Know That God Does Not Exist

quote:

---

It's as rational as saying that you know there isn't an undetectable unicorn looking over your shoulder as you type.

---

Not really. I might say that it would be more analogous to saying that there is something undetectable over your shoulder as you type, and that that thing is related to the universe, life, or people sufficient to call that thing god. However, only the latter part of that statement is required because that this thing is either undetectable and over your shoulder, are unnecessary.

quote:

---

Can you give an example of something that you do know?

---

This is both easy and very difficult to answer, but I'll try.Firstly, all knowledge is contingent on the method by which (and the data on which) a truth can be demonstrated. By 'method' I mean things like logic or science. I think that "we know" statements essentially means that one has sufficient evidence to take it's truth as granted, as if the subject matter of the statement were itself observed. Note that this doesn't have anything to do with absolute truths.So I could say that we know that mirrors reflect light, as this is itself observed.But I could also say that we know the topography of ocean basins is at least partly a consequence of the density of oceanic lithosphere, and that these variations in density are at least partly due to temperature.I can also say that we know that when we observe an igneous intrusion cutting through strata and that the geologic state is indicative of original emplacement, the sediment came first."We know" statements consist in those for which falsification would incur amazement, not necessarily at any fantastical implication of the observation, but because it were thought to be demanded by observation.Edited by TrueCreation, : added last statementEdited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

So do I.And I also have a high level of confidence that there isn't going to be an elephant parade through my living room any time soon. That's a long way from claiming that I "know" elephants don't exist. You and I both know that Tangle has not examined his garden with the forensic thoroughness of a crime scene. Neither has he or anybody else examined the entire universe with that kind of thoroughness for signs of God. My knowledge of that planet is based on exactly the same foundation as your knowledge of God - the absence of contradictory evidence.

I haven't said anything about absolute certainty. I'm talking about confirmation.I say I know how to bake a cake because you can taste that cake and confirm that I know. I say that I know how to get to France because I can take you by the hand and show you France and you can confirm that you are there.Knowledge is what we can show others we know. Which is why absence of evidence can be evidence of absence but it isn't knowledge of absence. When you show somebody absence, you're only showing absence in the tiny area where you've looked.

Every cake baking process you've ever undertaken has resulted in a cake.Every route to France you have taken has resulted in you ending up in France.Every god we have ever investigated has turned out to be a product of human invention.Now it might be that the next time you follow a cake recipe you end up with lasagne. This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".Now it might be that the next time you follow the route to France you end up in Timbuctoo. This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".Now it might be that the next time we investigate somebody's concept of god that we actually find a god at the end of the rainbow (or wherever). This is some sort of philosophical possibility. But I doubt it will happen. In fact I know it won't by any sensible standard of "knowledge".

We know elephants do exist. So the chances of an elephant parade through your front room would seem considerably higher than the product of your imaginings actually existing. Actually I thought he had stipulated that he had....

quote:

---

Suppose I suspect that there are snakes in my garden. There are a number of things I could do to prove it; I could lay traps, I could turn over stones, I could search for discarded skin, I could look for snake poo, I could call in an expert etc etc.

​

But suppose I spent an entire year and used every known test for snakes - including stripping everything down to bare soil - but found none, the absense of evidence is then evidence of absense.

---

Then we are back to Immaterial Unicorns and ethereal squirrels and suchlike. Because we haven't scoured the universe for these either. But still we know they are human inventions rather than real things. I know you've made-up this god-behind-a-planet. And so do you. Do you think your random imaginings are really likely to actually exist?

