I Know That God Does Not Exist

No, I am not saying anything about truth. We are talking about rationality. It's not about what you consider valid. It's about whether I have a reasoned position. Nonsense. But nothing to do with what I am saying. I am not talking about anything relative, so you fail. Is that what she's saying? If it is, she's as wrong as you are. But that is not an issue that I am discussing with her or anybody else in this thread. Nope. All I'm saying is that if I have a rationale, I am not irrational. Well, it's a debate forum. That's why we're here. Stop it.

This is not Family Feud. "Good answer! Good answer!" is not a productive response here. So yes, if there is something wrong in somebody's post that needs pointing out, I'm going to point it out. When have your answers ever been correct? I have listened to God as much as you have. Stop lying. The scientific method requires peers to point out the errors that their peers make. It's better to disagree than to blindly take sides.

We're talking about whether the idea of God is inherently irrational. If it is rational to somebody, it is not inherently irrational.

That's where you're wrong. The reasoning/logic only needs a premise that God could exist. If that is the premise, then the reasoning can lead to the conclusion that God does exist. To get a "good" conclusion, you need true premises and valid reasoning - but you can also have valid reasoning from false premises.

That's a poor example. There is no reason why we couldn't devise a lock that uses a banana as a key. There is no reason why we couldn't build a chair out of crabs (dead ones would be more practical). As long as there is a possibility of them existing, the idea is not irrational.

Correct. Everything is tentative.Which is why we should only use the word "know" for something that we can demonstrate, like, "I know how to bake a cake." No, we don't know that. We opine that banana keys might not be very practical but the word "know" does not belong there. No. The validity of the reasoning does not depend on valid premises. Only the validity of the conclusion depends on valid premises (and valid reasoning). That would make the definition of "know" much too braod. I could say that I "know" there is nobody in Antarctica named "Pepe" - because I don't know of anybody in Antarctica named Pepe. That conclusion might be highly probably but it is still wrong to say I "know" it. No I don't. All I have to do is describe how it might be done.

As I have been saying, I don't think "know" should be used in the sense of "knowing" a negative. I certainly don't know if such a thing could exist. In some set of dimensions, maybe. A lot of things are "made up" that could be real.

I couldn't care less which usage is more common among the population. The most common adjective among the population is "massive" but I don't think it should be used at EvC to apply to holes. No, I underline my accusation. You're using a colloquial definition to try to overrule a scientific definition. That's especially objectionable. "Massive holes" is also common usage. Don't use it here.

That's right. It's not a popularity contest. In fact, judging rationality by popularity would be a logical fallacy. It only takes one rationale to make an idea rational.

That would be the opposite of a popularity contest, dear. You're still confusing rational with correct. Og can be 100% wrong in his conculsion but that doesn't make the idea irrational. And Og can change his mind about the conclusion without making the idea irrational.The rationality of the argument is separate from the truth of the premises and the correctness of the conclusion. It disturbs me that you and Stile don't understand that.

Once a rationale is put out there, you can't just make it go away. It still exists and it's still rational even if the originator doesn't like it any more.

You still making the same mistake. Their conclusions are irrelevant.Whether people in the past made correct or incorrect conclusions has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with whether their ideas were rational.For a conclusion to be true, the premises have to be true and the reasoning has to be valid. If the conclusions in the past were incorrect, it could be because their premises were untrue. It does not, definitely not have to be because their reasoning was irrational.That's Logic 101. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

The standards of rationality do not change. The reasoning does not go away over time. The premises that they thought were true might turn out to be false; that is the only way that we can determine that their conclusions were false.You're still making the same mistake of confusing the premises with the reasoning. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating the same wrong assertion over and over.

"Inherently" means naturally, fundamentally, permanently, built-in, etc. What do you think it means? And what is there, specifically, about the idea of God that makes it inherently irrational?

I would say that your made-up god is more irrational than some because it isn't consistent. You can't make up your mind whether only a few will accept him or whether everybody will get chances to escape Hell. You scoff at the Book and you scoff at what he taught. If he was communing with you, you should know better than that.