I Know That God Does Not Exist

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.

I didn't say that because billions of people believe something so it must be true, I said that billions of people claim to have personal experience of god which they claim as evidence. I don't think it is but dismissing it out of hand is not rational. Of course there is; there are several perfectly respectable philosophical arguments that conclude the existence of a god - you (and I) say that they are wrong and have a different set of arguments. It doesn't disprove them and it certainly doesn't make them irrational.According to your position, if there are reasonable arguments for a hypothesis, then it's reasonable to have one.

This is, actually, what's wrong.If you go down this route - then we are unable to ever know anything.
Because there's always a premise that anything we "think" we know - we actually do not.
If "having a premise" is enough to raise rational, reasonable doubt - then we can't know anything.But - we do know things, don't we?
And, we also know negative things like "banana keys do not exist," don't we?This is because "a premise" is not enough.
It needs to be a valid premise - there needs to be evidence behind it. You are right.
And I didn't say "I know banana keys will never be invented or ever known to exist in the future at any point."I said "I know banana keys do not exist."
-which includes, as all knowledge does, an understood qualifier that this is based on current information and future information may adjust the statement.All you have to do is actually show me evidence of a lock that actually uses a banana as a key.
Do that - and I will retract my statement and I will no longer say "I know that banana keys do not exist."
But - don't do that... and I'll continue to be valid in saying that such things don't exist.Just like with 11 dimensional math.
I cannot say "I know that 11 dimensions do not exist in our universe."
We really don't know either way - but there is evidence suggesting it's possible - so I can't say it.Just like with God.
I'm currently valid in saying "I know that God does not exist."
Just show the evidence that leads to the contrary (it does not have to be 100% conclusive... it only needs to be valid evidence that suggests the contrary is actually possible.)
Do that - and I will retract my statement.
But - don't do that... and I'll continue to be valid in saying "I know that God does not exist." The "idea of the possibility of them existing" has nothing to do with it.
It's the rational reasoning that we have evidence that they might, possibly, exist.I can say "I know there is no planet in our universe that is 100% covered in asphalt roads."
It is certainly possible to have such a thing. It may take a few decades/hundreds of years.. but, with enough people such a feat could be done here, even.But, there's no evidence that such an endeavor is complete, or even attempted to do so.
In fact, there's evidence that implies such endeavors should be avoided (we would die without any natural vegetation or resources.)Therefore, without evidence to suggest that the idea *might* even exist in the first place: I can say "I know that there is no planet in our universe that is 100% covered in asphalt roads."Is it correct for all time in the future?
This is irrelevant. Just as all knowledge includes this caveat.But it is rational and reasonable to state such a conclusion due to the information we currently have.
Until, of course, evidence does come along to suggest it is being done (or was already done.)

Let me further explain.Yes - you are correct that simply "dismissing this out of hand" is not rational.But that's not what I'm doing.
We do not live in a vacuum of information (you've used this argument yourself, I believe?).
It is, actually, a rational possibility. Until, of course, we look for God. Which we have. And we see that every single one of these people who's personal experience leads them to claim that God exists in a rational, reasonable place - they're incorrect. We find no evidence that God actually exists in that place. For thousands of years. Therefore, we now have a pattern, and it is rational to follow that pattern.With this information (which does exist, and you and I are both aware of it) - the claim to popularity certainly can be, rationally, "dismissed out of hand." In fact - it would be irrational not to do so. You would have to ignore the evidence we already have that God does not exist. Name your best one.
Let's look at it.
If I cannot equally apply the same argument to suggest that other Gods might exist (like the FSM) or that banana keys or crab chairs might also exist... then I will accept that you are correct.Of course, if I can do that... if there's no difference between the support for God and the support for the FSM or banana keys or crab chairs... then I expect for you to accept that I am correct.But please stop claiming you can do it... just do it already.
If the first one doesn't work out, you're free to find another - even. There is no time limit when evidence can be provided to show me to be wrong. Right.
"Reasonable" doesn't mean "some people may find it nice to attribute results to this explanation rather than any others."
"Reasonable" means "something implies that this particular explanation should be accepted above any others."Does that seem rational to you?

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.

At least we are moving forward instead of repeating and talking past each other.
Let's try to get even more clarity on our disagreement.I understand that you do not want to say "I know that banana keys do not exist."Before I get further into that... is there anything you are aware of where you would definitely say "I know that ________ does not exist?"Anything at all?
Contradictory ideas like square-circles?
Clearly made up ideas (and against current evidence, this case evolutionary evidence) like ManBearPigs?
An idea of your own example?

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.

