I Know That God Does Not Exist

I can understand a rational reason. What I cannot understand is the difference between a rational and irrational location. Please clarify.

Okay. We can say "we know keys do not exist on Table B."
Even though it's quite possible there could be special keys that are only detectable the way God is detectable sitting right on the table?I thought you said that changed things up?
So - which is it?Can we say "I know keys do not exist on Table B."
Or do we have to consider the irrational possibility that there could be special keys that are only detectable the way God is detectable?This isn't some special table.
This consideration would have to be considered for all tables in all time - as the possibility equally exists for all tables in all time.You don't seem to be able to give a clear answer to this simple concept.

In this case yes. Its an analogy. Lets say the peanut butter jar represents a place in your brain. Lets say that youdetermine to a large degree what information, sensations, experiences and memories get filed in your conscious brain. The one labled God is empty. You concluded this. But in order to find God, I would have to bypass your (and Stiles) conclusion and look elsewhere myself. Reason being the compartment marked "God" is always going to be empty in your brain. By conclusion. Seeing as how the universe is not framed by your personal conclusions, one would have to bypass your brain full of empty and full containers and examine other brains and other spaces outside of brains. Such as peanut butter jars.(hint: God jars) One can look for Santa Claus in a Christmas jar, a North Pole jar, a chimney jar and so on. One would have a harder time with God since God by definition is never limited to a jar (a box) in the first place.

Rational locations:
-my house
-a specific address that actually exists
-a place we know exists but haven't been to (mars, venus...)
-a place we don't know exists, but have evidence that it might exist (an as-yet undiscovered planet)Irrational location:
-north of the north pole.
-a specific address that doesn't actually exist
-a place we have no evidence to suggest that that it even might exist (a dimension where magic such as Harry Potter uses is viable)Does that help?

As long as we're looking for ordinary keys - specific ordinary keys - why should we be concerned about special keys? We can say, "I know that the keys I am looking for are not on Table B." But how can we know there is no God in the dark matter when we don't know how to detect God or how to detect dark matter?

The problem is... what constitutes "normal" keys?
Why are "keys that can only be detectable the way God is detectable" not normal?Is it because Stile called them special?
This is a terrible way to determine what normal keys are.
What if I change my mind?

OK, lets switch it up.
Let's say we have two tables.
Table 1: Has a set of (invisible)keys on it.
Table 2: Does not have a set of keys on it, there is nothing on it.Given that you *know* there are two possible answers, namely keys or no keys and that only one table has keys, can you even label which table is one and which table is two?To invoke the appeal to popularity, lets say that out of 6 billion people, 4 billion claim to know that invisible keys exist and yet also claim that it is a matter of subjective knowing and not objective knowing. What do you do with that problem? Lets say that they know because they have used such a set of invisible keys before to unlock some of their problems.

The ones you're looking for, car keys, house keys, etc. Do you have any?

Substitute the word "places" for "tables. If God by definition is omnipresent, he is in all places at the same time...or none of them...depending on His whim. One key to finding Him is to get to know Who and What you are looking for. This involves some sort of special circumstance. God is not a box, a set of keys, a monster, or anything other than perhaps a person.(Jesus Christ) So its a bit like Waldo. Is Waldo in China? In fact its even deeper. As ringo suggests, the dark matter has not yet been perused.

Yes, but not totally. Take your irrational example:

a place we have no evidence to suggest that that it even might exist (a dimension where magic such as Harry Potter uses is viable) The place does exist in the imagination of the author. Do we have any rational reason why there is no such thing(person,Deity, whatever) that is the author of the universe?

​

I would suggest that in order to be rational in the first place, God must exist in your imagination at the very minimum. Perhaps some people have less of an imagination than others. Sara cant seem to even fill in ringos blanks. (so far)

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

Do you even know what falsifiability means? It means capable of being tested by experiment or observation. It refers to an hypothesis or, more generally, to any statement. The statement, "Zeus stands on Olympus and throws lightning bolts" is falsifiable. The statement, "A supreme being created the Big Bang about fourteen billion years ago and then went away" is not falsifiable.

Well no, the compartment marked "god" may well some day be filled, if someone comes up with a reason to think that there is a deity.It's not like 1+1=2 which is pointless to look for evidence to debate the truth or falsity of.It's just that, so far, there appear to be no reasons to think there is a deity and many reasons to think there isn't.Like unicorns. Maybe they do exist. But I don't think so.

Oh, I was only talking about the contents (or lack thereof) of that jar.I'm willing to stipulate there is peanut butter somewhere. I have some in my pantry right now, in fact.

You're not giving me much to go on, here, but I'll try.An astrologer writing a column for a tabloid newspaper was eventually fired from that newspaper, the letter of termination beginning, "As you will no doubt have foreseen..."We don't give credence to belief in a deity for the same reason we don't give credence to horoscopes. Rationally, it makes no sense. Why should I expect two babies born within minutes of each other at the same hospital to have the same future? What reason do I have to believe someone who tells me what is going to happen after I'm dead, especially when all the other things they've said, such as a worldwide flood that wiped out everyone except Noah and a handful of others, turn out to be counter to the physical evidence? Rational thought leads to the conclusion that belief in a deity is irrational.

I really think this poor dead horse has been beaten enough.