Originally posted by SuzianneI understand why people say 6.9 or whatever. Because it is impossible to know anything for sure.
This thread is amusing to me. It clearly shows what I started a thread months ago about. All these atheists like to unequivocally state that they have no doubt God doesn't exist. And still, they only profess a 6.9 out of 7 (most, anyways). Wouldn't 7 out of 7 be a definite NO to God?
Maybe that's it. And it speaks to that thread I was talking about ...[text shortened]... certain, but I don't want to be actually 'seen' as saying it."
As I said, it's amusing to me.
However, this goes for everything. Is this all just a dream? Is your idea of god really the devil fooling you? Does a flying monster made of spaghetti really exist somewhere in space? No possible way to know for sure. So, because that "I'm not sure" line can be said about everything that you can think of, I see no use for it with these kinds of "discussions". I don't find it adds anything.
You think there is any kind of useful difference between my 7 and googlefudge's 7-e as e tends to zero? I don't think so.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suzianneit would be illogical to completely reject the idea of gods, especially in a quantum universe where everything has a probability.
This thread is amusing to me. It clearly shows what I started a thread months ago about. All these atheists like to unequivocally state that they have no doubt God doesn't exist. And still, they only profess a 6.9 out of 7 (most, anyways). Wouldn't 7 out of 7 be a definite NO to God?
Maybe that's it. And it speaks to that thread I was talking about ...[text shortened]... certain, but I don't want to be actually 'seen' as saying it."
As I said, it's amusing to me.
Originally posted by Great King RatOf course not. But he didn't say 7.
I understand why people say 6.9 or whatever. Because it is impossible to know anything for sure.
However, this goes for everything. Is this all just a dream? Is your idea of god really the devil fooling you? Does a flying monster made of spaghetti really exist somewhere in space? No possible way to know for sure. So, because that "I'm not sure" lin ...[text shortened]... nd of useful difference between my 7 and googlefudge's 7-e as e tends to zero? I don't think so.
Originally posted by stellspalfieBut I freely, without reservation or purposes of evasion, reject NOT-God.
it would be illogical to completely reject the idea of gods, especially in a quantum universe where everything has a probability.
That is what my 1.0 means.
And well, yes, while "it would be illogical to completely reject the idea of gods", are you still yet "absolutely certain" that God does not exist? That is what 7 would mean. So are you "absolutely certain" or not? Since it was given that 7 would mean "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist, can we assume that everyone who did not answer 7 is not "absolutely certain"?
Originally posted by SuzianneI've already explained this to you. This rules of logic dictate that a negative cannot be proven, so thus no one can state with absolutely certainty that something does not exist. I am more certain that the Christian God doesn't exist than I am that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But since I can't prove a negative, logic demands that I can't state with absolute certainty that anything, even the incredibly implausible Christian God, doesn't exist.
So I'd be interested in hearing why not.
I mean, since he's always claiming he's "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist, why not just put down 7 and be done with it? Why the equivocation?
Originally posted by PatNovakMy point is that he has stated exactly that, in this thread, many times. As a stipulation of the question, it was given that a 7 would mean you are "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist. And yet, here we have a person, who has claimed, many times, that he is certain that God doesn't exist, and yet he does not say 7. He goes out of his way to practically say 7, without actually saying 7.
I've already explained this to you. This rules of logic dictate that a negative cannot be proven, so thus no one can state with absolutely certainty that something does not exist. I am more certain that the Christian God doesn't exist than I am that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But since I can't prove a negative, logic demands that I can't state with absolute certainty that anything, even the incredibly implausible Christian God, doesn't exist.
I had a whole thread about this months ago. About atheists actually refusing to say that they reject God, in those words. They move all around it, with many circumlocutions, but they never seem to actually say those words. Just exactly like many of them refused to say 7 to this question.
As you say, a negative cannot be proven. And neither can many positives. And yet I can say, as certainly as I know my own name, that God exists. Even though I am fully aware that proof of God can never be found. And yet I did not hesitate for even a millisecond before answering 1.0.
So I'm just asking why the games? It was given that 7 means "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist (despite all the head games that can be played about it), so why not many more 7s? If you're certain, surely you would give a 7, as stipulated in the original question.
"On a Scale of 1 to 7": "... 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't..."
* Richard Dawkins: 6.9 "Even Richard Dawkins a man whose name has become synonymous with atheism says he puts a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't, and he says even he's a 6.9. Because no one knows for sure what's out there. He says yes there could be a god and there could be a spaghetti monster out there, but it doesn't look like it."
* caissad4: 6.8
* Great King Rat: 7
* googlefudge: 7-e as e tends to zero
* wolfgang59: 7-x... x --> 0 as wolfgang --> old currently 6.99999999999999
* Suzianne: 1.0
* PatNovak: Bigfoot 6.9 Unicorns 6.99 Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy 6.999 Zeus, Odin, polytheistic gods 6.9999 Christian God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, all-powerful monotheistic gods 6.99999. When there is no reproducible evidence supporting an idea: the more implausible the idea is, the closer to 7.0 I get.