When I say "looked into all God's"... I'm not talking about "all" in the sense of any God anyone can imagine (that would included irrational concepts, and I'm trying to stay on the rational side of knowledge). I'm more talking about "all" in the sense of all those that have been rationally proposed throughout history...And I did define what I mean by God in Message 63.
I think this is the general definition used by most people (or, at least, that's what I was aiming for). Again, any differences or changes are welcome. But they do have to be specified. Just saying "that doesn't count" doesn't really help move things forward or backward. This is a fair point. It was not my intention to imply that "God" was supposed to cover some sort of as-yet-undefined concept. Such a thing doesn't even seem rational to me. But, again, I'm trying to make a statement that rationally conveys an analysis of the data we do actually have. You see... I would say that at least some people did "know" that the Earth was flat. If you just take a quick overview and don't spend too much time investigating and thinking about it (many people then didn't have the time for such things...), I can understand an honest viewpoint that rationally thinks the Earth is flat. Therefore, I would not honestly fault them for claiming "I know that the Earth is flat." I would educate them... and then see if their ideas change, but I don't see a way to fault such an individual for thinking the Earth is flat. But, isn't everything based on "incomplete evidence?" Can you name one thing where it is strictly impossible for us to learn more about it? It's even possible for us to learn more about math... and we defined the basic axioms for it! Therefore... we make statements of "knowing things" based on incomplete evidence all the time. We just make those statements based on the evidence that we do have. And, really, what else could we ever be expected to do? Maybe He is. Maybe He isn't. Maybe He doesn't exist. Maybe He does.
My point is that we have no rational indication to think so.
And we do have rational indication to think otherwise:
We have reached a point where we have analyzed all the rational indications of God's existance (as defined as broadly as rationally possible in Message 63):-existing somewhere in natural phenomenon (the sun, the trees, various weather aspects...)
-existing "anywhere" but causing effects on us (influence of prayer, influence of being good or bad...)We have analyzed these possibilities and the results are negative.
This leaves us with no rational indications of God's existance.God may exist in a way we don't yet understand.
...but such a possibility doesn't effect the rational analysis we have done on the data that we do have.

I have moved the goalpost? Are you sure? Let's take a look at what happened.I claim that "knowing things" is based on a rational analysis of our data.
I claim that "knowing things don't exist" is rational as long as we have searched out the rational indications that such things might exist and find the results to be negative.
I claim that I know "sharkfin soup is not on McDonald's menu."
You suggest a rational indication that it's possible for a planet to exist that evolves life in a similar manner as to what our data here on Earth suggests and therefore it is possible for another McDonald's to exist on another planet (that hopefully treat sharks better than we do in obtaining fins). And that McDonald's may have sharkfin soup on it's menu.
I say "gee, that's interesting, I never thought of that" and I agree with you that it's a rational indication.
I then take this new information to form a new claim that I know "sharkfin soup is not on McDonald's menu on Earth."That is not moving the goalposts. That is accepting that you made a good point, and then updating my position to account for the new information. Such a thing isn't a fallacy, it's an expected practice for honest people when they are presented with new information that contradicts their original position.Now, let's look at what you have done:I claimed that I know "sharkfin soup does not exist on McDonald's menu."
You proposed a rational indication that sharkfin soup my actually exist on McDonald's menu on another planet.
I then updated my claim about sharkfin soup.
I also claimed that I know "God does not exist."
You have not proposed any rational indication that God may exist on another planet.
Yet, you now claim that because the sharkfin soup claim was updated, that the God statement should be updated as well? Why? Are you claiming that God is sharkfin soup? A rational indication that sharkfin soup might exist on another planet has nothing to do with any rational indication that God might exist on another planet. Unless you are trying to make a claim that God evolved as a natural being on Earth? Again, you will need some rational indication to suggest such a thing.I suggest you take a good rational look at what has happened in our exchange. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who moved any goalposts. This is true.
But it remains true that we have looked for a rational God (as defined in Message 63) in all proposed rational areas. This includes allowing God to exist "anywhere" and simply looking for the rational indications of His existance. All the searches have given the same result... that God does not exist. The next step is to propose another rational definition for God, or another rational indication for His existance.An as-yet-undefined concept of God seems irrational to me, but you're free to try and show otherwise.
A "God" that has nothing to do with humans, or the creation of life, or morality seems irrational to me. It is mangling the word "God" in such a way that the being shoud just be called an "alien" instead. Isn't that what an alien is? A being that's not-from-Earth that has nothing to do with humans or the creation of life or morality? I do not claim to know that aliens do not exist. But, again, you're free to try and show otherwise.If "being rational" isn't a priority for you, I certainly accept that my rational statement that "I know God does not exist" does not apply.

