So my friend and I had another religious discussion

[Jester13]

So you believe with certainty that god doesn't exist because of some philosopher? I think that is the case of you believe something that you want to believe.

I never said that I believe with certainty, I said that I know God does not exist. To have knowledge does not require certainty, which you would've caught if you read through the link that I provided.

[Pouria]

Probably does not exist due to the complete lack of evidence. Lack of evidence supports the claim that he probably does not exist. "Probably" because you really can't be 100% certain about anything. Unicorns probably don't exist because...

Theists are going to have the burden of proof on them forever because they always find new ways to dance around something they can't possibly know of yet claim is the answer behind everything.

Wouldn't that be agnostic then?? Theist believe 100% that god exists and Atheist believe 100% that god doesn't exist. There is no "probably" with Atheists. Agnostics acknowledge the fact that god might or might not exist but they are in the middle.

[Pouria]

I never said that I believe with certainty, I said that I know God does not exist. To have knowledge does not require certainty, which you would've caught if you read through the link that I provided.

Ok, if you know, where are the evidence to back it up so we can also know that god doesn't exist. Please, don't quote some philosopher, I need scientific evidence to back up your knowledge. Anyone could philosophically BS their way to support one side or the other.

[Jester13]

Wouldn't that be agnostic then?? Theist believe 100% that god exists and Atheist believe 100% that god doesn't exist. There is no "probably" with Atheists. Agnostics acknowledge the fact that god might or might not exist but they are in the middle.

Incorrect, actually. Anyone claiming they have 100% certainty is simply foolish. Agnostics are simply scared or confused as to why they don't just say that they know God does not exist. Just because probability says, in layman terms, "there's still a chance" is like saying that Lloyd Christmas has a chance to get lucky with Mary Swanson when everyone knows it's 1 in 1,000,000. Sorry to burst any agnostics' bubble, but the probability of there being a God are much worse than 1 in a million.

Again, you are getting stuck on asking for evidence for the non-existence of something. Would you require evidence for unicorns to not exist, Santa, the marshmallow man, etc ? Let me answer that for you, no, you wouldn't, so why not? Why does that change with God?

[Jester13]

Here's Bertrand Russell (sorry, he's another philosopher, but it's an easy read):

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[Pouria]

Have you ever seen God? Or has anyone ever given evidence for the existence of God?

Again, why do you need any evidence whatsoever for the non-existence of something in order to ascertain that something doesn't exist?

Would you ever ask someone to provide evidence for the non-existence of a 100 foot tall human just so we can actually ascertain that that 100 foot tall human doesn't exist? What about Santa and his elves who all live at the north pole, do we need evidence to support the non-existence of that old dude and his child slaves?

Remember how people back in the early days thought that earth was flat? How about the existence of UFO or aliens? Just because you can't see things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist with 100% certainty.

There are things that are hard to prove like the existence or non-existence of god and there are things that can be proved easily, such as the non-existence of Santa in North Pole or the fact there were no 100 foot tall human that ever existed on earth. In one case, you are trying to prove the non-existence of a supernatural phenomenon while on the other hand, you are trying to prove the non-existence of mortals or species that might have lived or are living on earth.

[Buddhas Hand]

Have you ever seen God? Or has anyone ever given evidence for the existence of God?

Again, why do you need any evidence whatsoever for the non-existence of something in order to ascertain that something doesn't exist?

Would you ever ask someone to provide evidence for the non-existence of a 100 foot tall human just so we can actually ascertain that that 100 foot tall human doesn't exist? What about Santa and his elves who all live at the north pole, do we need evidence to support the non-existence of that old dude and his child slaves?

Argument from ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

[Jester13]

Argument from ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

So are you asking for complete certainty (0% probability of being wrong) in order to know something exists?

[Pouria]

Incorrect, actually. Anyone claiming they have 100% certainty is simply foolish. Agnostics are simply scared or confused as to why they don't just say that they know God does not exist. Just because probability says, in layman terms, "there's still a chance" is like saying that Lloyd Christmas has a chance to get lucky with Mary Swanson when everyone knows it's 1 in 1,000,000. Sorry to burst any agnostics' bubble, but the probability of there being a God are much worse than 1 in a million.

