My point was that we know definitively. As Bertrand Russell asked, "Where did God come from?" Any answer creates the question of where the subject of that answer came from and so on resulting in an infinite regress. Then put the lie to semantic objections such as "... can't know the unknowable". Then we'll know. You know?
Agnostic atheists make us normal gnostic atheists look bad.
Agnostic atheists have formed their own religion with as little credibility as any other religion.
As atheists we're supposed to champion reason and we acknowledge that we can be sure and do not need to disprove God. All atheists do not believe in religion or a god but agnostic atheists are as bad as the religious.
Worse even, because they make me and the secular movement look bad.
If adherence to objective knowledge formation, noncontradiction and causal choice make me a religious person who does not pray, consider any book or person or group of persons an ultimate authority, congregate with others about these ideas and chant, or hold or celebrate any mystical ideas, then OK. I'm fine with being what you cal religious. I don't know how you define religious, but then it doesn't matter how you define anything because anything can mean anything to a skeptic who is skeptical when they should be certain.
There is no absolute certainty. There are only probabilities. If you have dabbled even the slightest in quantum physics you'll agree that it's quite natural, since with the multiverse theory things that are extremely improbable not only become probable, they become inevitable. That said, in our universe, here, now, there has been no evidence what so ever brought forth that would prove the existence of a god or gods, and thus that existence is extremely unlikely - but you cannot at all be absolutely certain. "Only a sith deal in absolutes."
Are you sure? Not at all? Doesn't that make you Sith-like, then? Being sure that one cannot be sure is an absolute statement and is therefore a blatant contradiction, since its claim is that it(self) is not possibly valid. Skepticism, as a fundamental principle, fails at the outset. It is appropriate when faced with an unsupported claim or in the presence of contradictory evidence, but not appropriately applied to well integrated noncontradictory contextual valid knowledge.
I am no physicist, but I am fairly well acquainted with modern particle physics. And as I have explained already many times on this thread, we do not need, nor can we use physics, to establish a proper opinion on god. So many physicists and physics enthusiasts know not when they leave what can be possibly known and begin to violate more basic epistemological laws that their science and process of verification rely upon. No doubt, current quantum theory is very good at predicting certain things probabilistically. But so was Ptolemy's model of the cosmos more predictive relative to the clearly more correct model put forth by Copernicus. Appearing, as random, or able to act at a distance, is very different than actually doing so or being able to explain it. Quantum uncertainty is a demonstration of the current limit of our ability to perceive. Be patient. We'll fully integrate the quantum level logically, both hierarchically, by describing it as a group of smaller things or currently hidden variables and as a part of what we know to be larger things, as well as contextually without logical contradiction into an objective knowledge base. Or we will not breach this current limit. But we will never prove true randomness or god. We, popular academic theoretical physicists and the media, should be more careful about calling what is at the very limits of our ability to perceive it knowledge, especially when it contradicts, not just other related knowledge, but what makes knowledge possible. There is one reality. Granted, it looks like this is just one local expansion, of many, with these particular physical constants, but no where in existence does anything deserving of the name god exist.
Nice cartoon. You are silly. I am a gnostic atheist. I have zero faith. And zero religion. For beliefs, convictions and knowledge, I use only reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of objective concepts formed from sense perception and the realization that reality exists and things within it do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure and momentum. This is the only sufficient path to knowledge. That's not religious, faithful or mystical. God can be known to not exist, not because it is untestable, but because contradictions and metaphors and things that lack identity cannot manifest. That it is untestable is simply why the absence of direct physical proof of its non-existence is no reason to think it possible. As if knowing about reason and epistemology wasn't proof enough. Faith is the absence of reason as god is the absence of noncontradictory concrete identity (which a thing needs to exist).
Why couldn't a god have an identity? Why does a god have to interfere with the nature of things? What if a highly evolved race became "gods" or "god" much before our time? Makes sense. Aliens could exist. Why not gods?
Your logic totally makes sense bro. Please contact the scientific community right away and collect your Nobel Prize and your photoshoot for Time magazine.
"noncontradictory concrete identity"
noncontradictory: "The law of logic that it is not the case that (p & not-p). Contradiction is the final logical stopping point: if we can derive a contradiction from a set of premises, then at least one of them is false (see reductio ad absurdum).
Concrete: "naming a real thing or class of things <the word poem is concrete, poetry is abstract>em>concrete evidence>