* Penguin: I like this one, and my position is similar. I would say that more likely than Santa Clause, Unicorns or the gods of any world religions is that the entire universe is a computer simulation. In which case the coder of that simulation is 'God'. But this would be the kind of god who sets the initial conditions then plays no further active part. However, since we have no evidence that we are actually in a simulation, my default position on that one is also very close to 7.
* Grampy Bobby: 1.0 Why? Because I'm confident in the Integrity and Immutability of Sovereign God: "For this reason I also suffer these things [persecutions] but am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." 2 Timothy 1:12 ["A joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation in Him who is the author of hope and is its foundation. Elpis was used of confidence or trust in the character and nature of God rather than upon self and circumstances and thus was used objectively; the Koine elpis has a positive connotation and denoted confidence in the future rather than the pessimistic attitude toward life which permeated Greek and Stoic thought." http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1680] I respect Dawkins' objectivity with his [6.9].
* whodey: That sir is up for debate.
* SwissGambit: 6.9
* Pudgenik: My son, 11, told me of those flying spaghetti monsters. I believe in Tolkien's Ents to.
(1) absolutely no doubt in my mind.
* HandyAndy
4.0
* stellspalfie
6.9r
RHP Spirituality Forum Contributor Profile relative to Richard Dawkins' [6.9] "On a Scale of 1 to 7
... 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't..."
Total of twelve individuals' response index = 62.6/12 = 5.2166666... average [5.2]
Observations? Comments?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suzianneare you "absolutely certain" or not?
But I freely, without reservation or purposes of evasion, reject NOT-God.
That is what my 1.0 means.
And well, yes, while "it would be illogical to completely reject the idea of gods", are you still yet "absolutely certain" that God does not exist? That is what 7 would mean. So are you "absolutely certain" or not? Since it was given that 7 woul ...[text shortened]... God doesn't exist, can we assume that everyone who did not answer 7 is not "absolutely certain"?
i think 6.9r answers your question. there is no absolute in the human mind, we all have a 'nagging doubt' its a survival thing. i am also 6.9r% sure that everybody who claims they are 100% sure their god exists is a liar or delusional.
Originally posted by SuzianneSimply because we are not absolutely certain. As has been said by others, we recognise that absolute certainly on these question cannot legitimately be achieved, so we don't claim it.
My point is that he has stated exactly that, in this thread, many times. As a stipulation of the question, it was given that a 7 would mean you are "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist. And yet, here we have a person, who has claimed, many times, that he is certain that God doesn't exist, and yet he does not say 7. He goes out of his way to practi ...[text shortened]... more 7s? If you're certain, surely you would give a 7, as stipulated in the original question.
We are simply being honest. We don't say we are 7.0 simply because we are not 7.0. We are 6.99999999..., but not quite 7.0.
Penguin
Originally posted by Penguin"We don't say we are 7.0 simply because we are not 7.0. We are 6.99999999..., but not quite 7.0."
Simply because we are not [b]absolutely certain. As has been said by others, we recognise that absolute certainly on these question cannot legitimately be achieved, so we don't claim it.
We are simply being honest. We don't say we are 7.0 simply because we are not 7.0. We are 6.99999999..., but not quite 7.0.
Penguin[/b]
Penguin
.... predetermined to remain "6.99999999...," static or rationally open to the possibility of the dynamics of change?
Suzianne, you may have missed my last post on page 2, so here it is again:
I wasn't asking about rabid wolves. I was asking about werewolves.
Why do you have faith that the FSM does not exist but can you not say the same thing about werewolves?
There are also tales about the FSM.
How about Dracula? Plenty of tales about that undead dude.
One of the things that I'm trying to understand is your use of the word faith.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneAre you talking about my level of personal certainty or my level of epistemic certainty?
Of course not. But he didn't say 7.
The way I 'feel' about the question is 7.
However I realise that you cannot know anything with absolute certainty and so I
acknowledge that by recognising that infinitesimal amount of uncertainty by expressing
my view as "7-e as e tends to zero". Which is a neater way of writing 6.99999....
However for almost all practical purposes 7-e as e tends to zero is identical to 7.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneNo I am never claiming I am absolutely certain that gods don't exist.
So I'd be interested in hearing why not.
I mean, since he's always claiming he's "absolutely certain" that God doesn't exist, why not just put down 7 and be done with it? Why the equivocation?
This is a flat out lie.
I am certain beyond all reasonable doubt.
In other words I think the probability of gods existing, while non-zero, is
so infinitesimally small that it is unreasonable [and irrational] to believe that
they exist.
I have never, and will never, claim absolute certainty about anything,
outside of mathematics.