Reply #74: Hello, again!

[Strong Atheist]

It is pleasant having this discussion with you, though I still do not think that we will agree on "certain" in the end; but that is cool too.


"However, that being said I still don't think the premise was answered at least not directly. If we lack the ability to perceive a God how do we know one doesn't exist?"

(I need to learn how to highlight/italicize people's posts so I do not have to use quotes! I also need to know how to underline and bold things, SO I DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT TO MAKE A POINT STRONGER)

The problem, from my point of view, is that the list of things-that-don't-exist is, quite literally, endless. I do not have the time or inclination to look at each one that someone may throw in my face and say "Hmm, for this specific reason, on the merits I can argue that it does not exist". I have thought about the whole god issue, and based on my knowledge and experiences I say that I am CERTAIN that NO GODS exist, just like Carl Sagan's dragon does not. You and Orrex, as I maintain, have distorted the commonly accept definition of "certain" to the point that it can not be used the way is was designed to be used. From my point of view, you are saying that one can NEVER be CERTAIN that gods don't exist, because we are not all-knowing; and ya never know, there may a god hiding under a rock on Pluto.

I approach the debate differently (think set theory). I am saying that the WHOLE SET of gods is invalid based on what I know, and I am as CERTAIN of that knowledge as I am that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow. Therefore, I do not HAVE to go around disproving each god, I deny the class as a whole.

"Yet, any rational person - based on all that I have said - has to acknowledge that anything they say can be incorrect."

Wonderful. So every statement has an asterisk with the infinite list of improbable things that could cause it to be wrong. You can live that way; I do not. I am CERTAIN till PROVED wrong.

"Really, in the end I do not see how we truly disagree accept you seem unwilling to admit directly that you could possibly be wrong,"

Almost correct (almost there!). I will not admit to being wrong till PROVED wrong, which in the case of gods will take some doing. Till then, I am CERTAIN and CERTAIN that I am RIGHT. Of course, the Theists say the same, but have the opposite conclusion. This bothers me not at all. One of us is wrong; but one of us is right, and therefore one of our CERTAINTIES is also TRUE.

I also honestly DO see your point and your premise; I just disagree. You want to appear to be "impartial", or "fair" by keeping the doubt (possibility) that despite overwhelming evidence, you could be wrong. I don't work that way. Overwhelming evidence makes me CERTAIN that I am RIGHT, till proved wrong. You are using the definition that I would call "confident", from the example in my original post to your OP (candidate A is ahead enough, and most of the votes have been counted, so I am CONFIDENT that candidate A will win).

I am not using definition 6a, I am using the stronger #3:

"Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable: What is certain is that every effect must have a cause."

This is what is TRULY meant by "certain"; this is the true synonym; and yes, in my mind, that level is reached on these issue. I REALLY, TRULY, LITERALLY, have no doubt in any corner of my mind that gods do not exist (see my fears/doubts thread for what I do doubt).

You and Orrex use "certain" the way I use "confident", which is ok. by me; we just disagree. Cheers!:toast: