I Know That God Does Not Exist

You keep giving the reasons that you discount the evidence, which simply makes the point that the Gospels are evidence or you wouldn't have anything to discount.

I also discount the fact of martians. Does that mean there are martians or I wouldn't have them to discount?

GDR said you were discounting the "evidence" but you've changed the subject to say you are discounting Martians rather than the evidence for Martians. IS there any evidence for Martians?

I don't think science is as limited as you suggest. Right. Even if we can't detect what this "nonphysical mind" is you're speaking of - we can certainly detect it's effects. Therefore, we can know that it exists. The means would be the same as the means to detect the nonphysical mind - detect the effects. If there are no effects or "no effects that are not otherwise already explained," then such tests would indicate that there's no God.

Of course not - I fully agree.
It is, however, irrational to consider "a consensus" being more important than looking at the facts when doing a rational analysis. And I'm saying that if vast portions of the human race look for people breathing for thousands of years - and we never, ever see anyone breathing, regardless of what controls or tests we try - then this would means that nobody breathes. I understand this is what you've been attempting to say.
What you've been unable to do - is explain why this should be considered in a serious discussion.All you've done is proven over and over that "positive" and "negative" conclusions are both based on "objective observations according to our current information" and they both include the same level of doubt that something different may be found "outside our current information."If you have an actual, rational reason why they should be considered differently - please go ahead and explain it. Why? If we've looked for cars everywhere, for thousands of years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that one even might possibly exist in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?Just as if we see ringo-bake-cakes, for tens-of-years, and never ever been able to find any rational hint that ringo-actually-cannot-bake-cakes in reality - why is it unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion to all places and all times as a tentative conclusion?Exact.
Same.
Process. We've been over this.
Of course there was.
Pre-cursors to all those things existed in one form or another prior to finding those specific items. For first-time-finding-things (of which none of your above examples qualify, but still, you do have a point here...) - you are correct.Of course, if you understand my argument, this isn't a problem:
I don't use "rational indicators" as a reason for looking or not looking.
I have no problem with people irrationally looking for things. Almost all irrational searches turn up fruitless - but some of them turn up incredibly new and previously-unknown discoveries.I do, however, use "rational indicators" as a reason to say we rationally know something or not - why would I? Exactly. No connection between imagination and reality.
Just like your "explanation" that we might find God beyond our currently available information.
There's no connection between imagination and reality - you have nothing but popular conspiracy theories to suggest it. The fact that God does not exist is as testable as the fact of evolution or the fact of a round earth.
All of our objective observations within our currently-available information support the fact.
There is no connection between imagination and reality to suggest that anything outside our currently-available-information will lead to anything different. Only conspiracy theories.Granted - the conspiracy theories for God existing outside our currently-available-information are much more popular than those saying evolution is wrong or our earth is not round.
But - in the context of a rational analysis, this popularity is irrelevant and we should be looking at what the facts say. Before the NWP? Nope - evidence of water passages existed at that time. Therefore, not like God at all.
Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found? - Yes, you're absolutely right - but this only supports my argument and goes against yours.Knowledge is not absolute. Knowledge is based on our currently-available-information.
"Before any evidence for any water passage was ever found" - then, obviously, based on the currently-available information - water passages did not exist. Proven wrong when evidence of water passages was found. Find evidence of God - and you'll overturn my currently-valid-according-to-our-available-information conclusion. Without that - my conclusion stands:I know that God does not exist.

I can't do better than Faith's reply.

You're kinda arguing against yourself here. I'm saying you don't "know" something doesn't exist until you've looked in every reasonable place that it might be. If what you say is right, we should only have to look in one place to confirm that an omnipresent God does not exist. In the case of an omnipresent God, Stile is right - He isn't sitting on my couch so He can't possibly exist.But I've been giving a little more leeway to the concept of God. If He is not omnipresent, then we have to cover all the bases.Of course, there is still the problem of detectability. If we do not have the apparatus to detect Him - like we do not have the apparatus to examine dark matter - then we have to say that "according to our available information" we can not know whether or not He exists.We can surmise that dark matter exists based on how it affects the rest of the universe - and you and many others surmise that God exists based on how He affects the rest of the universe. Same thing, equally rational.

Northwest Passage. It was all null results until it wasn't. The search was "in progress" as long as there were places that had not been searched. It was premature to say, "We know there is no Northwest Passage," until every reasonable possibility had been tested.

"The facts" depend on consensus. If the observation can not be confirmed - i.e. if there is no consensus about the authenticity of the observation - it is not a fact. That's a useless "what if". The fact is that the vast majority of the human race have seen people breathing (have "discovered God" in one way or another). It's a small minority who have failed to see anybody breathing (failed to discover god in any way). Failure does not nullify success. Obviously wrong. For everything that we have discovered, there was a first time. It was wrong to say we knew fire didn't exist before we ever encountered fire. It was wrong to say we knew water passages didn't exist before we encountered water passages. Indeed it is. And it is wrong to say you know the earth is flat until you've been outside your own backyard. You need to do the test before you "know" the result. The non-existence of God is a hypothesis, not knowledge, until the results of the testing are in. Stop it. There was a time when there was no knowledge of water passages.

