I Know That God Does Not Exist

No.
But I don't see how this applies to anything, either. Can you explain? I look for any way to rationally test for invisible keys.
For thousands of years.
If no method is ever applicable - then I can say that invisible keys do not exist. Despite 4 billion irrationally claiming to the contrary.Rationality is not a popularity contest. If this results in a rational test - then I would not be able to say "I know that invisible keys do not exist."
If this does not result in a rational test - if there are other rational items that can also "unlock some of their problems" just as well, then I can continue to dismiss the irrational claims and say "I know that invisible keys do not exist."

Ah, you're letting me define it? Great."Normal keys" are keys that can be rationally tested to exist. Car-keys, house keys, etc... are all rationally known keys.Do you agree?
Or would you like to use another method to define "normal keys?"Hint: If you use my method, it leads directly into my argument.
If you do not want to fall directly into my argument, please supply your alternative method for identifying "normal" keys. Of course not. I know they don't exist.
It's you who seems to have trouble saying they don't exist. This is why you need to identify what "normal" keys are.Edited by Stile, : Correcting quote formatting

Both "tables" or "places," in the context of this sentence, are equally irrational as neither has an evidence that they even might exist in the first place. I think a key to finding Him is for him to exist. If you have a rational reason to suggest that God may actually exist behind dark matter... that God may actually be more than just your imagination, please present it. It will prevent me from being able to say "I know that God does not exist."

I agree.
The problem is that "existing in anyone's imagination" is not enough to rationally claim that God may exist.
We both have many, many things that exist in our imagination that do not actually exist - unless you've never been wrong about anything before?Therefore, yes, this is required "at a very minimum" but it also does not reach a "high enough" standard to make an impact yet.

Personally, I find it fascinating But I understand it's highly likely to be very repetitive and not-very-entertaining for anyone else.

You're the one who brought it up. I've been telling you that rationality does not depend on evidence and you still bring up falsifiability. How? But is the idea that a supreme being created the Big Bang about fourteen billion years ago and then went away irrational? If so, fill in the blanks.

It's the same with God. If you haven't found Him where you have looked, He may still be somewhere else.

It seems pretty simple to me: What are the logical errors in the idea of God? But many of us do give credence to the idea, so giving credence can not be a useful criterion. We're not talking about reasons to believe. We're talking about logical errors. They're pretty well defined. If there are any logical errors in the idea of God, point them out. 1. Rational thought does not necessarily produce correct conclusions.
2. We are not talking about belief.You clearly haven't thought this through at all.

I said it right there where you quoted me. But I did define normal keys. You quoted me. But you don't know. You claimed that banana keys are irrational and you were wrong about that. Banana keys could certainly exist. But I did define normal keys. You quoted me.

And I agreed.You said "the one's you're looking for."
And I said "that's rationally-tested-for keys - just like everything else we look for."
...which is my argument.Wouldn't it be irrational to look for something that cannot be rationally tested? How would you ever look for it? It's a logical contradiction. I did not claim that banana keys are irrational in this sense.
We've been over this.
The idea of banana keys is rational in and of itself: you could build keys out of bananas.
However, the idea that banana keys actually exist is irrational: there is no evidence that suggests banana keys exist. Therefore, thinking they exist without evidence that they exist is a logical contradiction - it's irrational.We have evidence to suggest that banana keys do not exist:
-we have never seen them
-keys need to be sturdy in order to turn locks, bananas are not sturdyThis doesn't make it impossible that banana keys could exist. It just makes it irrational to think they do without further evidence.Just show evidence that banana keys actually exist (a picture of them) or evidence that banana keys might exist (perhaps evidence of a banana lock, or evidence of a manufacturer/creator of banana keys.)Anything like that would do.
Without any of that, however, the idea that banana keys actually exist is irrational - and I can rationally say: I know that banana keys do not exist.You keep mixing up context and attempting to force it in a way that doesn't align.
It's starting to appear dishonest with the amount of times you've done it.

Well, you claim you've been looking for God. You tell us how you've been doing it.

Just like everything else.When the-way-to-detect-keys is rational, we check it. For the last few hundred years, we have been able to create and use these "normal keys."
This rational testing gives us a conclusion that keys exist.
When the-way-to-detect-keys is irrational, we rightfully ignore it.
Even though it's rational to have the idea of keys-that-are-only-detectable-the-way-God-is-detectable, there is no rational reason to suggest that such keys actually exist.
Therefore, I can say "there are no keys on the empty table" even though there is a 'rational idea' about keys existing that I would not be able to see on the empty table.
I can also say "I know that keys-that-are-only-detectable-the-way-God-is-detectable do not exist." Because any opposition doesn't have a rational connection to reality.You seem to accept this for keys.When the-way-to-detect-God is rational, we check it. For thousands of years, this has come up with no evidence of God.
This rational testing gives us a conclusion that God does not exist.
When the-way-to-detect-God is irrational, we rightfully ignore it.
Even though it's rational to have the idea of a-God-that-is-only-detectable-behind-Dark-Matter-that-we-haven't-identified-yet, there is no rational reason to suggest that God actually exists there.
Therefore, I can say "I know that God does not exist." Because any opposition doesn't have a rational connection to reality.You don't seem to accept this for God.Even though it's the same, consistent process of obtaining knowledge.
Please note: "keys" are not analogous to "God" here... because there is evidence that keys exist. There is no evidence that God exists.
It is the idea of "keys-that-are-only-detectable-the-way-God-is-detectable" that is analogous to God. Since both have no evidence of their existence.If you are unable to accept "I know that God does not exist."
Then, to remain consistent, you must also be unable to accept "I know that keys-that-are-only-detectable-the-way-God-is-detectable do not exist."
And if you can't say that... then you can no longer say "I know there are no keys on the empty table."
Which is the absurdity your position falls into.Edited by Stile, : Changed "Table B" to "empty table" as this is what it refers to anyway. Cleaned up grammars.

You're not making any sense. You admitted that you haven't really been looking for God at all. Well, you wouldn't know that, would you? Because you haven't been looking.

I said the statement, "Zeus stands on Olympus and throws lightning bolts" is falsifiable and you asked, "How?"Do you mean to tell me you can't think of a single way to check whether or not that statement is true? How about this: go up on top of the mountain, wait for a thunderstorm and look around. That's what falsifiability means.People make statements and hypotheses about many things. That's the way we think. We consider propositions like, "A minimum wage increases unemployment," or, "Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects," or, "Cigarettes cause lung disease," or, "Stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria," or, "The Earth is round." Then we try to determine whether or not those statements are false. That is part of reasoning. We don't denigrate people for making incorrect statements, provided they are falsifiable and provided people are willing to test them. That is reasonable and rational.What is irrational is to try to work with unfalsifiable hypotheses. Here are some examples of the unfalsifiable:Whenever I say, "Open!", as the elevator reaches the designated floor, it causes the doors to open. Whenever I don't say, "Open!", the elevator doors open of their own accord.Criticism of you is a form of persecution. Criticism of this fact is proof you are being persecuted.You are identical to a conscious human in all measurable ways, but you are not actually conscious. You only think you are.Our reality is just a complex computer simulation.If these are examples of your thinking, you are being irrational. If your thinking involves statements such as, "A supreme being created the Big Bang about fourteen billion years ago and then went away," then your ideas are not rational.

How would that falsify Zeus? That's like going to Africa and looking around to falsify elephants. You might see one or you might not. Not at all. Science may be limited to falsifiable premises. Free thought is not. I'd be more impressed by that statement if you knew what rational meant. But you keep equivocating rational with falsifiable, etc.