I Know That God Does Not Exist

As I pointed out, that's how our justice system works. It's always a disinterested (objective) third person who decides. That's the rational way to settle disputes.

No, the third person does not forgive. The third person judges, arbitrates, sets the penalty, levies the fine.

hey man, i checked out your facebook page. you are a very eloquent man. i think charlie would like to talk to you on video. problem is he works too much, as do i. but i think we can eventually have a chat.your persona on here can be self-deprecating at times (perhaps my biases from the past talking here), but you seem like a really confident, put-together person, could've been a senator.anyway, let's work on getting there.this site is basically a greek chorus for the secular worldview, it's no wonder they can't find any creationists to talk to. we know a rigged game when we see one.

You are free to think whatever you like. That's exactly the intent here - as defined by the definition in the very first post.I've never attempted to do anything scientifically.
This entire argument is based around a simple analogy:"If I can say I know The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist,
then I can say I know God does not exist."This argument simply explains, in detail, each step in the process of that analogy. That's up to you.
Me - I like to do things I like to do.
If you do not agree on a subjective, personal level - that's fine with me.
Obviously the reasonable, rational, objective conclusion still stands:I know that God does not exist.

I do. Not a single one is reasonable, logical or rational.
Every single one has logical, rational holes. Appeals to popularity, attempts to put subjective feelings as valid grounds for objective conclusions... many, many different logical failures.
Every. Single. One.
Have you never heard any of the rebuttals? Most are also hundreds - some thousands - of years old.But please, if you think one stands to scrutiny - feel free to identify it. Phat's already spammed me with 5-10. Each one was a failure for a "reasonable, logical construct." If you don't think we've "begun the search for God..." then we haven't "begun the search" for anything at all. As we've been searching for God for thousands of years.The analogy stands:"If I can say I know The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist,
then I can say I know God does not exist."If you want to refuse saying "I know God does not exist" then you must also consistently refuse to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."I accept both of these.
Obviously - I think it's silly to refuse to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist."
And also, I refuse to allow someone to say they can allow one, but not the other and claim to be rational - as it does not align.

You are correct, I apologize.
I thought my implied context of "found nothing as far as evidence is concerned" was obvious. Pretend?
I don't think anyone's pretending.
I simply think many people like to say something is rational/reasonable/objective when it's clearly not.That's something almost all of us do for various subjects throughout our lives.
It's almost unavoidable being a human. A more applicable question would be whether a measurable percentage of those who claim to have been born again are any different from those who do not claim such a thing.Better health? Mentally or physically?
More wealth?
More happiness?
Better able to deal with stress?
Stronger?
Shorter tempers?
Better looking?
Any significant improvement at all?The answers so far highly imply: no.Hence: no evidence.

This is wonderful. I hope it works out for you.
What it isn't, though, is evidence that God exists. I think it depends on the subject.If we're talking about whether or not Sam murdered Dean - I think we should be scientifically certain before committing ourselves to belief at all.
Don't you?If we're talking about whether or not I love my wife - I think I should commit myself to the belief and screw any scientific reasoning.
Don't you?Since there are, obviously, different areas where one should apply "being scientifically certain" or "belief" - I find it important to understand the difference and when each should be applicable.
I think that anyone thinking either should "always" be employed is missing a great deal of life one way or another.That being said, I think that "knowing if God exists or not" is part of the "being scientifically certain" area - as it deals with a description of reality we live in. It does change the definition... for you, anyway.
Most people, however, do not think "Spirit" is only definable as "the Holy Spirit as described in the Christian religion."
In this sense... discussing the human spirit does not change the definition of Spirit at all.

In a scientific sense, discuss further your definition (and what you claim "most" people define) as spirit?

Why would I do that?I don't think there is a scientific definition for spirit.

There may or may not be forgiveness involved. (Ever hear of a suspended sentence?)You're grasping at straws. Why don't you just answer my question? What specifically is it that makes the idea of God irrational? What is the problem with the logic?

So you think it's okay to talk about massive holes? So you intend to be unscientific. We already have Faith to do that. It's just a circle. We don't need you to explain it in detail.

I don't understand the context of your question.In general, I see no reason why not - when a hole is extensively larger than normal circumstances of whatever-context it is. I intend to be rational and reasonable.
You can call that whatever you'd like.Your implications of rational and reasonable being useless are simply a nod that you attempt to colour things the way you want as opposed to the way they actually are. I didn't think I needed to either.
And yet... 1450+ posts later... we're still here.

The problem is that a hole is, by definition, a volume from which the mass has been removed. It has been de-massed. It is un-massive. You are being rational and reasonable, just like the idea of god can be rational and reasonable. You are also being irrelevant. Yes, 1450+ posts later, people are still showinh you how you're wrong. We have the same problem with Faith.

Oh, I answered that I while back, I think. Your response was to say that because some people find a rationale, nobody can say it's inherently irrational.But anyway.The old notions of a thunder god and such were shown to be irrational as our increasing knowledge showed the natural origins of lightning, volcanoes, comets, storms, etc. It's interesting to think that the newer notions of gods were plagued with questions like, "Why is the steeple (or minaret, etc) on a house of god so vulnerable to lightning strikes coming from heaven?"Now, what is the notion of a god (nowadays, in the West)? A god that rewards us with heaven after death (or punishes, as the case may be)? Interesting, but not falsifiable. A god that created the universe? Interesting, but again not falsifiable: if you say an intelligent being pushed the button that set off the Big Bang, there's no way to prove or disprove this. A god that parted the Red Sea, buried golden-inscribed plates near Palmyra, New York, brought back the dead, swamped the planet in a Noachian Flood, stopped the Sun in its tracks to help Joshua, cured leprosy...? All either obviously false (the worldwide flood is nonsense, geologically) or legends no more rational than those of Prometheus or Atlas.C. S. Lewis made an attempt at a rationale, in Mere Christianity, but it's merely talented sophistry incited by the hungriest will-to-believe I've ever encountered.

Well, of course, if some people find an elephant, you're wrong to say that elephants don't exist. No. For the umpteenth time, reasoning and logic can not be erased by knowledge. The conclusions based on the reasoning and logic can be overturned but that does not make the reasoning and logic invalid. Logic 101. An idea does not have to be falsifiable to be rational.