It only becomes difficult and irrational if the definition for God is irrational, or the proposed indication for His existance is irrational.
However, if we remain rational, then it isn't difficult, it has been done, and there are no longer any rational propositions left (that I am aware of).This is a significant point in the rational search for God.
This means that it is rational to say "I know that God does not exist."To overturn the statement, you need to do one or more of the following:Discover (or invent) a new, rational definition for "God."
Discover (or invent) a new, rational indication of God's existance. A very good point. Already brought up by Catholic Scientist.
I expounded on what I mean by "knowing things" right in the beginning of Message 1.
I eventually expounded on what what I mean by "God" in Message 63.
Please feel free to inform me of anything you don't find rational. I don't really understand continental drift... so I'm afraid I cannot comment on that example. But as for the inference of design because we cannot explain abiogenesis... that is definitly not what I'm doing.There are plenty of rational indications that abiogenesis is valid. The fact that there was no life on Earth at one point and then there was life on Earth at another point. The fact that RNA seems like a precursor to DNA. The fact that investigation into chemical experiments concerning abiogenesis are making progress. The point is that there are rational indications that abiogenesis is possible.
Which is exactly what I'm asking for about God's existance. What are the rational indications that God exists?I have thought of:
-God existing in the sun, the trees or a variety of natural weather conditions
-God existing "anywhere" and having an affect on humans such as prayer healing or helping good people or punishing bad peopleWe have investigated these rational indications and the results are that God does not exist.
Again, do you have another rational definition for "God?"
Or, do you have another rational indication for God that we should investigate?All I'm saying is that after the rational investigating we have done, and pending no further rational avenues... the only rational conclusion is to say "I know that God does not exist."If you do not find "being rational" to be a priority, however... I fully understand that such a statement would not apply.

Me too. And when we look into the God of the guy who worshipped the sun, we found that God does exist. You're wrong when you say that all the checks have turned up negetive.The problem is that this god doesn't fit within your definition. But we haven't determined whether the guy is wrong about what God is or you are. And for you to say that you know God doesn't exist doesn't tell me the difference on its own without a definition of "God". And part of the data we have is that some of the Gods that people worshipped actually existed as real things. I think the statement "People knew the Earth was flat", implies the accuracy of the thing they knew, i.e. the Earth really is flat. But they didn't establish that the Earth was flat, they just believed it or were convinced that it was. Its the difference between knowing your car is in the parking lot while you're sitting in your cubicle and knowing that your car is in the parking lot when your looking at it out the window. I can tell that it's different knowings because if someone came up to us in our cubicle and said that our car wasn't out there we be all: Really!? Did it get towed (or whatever)?But if somebody told you that your car wasn't out there when you were looking at it out the window, you'd be all: pfft, its right there *points*In both cases we can use the word "know", but the second one is stronger. I meant the word "God" on a piece of paper. That word by itself doesn't really tell us much of anything about what we're talking about. Sure, given a specific and descrete definition of God I agree that you can say that you know it doesn't exist. Here's the definition for the lazy:

quote:

---

God is a rational concept of some entity that sits back and governs good things and helps out people who pray to Him and used to do grand miracles but hasn't felt like it since we started to monitor such things.

---

I'm with you on that one, I don't believe that God exists.But you seem to want to expand that to the general statement: "I know God doesn't exist". And you seem to want to use it as if you've established it. I don't think either of those hold true.

quote:

---

It only becomes difficult and irrational if the definition for God is irrational, or the proposed indication for His existance is irrational.

