Yes. Your response follows exactly in line with what I am objecting to. Assuming an Axiom of (P or -P) ONLY means one will no doubt conclude ONLY either P or -P. It is very interesting that you say "Unfortunately, that statement is not both true and false at the same time; it is neither true nor false, owing to a lack of sufficient definition." because I am addressing that right now in another link.
I started a post on this very topic in the Philosophy Forum. It is called "The Law of Non-Contradiction?" It might better expose what I'm saying better than restating it here. So, I do hope you are ok with switching over there because I very much appreciate your responses.
LOL. I have been told that I am too sensitive before. So, thanks for accommodating me in this respects. It shows me you are, in fact, a reasonable individual - even if we disagree.
I have actually started a link on the Philosophy Forum. It's called "The Law of Non-Contradiction?" Another member is giving me good feedback. And it should expose my postion on this better than me restating it here.
"I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist."
The problem of course is the definition of the term.
I can safely say that i am 100% sure "some" god exists.
And i can safely say that i am 100% sure "some other" god doesn't exist.
I can also tell you that i am 100% sure that (currently) any potential existence of god is "irrelevant" for me. In order to change that one would not only have to proove that such a god exists but that his existence is actually relevant (which means his existence should make a measurable difference to his nonexistence).
There is no god.
This is a provable fact.
“There is massive compelling evidence that gods do not exist.”
This assertion of yours constitutes neither proof nor evidence.
“Every single one of them ever described has been amply shown to be completely fictional.”
no they haven’t.
yes they have.
no they haven’t.
yes they have.
Nay saying is not proof.
“Logical induction alone gets us to the position that the very notion of a god is preposterous.”
If you know anything about logic, then you understand the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative.
"Logic" simply dictates that there can be no evidence of something’s non existence.
If something has never existed in the first place, how can there be evidence of its non existence?
My argument, if you pay attention, is not that gods do exist, it’s that you play a fool’s game when you assert, absolutely, that gods do not exist.
Objects of faith (such as gods) are not subject to logic or proof or 100% certainty.
They are subject to faith and faith only.
Concerning this matter, it is only your own faith that you can be 100% certain about.
Are those people who claim 99.99999% certainty that there is no god, simply incapable of abandoning all faith?
Is that why there are people who claim agnosticism?
I have my suspicions.
Asa, novelists routinely create fictional characters. People are known to hallucinate. These are pieces of evidence that gods do not exist outside human imagination. Simply proposing a nutty idea does not confer on that idea the benefit of the doubt. 99.99999% unlikely means 0.00001% likely. The idea of a god or gods is not that likely. Its likelihood is precisely zero, because we know it is a made up thing, not something observed in nature using careful measurements and proper investigation.
I do not believe that proving gods do not exist is an example of proving a negative. The null hypothesis doesn't even come close to applying to the kind of fantasy conjecture that the idea of god constitutes. Psychology is the field that applies here, not physics or cosmology. There is ample evidence from the field of human psychology that gods are, in fact, completely imaginary. Any other conclusion ignores massive evidence to the contrary, such as brain imaging under the influence of drugs and powerful magnetic fields, historical analysis, known frauds in the name of gods, etc, etc.
Further, as I stated elsewhere on this thread, the very notion of a god as commonly semi-defined, is logically impossible, which is further evidence of the nonexistence of gods. Your own argument presupposes the nonexistence of gods, which makes it circular, and therefore invalid: "If something has never existed in the first place, how can there be evidence of its non existence?"
My argument is that you play a fool's game if you allow a nonsensical greater-than-zero probability to apply to something you know for sure is fictional. Because of the mountain of evidence that gods are the product of human imagination, it is ludicrous to accord the concept the tiniest probability of reality. Probabilities simply do not enter into the picture under the circumstances. You say yourself that, "Objects of faith (such as gods) are not subject to logic or proof or 100% certainty. They are subject to faith and faith only." That means objects of faith are precisely 0% certain, which is to say, certainly nonexistent.
Theism is an assumption of faith.
Without faith there are no theists.
The absence of faith in the existence of god(s) is the default setting of human beings at birth.
Without theists, atheists would not exist because atheism exists ONLY if theists, for some reason, spring into existence.
No one is born assuming the non existence of god(s) any more than they are born with faith in the existence of god(s).
God(s) are objects of faith, neither provable nor “unprovable”.
To discuss whether or not
“...everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist” is nonsense, folly, and certainly does not lead to a serious discussion.
The REAL question, which is easily answered, is:
“Do you posses faith in the existence of god(s)?”
If you do, you are a theist.
If you don’t, you are an atheist.
Your faith, or lack of faith is something you can be 100% sure of.
Once we can get past the silly discussion about the existence or nonexistence of an object of faith, we can discuss the real issue which is the nature of faith.