Again, you are getting stuck on asking for evidence for the non-existence of something. Would you require evidence for unicorns to not exist, Santa, the marshmallow man, etc ? Let me answer that for you, no, you wouldn't, so why not? Why does that change with God?

I think you are incorrect. Religious people believe that god exists, there is no probably or any BS like that with their belief. Atheist also strongly believe that god doesn't exist. If all these groups theists, atheists and agnostics have hesitation in their beliefs, then they should all be grouped into one category. IF you are an atheist yet you aren't sure with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, then part of you thinks that it might exist.

All the imaginary BS that you come up with in order to make your argument about the non-existence of god doesn't make your argument valid. That is similar to people in the early days who thought earth was the only planet and no other planets existed since they couldn't see or prove their existence (before the invention of telescope).

[Buddhas Hand]

So are you asking for complete certainty (0% probability of being wrong) in order to know something exists?

Yep , that is what takes to make a logical , rational decision.

[Pouria]

So are you asking for complete certainty (0% probability of being wrong) in order to know something exists?

You said you KNOW for a fact that god DOESN'T exist. IF that is not without 100% certainty then you really do not KNOW. For instance I KNOW gravity exists with 100% CERTAINTY because of all the scientific proof which are both visual and theoretical and can be proven every time. IF you aren't sure about something, then you don't KNOW. So please, stop saying that you know something which no one has proof, whether its for existence or non-existence of god.

[Jester13]

Remember how people back in the early days thought that earth was flat? How about the existence of UFO or aliens? Just because you can't see things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist with 100% certainty.

There are things that are hard to prove like the existence or non-existence of god and there are things that can be proved easily, such as the non-existence of Santa in North Pole or the fact there were no 100 foot tall human that ever existed on earth. In one case, you are trying to prove the non-existence of a supernatural phenomenon while on the other hand, you are trying to prove the non-existence of mortals or species that might have lived or are living on earth.

My assertion that I know God does not exist is in line with my belief to be true and justified, whereas anyone claiming that they know God does exist does not...

There is no evidence to support the existence of God. We have tried to find him, we have searched the universe and have found nothing of the sort. Every advancement in science and mathematics, biology, history, etc has led us down the path, bit by bit, to the realization that the universe did not need a God to make it, or to make humans and life on earth; the numbers are making this quite clear to anyone who chooses to face this reality. Therefore, my claim is justified. Knowledge requires a statement to be true, and what I just said is true, therefore, my statement is a justified true belief.

Knowing what we know in science and math, history, biology, ect, anyone claiming that they know God exists will have a very difficult time to make their statement justified and true in order to be a valid belief.

[Jester13]

You said you KNOW for a fact that god DOESN'T exist. IF that is not without 100% certainty then you really do not KNOW. For instance I KNOW gravity exists with 100% CERTAINTY because of all the scientific proof which are both visual and theoretical and can be proven every time. IF you aren't sure about something, then you don't KNOW. So please, stop saying that you know something which no one has proof, whether its for existence or non-existence of god.

I guess if none of you are actually going to read the link I offered then I might as well just refrain from discussion, I'm not really feeling up to writing it all for you in this forum. If you want I can copy and paste it in here for you to read, my guess is that you won't read it because you are not actually out to hear what I have to say.

Were you to ACTUALLY read the link I provided you would have a better understanding of the problem with certainty and everything else you continue to repeat, repeat, repeat.

And the circle continues...

[Pouria]

Here's Bertrand Russell (sorry, he's another philosopher, but it's an easy read):

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Again, another philosophical BS that can be proven to be untrue by scientific evidence. He is comparing a tea pot, a physical object to a supernatural being/power. That is comparing apples to oranges. The fact that we could prove it doesn't exist through physics just shows what a weak argument this is.

[Pouria]

I guess if none of you are actually going to read the link I offered then I might as well just refrain from discussion, I'm not really feeling up to writing it all for you in this forum. If you want I can copy and paste it in here for you to read, my guess is that you won't read it because you are not actually out to hear what I have to say.

Were you to ACTUALLY read the link I provided you would have a better understanding of the problem with certainty and everything else you continue to repeat, repeat, repeat.