---

I don't think that's correct. Reification of god is difficult because it is unconstrained by nature or observation.

quote:

---

This is a significant point in the rational search for God.
This means that it is rational to say "I know that God does not exist."

​

To overturn the statement, you need to do one or more of the following:

​

Discover (or invent) a new, rational definition for "God."
Discover (or invent) a new, rational indication of God's existance.

---

Not necessarily. One must only discover or invent a rational example of what would be god (ie, something that is sufficiently god). This should be a trivial exercise.My suspicion is that you might observe that it can be reasonably (I think) stated that no such conceivable god is falsifiable or constrained by nature, and is thus irrational--but this is a mistake.

quote:

---

A very good point. Already brought up by Catholic Scientist.
I expounded on what I mean by "knowing things" right in the beginning of Message 1.
I eventually expounded on what what I mean by "God" in Message 63.
Please feel free to inform me of anything you don't find rational.

---

Well, I've explained previously that no one can demonstrate that an observation necessarily follows from the hypothesis that god exists (Message 93). Presumably you would say that that means god is irrational, but it means no such thing. What it actually means is that it is irrational to make truth claims about god, as you have done.

quote:

---

There are plenty of rational indications that abiogenesis is valid. The fact that there was no life on Earth at one point and then there was life on Earth at another point. The fact that RNA seems like a precursor to DNA. The fact that investigation into chemical experiments concerning abiogenesis are making progress. The point is that there are rational indications that abiogenesis is possible.

---

quote:

---

Which is exactly what I'm asking for about God's existance. What are the rational indications that God exists?

---

No one can demonstrate that an observation necessarily follows from the hypothesis that god exists. As I say above, this just means that it is irrational to make truth claims about god, as you do. You can say you have good reason to believe that god does not exist, but this is totally alien to the statement that you actually have this knowledge.

quote:

---

I have thought of:
-God existing in the sun, the trees or a variety of natural weather conditions
-God existing "anywhere" and having an affect on humans such as prayer healing or helping good people or punishing bad people

​

We have investigated these rational indications and the results are that God does not exist.

---

This is like demonstrating that evolution is false because there are no crockoducks. Constraining evolutionary history doesn't work that way, and neither does constraining characteristics of god. As I've said, no one can demonstrate that an observation necessarily follows from the hypothesis that god exists, so even cases where your specific conjectures about the characteristics of god lead to falsification, the conclusion that "god does not exist" is irrational.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is that after the rational investigating we have done, and pending no further rational avenues... the only rational conclusion is to say "I know that God does not exist."

---

No, the rational conclusion is to say that reality presents you with no reason to believe, justifying disbelief. Rational justification for disbelief is capable of epistemic commentary on this matter because it refers only to a necessity of evidence. But this is contrary to the rational demonstrations of truth by evidence that we call knowledge.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, but that quadruple negative is confusing... Let me see if I can break it down:Given the statement "God exists", any observation could follow from that. Therefore, no observation can support the opposite statement (God does not exist).Is that what you're saying? I don't think you're using the right definition of "know". Given the way you're using it, we can't know anything.Given the statement "We live in The Matrix", any observation could follow from that. Therefore, no observation can support the opposite statement (We do not live in The Matrix). So you don't even know that you're sitting at a computer, you might be in a battery cell inside the Earth.From Message 166:

quote:

---

Firstly, all knowledge is contingent on the method by which (and the data on which) a truth can be demonstrated. By 'method' I mean things like logic or science. I think that "we know" statements essentially means that one has sufficient evidence to take it's truth as granted, as if the subject matter of the statement were itself observed. Note that this doesn't have anything to do with absolute truths.