That's the rational analysis I'm describing - yes - rational analysis should be a consensus based on facts.
You keep bringing up "consensus" that is not based on facts (billions of people concluding that God exists) and acting as if it should be seriously considered because it's a large consensus.There's a difference. No one has a rational observation that can be used as a basis to provide consensus to conclude they have "discovered God."All you have is a consensus not-at-all-based-on-objective-observations-or-facts. Which is irrelevant to a rational analysis. 100% of all people who have done a rational analysis based on objective observations all agree to the consensus of not finding God according to those objective observations.
This "small minority" you mention is irrelevant to a rational analysis.
The group I mention - the one relevant to a rational analysis - is also billions strong. Yes - wrong about reality.
But no - not wrong about "being valid to say according to a rational analysis of their currently-available information at the time."Since knowledge is "a rational analysis according to currently available information..." take a wild guess as to which one is relevant.Feel free to explain why it's wrong to say "I know fire doesn't exist according to our currently available information" when you have never encountered fire.
This aught to be fun...You're implying a level of absoluteness to "knowledge" again that doesn't exist.
Do you think knowledge is absolute? If so - we can go back to that discussion where you run around in circles for a few days before admitting that it's not.
If not - stop this argument, because it depends on knowledge being considered as an absolute. And I addressed that - which you conveniently forgot to quote. It was the very next line.
Stop being disingenuous, ringo.
Your tactics are unraveling.

You claim it is not based on facts. That is your claim. That's the "No True Rational Analysis" fallacy. Not knowing is not the same as knowing. You keep equivocating "I do not know A" with "I know (not A)". Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.

That's right - I claim that those who say "I know God exists" are not doing so based on facts.
And the second someone presents a fact that contradicts my claim - I will change my argument.
Just like any other rational argument against irrational claims of consensus.We usually see a few thousand cranks with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. We just ignore them because they never present any facts.
For God's existence... we see a few billion people with a "consensus" that's not based on facts. I just ignore them because they never present any facts.Either one - show any fact (rational objective observation) that actually supports them - and I'll change my position.
Anything else - is more driven by emotion than rationality. Heh.. that's funny. Now you're blaming me for what you're doing?
You're the one equivocating my claim of "I know (not A)" with a claim of "I do not know A."
There are thousands of years of human history of people searching for God. The rational, based-on-objective-observations conclusion of that search is "God does not exist."
I know (not A.) Because the search has happened.
Not I do not know A. Because the search hasn't happened.If the search hasn't happened for God - then it hasn't happened for anything as we've searched for God more than any other single idea in the history of mankind. If this search is still ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion, then the search for everything else must also still be ongoing and we cannot trust the current conclusion - and now you can't say "I know ringo can bake a cake" anymore.You don't get to take your error and just call it mine.
You're the one who keeps appealing to popularity instead of facts for a rational analysis.
You're the one who keeps implying knowledge-must-be-absolute when you've already agreed over and over and over that it's not.
You're the one being vague, inconsistent, irrational and confused.I'm the one being detailed and specific.But you're free to try and continue - the pattern so far shows that you'll only strengthen my argument further. So, please, continue.

And your claim that you "know" God does not exist is based on lack of facts. I'm saying you don't know A. You're saying you know (not A). But the search is not finished. You're saying you know the Northwest Passage does not exist the day before it's discovered. You're saying you know your keys don't exist when you've only looked on the kitchen table. You do not know one way or the other - A or (not A) - until the search is finished. The search for God has begun but is not finished. As long as the search is ongoing, there is no "current conclusion". There is no "knowledge" one way or the other. There is only speculation. No. The search for the Northwest Passage is not ongoing. It was finished when we found the Northwest Passage.

It is based on objective observations from our current information.
Just as "I know ringo can bake a cake" is based on objective observations from our current information.If "I know God does not exist" has a "lack of facts" - from whatever is outside our "current information"....
Then so does "I know ringo can bake a cake" - because it, too, has an equal amount of lack-of-facts beyond our "current information."Be consistent. Exactly.
And we can know (not A) about things.
That's how we know we can turn left - there are no cars coming.
That's how we know God does not exist - there are no Gods in any of our available information. All of it. Oh? What objective information within our current information shows God exists? That's right - none.
The search is finished - within our current information.Of course - if you want to go beyond our current information, that's unreasonable - we don't do this for "knowing ringo can bake cakes" either.Either take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods and cakes - in which case we can't know either (or anything at all, for that matter.)
Or consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for Gods and cakes - which is rational and consistent.Most people consider "beyond our current information" to be "beyond reasonable doubt" for cakes - because it's rational and practical.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.Most people take into account "beyond our current information" for Gods - but this is irrational, it's only done out of reasons of popularity, culture, tradition or personal desire. All of which are irrational when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.
Because there's no link from imagination-to-reality that suggests finding such a doubt is actually reasonable. The imaginations exist. But no link to reality.
Therefore, it would be irrational to consider them in a rational analysis.It's your choice.
Either accept you're being irrational and inconsistent to side with popularity.
Or be consistent - and accept my argument. It's only over if you limit the search to "our currently available information."
If the search goes beyond our currently available information - then the search is still ongoing. We could identify something that tells us that we actually have not found the NWP - we only thought we did.So - which is it?Do you want to be consistent and apply a rational analysis the same way for all things - and agree with me?
Or do you want to be inconsistent for reasons of "popularity" - and therefore be irrational when considering a rational analysis for "I know that God does not exist?"Your call.You can no longer hide by being vague about what you're referring to.
You flip-flop between "within our current information" and "extending beyond our current information" when talking about cakes/NWPs or God.

Are you basically rejecting an argument from popularity as akin to dismissing the idea that some of *us* have found God within our available information(within our own subjectivity) or are you declaring that all believers are mistaken in their claim that God exists? There are just some things we *know* (or even believe) that can't simply be trotted out as objective facts for others to examine. If it were so, everyone would have the same belief based on the objectivity of the community at large. As I think about it, it's odd (and a bit brilliant) that you presented this argument. You took an atheist position(based on the fact that atheists are a clear minority) and made it the default position...thus eliminating the majority position as being valid in any way. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.