And the circle continues...

I am hearing what you are saying and I don't agree with it.

Here is the definition of "Know" from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

¹know

: to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

[Jester13]

I am hearing what you are saying and I don't agree with it.

Here is the definition of "Know" from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

¹know

: to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

We're talking epistemology here, not just Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Again, I suggest reading through the link to the article more than just skimming it once; it takes a few times to really get what is being said. Philosophy is not some crackpot field that is to be ignored. Day one in Philosophy 101 dives into the God debate head first and everything goes from there.

Maybe tomorrow we can dissect why someone would sit on the fence and claim they don't know if God exists, or that God does not exist?

[Buddhas Hand]

I guess if none of you are actually going to read the link I offered then I might as well just refrain from discussion, I'm not really feeling up to writing it all for you in this forum. If you want I can copy and paste it in here for you to read, my guess is that you won't read it because you are not actually out to hear what I have to say.

Were you to ACTUALLY read the link I provided you would have a better understanding of the problem with certainty and everything else you continue to repeat, repeat, repeat.

And the circle continues...

If you are referring to the link to the philosophy website , I did read it. The article does not provide any evidence that god does not exist.

[pimpcurtly]

We're talking epistemology here, not just Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Again, I suggest reading through the link to the article more than just skimming it once; it takes a few times to really get what is being said. Philosophy is not some crackpot field that is to be ignored. Day one in Philosophy 101 dives into the God debate head first and everything goes from there.

Maybe tomorrow we can dissect why someone would sit on the fence and claim they don't know if God exists, or that God does not exist?

Please try not to drag all agnostics through the mud. A lot of us just don't care anymore. I have been preached both sides ad nauseum for most of my life. I don't know what will happen after I die....I believe it will be the same as before I was born. But who the frack knows and I'll never claim to know.

[Tortorella's Rant]

With unicorns yes , god no. This is one of the biggest unanswered questions , for a logical mind to come to a rational conclusion it requires evidence.

Evidence in which case you have none. And we can say this for both god and unicorns. Unicorns are just as much unanswered for as god is. It's not logical to conclude one most likely doesn't exist then say that the other is much more likely to exist when the evidence for both is squat. This is what I mean by theists tap dancing around all over the subject trying to justify "silly" beliefs. Hence the fabrications of evolution and biblical creation coexisting, "intelligent design", and so on.

[Jester13]

The Irrelevance of Certainty

At this point I imagine my twitter CDC opponent will object. Knowledge, they say, requires certainty that the statement is true, but the definition of belief I’ve just given is one in which I could potentially be mistaken, or two people could make opposite knowledge claims about the same object/event (and they can’t both be right). If I can’t prove it, if I can be wrong about it, then I can’t claim to say that I know it. Or so the objection goes.

Let’s see where this leads. Near as I can tell, there are two things that ‘certainty’ could mean in this context:

• (1) Subjective Certainty: the felt experience that something is definitely the case, and
  
• (2) Absolute/Irrefutable Proof: exactly representative of ‘How Things Are’; a 0% probability of being wrong.
  

Now I assume it is clear to all readers that (1) is not at all helpful, and I am including it only for completeness. The universe doesn’t care how much you feel it in your bones that X is true, if it’s the case that X is actually false.

Certainty (2) on the other hand is an extremely bold claim. If this is what is meant by certainty, it seems there aren’t any beliefs we possess that counts as knowledge, except ‘I exist’. Your consciousness, locked away in the prison of your brain, can only access the outside world through your bodily senses, and these are fallible channels of information. We misrepresent the world all the time, from mishearing lyrics, to mistaking a stick for a snake (or worse, a snake for a stick). We hallucinate on a daily basis. Recall the last time you couldn’t find something even though you were staring right at it; a negative hallucination. So our senses are at least sometimes unreliable, and that is enough to undermine Certainty (2).

In logical form, the argument looks like this:

• Premise 1: Certainty (2) is a necessary condition for knowledge to be attained.
  
• Premise 2: Certainty (2) is a practical impossibility due to our fallible senses.
  
• Conclusion: Knowledge is impossible to attain in practice