---

Right, so given that we are in The Matrix, you could still say that you know you're sitting at a computer (even thought you're not) because the data set you do have allows you take it for granted. You wouldn't absolutely know, but you'd know.That's what Sile's saying about God...Givent that God does exist, the data set that he has says that God doesn't, so he can say that he knows its true. Not in the absolute know, but he knows.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but that quadruple negative is confusing... Let me see if I can break it down:

​

Given the statement "God exists", any observation could follow from that. Therefore, no observation can support the opposite statement (God does not exist).

​

Is that what you're saying?

---

Sorry it was a bit confusing. What I mean isn't that any observation could follow from that, I mean that there is no observation which must follow from that statement.

quote:

---

Right, so given that we are in The Matrix, you could still say that you know you're sitting at a computer (even thought you're not) because the data set you do have allows you take it for granted. You wouldn't absolutely know, but you'd know.

​

That's what Sile's saying about God...

​

Givent that God does exist, the data set that he has says that God doesn't, so he can say that he knows its true. Not in the absolute know, but he knows.

---

I think Stile is confusing the demonstration that one can reasonably justify the belief that god does not exist with knowledge that god does not exist. I have no reason to believe that we are in a Matrix, so I believe that it is untrue. However, I would not say that I know that I do not live in a Matrix, because I cannot demonstrate any such thing.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.

Stile isn't using the word 'know' that strictly. With his usage, its safe to say that we know we don't live in The Matrix.

And, for any of those Gods, I'm fine with stopping the discussion and accepting that the statement does not apply.
For anyone claiming that God is an inanimate object that we have discovered... I'm good. No more discussion required. The statement does not apply. I agree.
Why is the second one stronger? Because we have increased our data set by checking on the car again. If the car actually wasn't there, it would have "been stronger" to say "I know that my car does not exist in the parking lot" because we have checked and increased our data set again.This method is based on analyzing rational indications (the guy coming in and informing us that the car isn't there), and then increasing our data set (doing the check ourselves). The car's presense or not is strong indication either way for the car existing (in the parking lot) or not.Now, if we check in the parking lot... (and it isn't there)
Then we check in our garage... (and it isn't there)
Then we check government documentation for original registration... (and it isn't there)
Then we check the vendor to see if they even make the car we claim to have... (and they do not)
...Then it is rational to claim "I know that my car does not exist."I'm just doing the same thing with a rational defintion of God (as you quoted above, which is pretty much the general definition of our times)I agree that if we change the definition of God, then the statement may or may not apply but someone has to provide another rational defintion in order for it to apply to the rational conclusion.
I agree that if we change our method for "knowing things" then the statement may or may not apply but that method needs to be a better fit for how we "know things" everyday and generally use the term. I do not want to expand the statement to include inanimate objects proposed to be God (such as the sun). If such is done, I agree that God would "be found" and the discussion will come to an abrubt end and the statement no longer applies.
I do not want to expand the statement beyond rational definitions of "God." Of course, I will continue to point out that irrational definitions will have no effect on the rational conclusion. I fully admit that if "remaing rational" is not a priority, than the statement does not apply.I do think that "remaining rational" and "not including inanimate objects as the definition for God" are assumptions that are generally taken for granted by the bulk of the social population we all deal with on a daily basis. In that vein, I do not see a reason to specify them all the time unless we're pressing for specifics. So in that way... I am expanding "I rationally know that God as defined in Message 63 does not exist" to be "I know that God does not exist."...but I do not intend to remove those assumptions. I am just assuming we all know they are included because I have been talking about things in that way this whole time, as well as the fact that those are assumption we all make about "knowing things" and "God" when dealing with the general public on a daily basis anyway.That is, I do not see the need to state "I rationally know that God as defined in Message 63 does not exist" in the same way as I do not see the need to state "I rationally know my car as defined by my governmental registration exists in the parking lot" whenever I say "I know my car is in the parking lot."I will clarify those assumptions upon specific questions... but I see no reason to constantly include them (before or after clarification) as they are not constantly included when anyone talks about these sorts of things.

Well, that's pretty much the only problems I can see with your statement and we seem to have covered them pretty well.Have a nice day