Then this is our main difference.If you can't know a negative (in the context of things existing) - then I fully understand why you don't agree with this argument.
Although it has nothing to do with "God" or whatever the subject may be - it's all subjects in knowing a negative's existence.
I accept this critic.I don't think it changes the argument, because the argument already describes how we "know things" - including negative concerning existence.
If you don't agree with how we "know things" - then obviously you will not agree with the argument.If you refuse to accept the following examples:I know that unicorns do not exist.
I know that leprechauns do not exist.
I know that chimeras do not exist.
I know that ManBearPig does not exist.
I know that Thor/Zeus/Ra does not exist.Then, I would agree that it is consistent to also not accept:I know that God does not exist.However, if you do accept "knowing" that any of the above examples do not exist... then my argument does consistently follow to say that you can equally also know that God does not exist.Would you agree to that?Now - how to identify which usage of the word "know" is more common amongst the population?
I would assume that my usage is more common - I would assume that most people have no problems saying that they know unicorns/Zeus/ManBearPig all do not exist. I don't think it would be common for people to say "I don't know such things - because I don't think any negatives in the context of things existing can be known."
Although I agree it is a valid position, I'm just saying I think it's "less common."Remember - this all started from Message 980 where you accused me of "But you're just rigging the game so you can't lose."If I'm the one using the normal, most-people-use-it definition of the word "know" and you're the one using a more-rare (but not "wrong") definition... I kindly ask you to retract your accusation that I am "rigging the game so I can't lose."I am not rigging the game that people *must* use my definition.
I am only saying that *if* they use it - then knowing that God does not exist is a consistent, rational conclusion as well.
And, I'm claiming that "my definition" is, at a minimum, well within common-usage of how people use the word "know" for things in current first-world-level society.I am not claiming that all people must use the word "know" this way all the time.

You can not possibly know that because you would have to be a god to know every possibility of what exist and thus defeat your own premise. The many worlds theory is a theory in QM because it reconciles how a wave function can simultaneously be every possible event and then when observed/measured it is actualized.
Some theist believe god is this self manifested universal observer. Not saying this is correct it is but one belief.If there are trillions of other universes, some possibly with different laws of physics who are you to say what could be there despite your arguments from incredulity.

All knowledge includes the acknowledgment that it is "based on the available information."Your dissent, again, is irrelavent. Right - and there's math that provides evidence for this, yes? Correct - it's a belief with no evidence, yes?
Unless you can provide some? My arguments are not based on incredulity.
My arguments are based on the same thing all our knowledge is based on - the information we have available to us.
I completely agree that our extremely limited amount of information is not "complete" in any way.
And yet - we do use this information to "know" things. Fully incorporating the idea that future contradictory information may alter what we "know."None of this changes that I know that God does not exist.

I wanted to add something to this in order to make my position clear.My previous answer:

quote:

---

My arguments are not based on incredulity.
My arguments are based on the same thing all our knowledge is based on - the information we have available to us.
I completely agree that our extremely limited amount of information is not "complete" in any way.
And yet - we do use this information to "know" things. Fully incorporating the idea that future contradictory information may alter what we "know."

---

I wanted to note an example of what may be "information" to get me to change my stance:1. If there's any evidence that any of these multiple universes actually do exist beyond there being "just math" to support their possible existence.
2. In this newly found universe there is evidence that some things obey "different laws of physics" than how things are done here.This would, in theory, throw all our current conclusions about God out the window.
We would be back to "Hey - that sun is powerful - maybe God exists there?"At least for a while.
Then, maybe we sort through all these new physics and find that although they are different - things still always have an evidence-based reason for being what they are. This would revert back to "I know that God does not exist" until evidence was found to the contrary.I hope that adds some clarification on how "knowing things according to the available information" works.

I will respectfully disagree. At the risk of using the appeal to popularity. The other candidates simply don't get the attention. And why do my posts evoke emotions in you? You know what....I think that you lie to yourself and others when you claim that evidence would change your mind. Your mind is made up. And you are effectively challenging God Himself to prove you wrong. But its a free country and a science forum so I'll leave you alone with your topic.

No. I was wrong in stating Multiverse is a theory. It is known as the "Many Worlds interpretation." It is a Hypothesis.Your reasoning to dismissing something based on lack of evidence makes sense but that does not mean it does not exist. It just means you have not found it yet or may never find it. You want to equivocate God to Crabchairs in order to draw your conclusions. But they are not the same thing, at least to some people. If you do not agree then you will go on to draw those same conclusions. Others, including atheist do not put crabchairs and God in the same column due to, for example, the historicity associated with the concept of God. It is as simple as that a disagreement on whether god belongs on the list of things that can be dismissed outright. *Dismissed insofar as to say one KNOWS it does not exist.Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.