Sansdiety, my mischief making may have splashed stuff on me. While I too am certain I will die and uncertain when, my attempts to design an experiment that will prove the existence of certainty or uncertainty have so far failed.
- - -
In your second point ("The fact that...."), you fell into a trap the supporters of Intelligent Design creationism fall into when they are in court. They try to prove their case by saying the lack of evidence [of an event in evolution] is evidence of a lack [of that event]. The attorneys for evolution take them apart.
- - -
I regularly tell believers they have an awesome burden of proof, and that books written centuries ago by people who knew less than today's grade school children are not proof.
btw, I like your screen name.
Books that argue for the existence of gods are definitely subjective.
The most sensible answer is by Sansdeity.
99.99% there is no god, and the other 0.1% is highly skeptical
I always fail to undrestand why anybody retains that 0.001% doubt? Why that small doubt can not be answered? I think that those who come so close to total atheism should make a litttle more mental effort and brcome 100% atheiets.
It's because some atheists are so married to logic that they almost treat it as a religion itself in that it becomes very dogmatic.
Using strict rules of logic, it says no one can be 100% certain of anything. So going by this, some atheists who extoll the virtues of logic, maintain their 99.9% position. For the sole purpose of adhering to the laws of logic.
Where their marriage to logic shows it's cracks is that such a stance creates a slippery slope. If one lives their life in that 99.9% on the basis of not being able to know anything 100%, then they also have to maintain a 99.9% stance to everything: unicorns, leprechauns, cyclops, mermaids, fairies, pixies, zombies, vampires, etc.
However, ask one of these folks if they are 100% sure that unicorns do not exist and they will most likely agree. So how can they maintain 100% certainty for the non-existence of unicorns but not for the existence of gods? The same amount of evidence exists for both: books written about them.
And what's interesting is that this position usually comes up as a result of being asked by a theist. So these atheists will claim a 99.9% stance yet the theists asking these questions often hold a 100% certainty stance about the non-existence of every other god but their own. In an effort to be in such accordance with the rules of logic, the theists certainity goes unchallenged.
Your answers are always admirable for their logic. This one is no exception. I wish that those who are willing to do away with their uncertainity should take your advise and end it once and for all.
I do not believe in a creator of any kind. I'll refer to this creator as "god."
My problem with 100%... (maybe just semantics?)
Something DOES prevent me from saying "I am 100% certain that there is no god." I think it has to do with measuring knowledge or feelings and beliefs using fractions. Theists claim to know, with 100% certainty, that there is a god.
I see it as either you believe or you don't believe. I just don't see how one can then apply a percentage to quantify their strength in their belief. I can't say that I am 99.9% certain there is no god anymore that I can say I am 100% certain.
Theists suggest there is a god.
I don't believe there is a god. I just typed 100% of the letters in that sentence.
David, I had similar doubts until I realized that many of the problems we face originate in religious teachings, i.e. wife and child abuse, wars, racism, homophobia, etc.
I decided if I want to confront these challenges, I have to begin where the beliefs originate ... religion.
Sure, there may be a god who does not reveal him/herself to me; So? I see no evidence of existence of god except what religious people tell me.
The next question I have is can I be moral without god? The answer is a profound YES! Can I have compassion? YES! Can I have a sense of wonder? YES!
Therefore, what is the need of god?
|“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
I am 100% sure the purveyed as realistic truth and currently practiced faiths do not depict a verifiable god existing in our current day. Short of participating again in the group reinforced fantasy, God has not become a reality to me. So, I feel it is a choice of yes or no, where one either believes (even if such belief is 99.999 percent uncertain) or where one disbelieves (even if such disbelief is 99.999 percent certain). Belief is the uncertainty of things hoped for, where rational is the certainty of things revealed. God, so that we can agree and prove, is not a revealed truth, so god requires the creative mind. With so many minds, we get so many gods as with one sun, we have many sunsets, and many sunrises in any given day. To find the sun, one must leave the belief of minds and reach out and feel the warmth of its rays---that is 100% rational.
Certainty, including of the non-existence of gods and of invisible pink unicorns, is consistent with reason and logic. Skepticism, while appropriate when faced with an unknown assertion, is not appropriate in the face of contextually valid knowledge.