Reply #123: I think we're getting somewhere now.

[greyl]

"...most of the people arguing here about their purity of uncertainty don't seem to back it up in real life by always ACTING uncertain"

Why would they? They choose to act reasonably certain instead. eom!

ps: They don't sit motionless with anxiety over the minuscule uncertainty of a rising sun, working light switch, or their own beating heart. They exhibit useful, practical, living certainty. Philosophically, they will first admit and later argue the often slight, often profound unreliability of "knowledge". We can fool ourselves while having certainty that we will not be fooled. There's no doubt about that.

Those people with a pure concept of "certainty" are certain that the subject of God/s and the earthly manifestations of varyingly successful systems of human belief in God/s is worthy of objective analysis. It's at once the most extraordinarily transcendent concept possibly imagined and most vague. It requires extraordinary evidence, nay or yay.

Have you ever flipped a light switch and the light immediately blew out? Can you admit that you can't be absolutely certain that the next light switch you throw won't result in a blown bulb?
If so, consider the possibility that just as authentic knowledge of God/s existence is nowhere to be found, authentic knowledge that God/s don't exist is nowhere to be found.