Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You cannot entirely dismiss Sumydid's charges because you cannot lay claim to having (1) "in the bag".

I am having trouble understanding what you are actually arguing. But this statement of yours seems to cut to the heart I guess of what you are arguing. But, yes I can entirely dismiss Sumydid's charge. His charge, basically, is that one cann ...[text shortened]... n fact, it's one that Sumydid himself does not adhere to consistently (and how could he?).[/b]

I understand.

Once the atheists have laid their arguments against god on the table, what remains to debate, really, is what it means to "prove" god does not exist. You've got Sumydid saying the arguments of the atheists don't measure up, by which he means we haven't proved god's nonexistence with 100% certainty.

What to do? For starters, I reckon atheists must show Sumydid and like-minded theists how they routinely accept things in life as "known" that are not in fact known with absolute certainty. That could be a thread of its own. The line of attack must be expanded beyond god toward absolutist thinking in general. If absolutist thinking were routinely applied by people in everyday life, civilization would collapse before sundown.

Does Sumydid realize all the things he accepts as proven even though the proof is not 100 percent?

Originally posted by Soothfast
I understand.

Once the atheists have laid their arguments against god on the table, what remains to debate, really, is what it means to "prove" god does not exist. You've got Sumydid saying the arguments of the atheists don't measure up, by which he means we haven't proved god's nonexistence with 100% certainty.

What to do? For starters, I reckon a id realize all the things he accepts as proven even though the proof is not 100 percent?

Yeah, good points, and I think we are on the same page now.

To be honest, I have no delusion that I would be able to change sumydid's mind through debate regarding his theism (and I have already tried calling him out before to no avail). He would likely dismiss an atheistic argument even if the argument, as a matter of objective fact, showed to an incredibly high degree (99.9999999....% ) that God does not exist. That would be okay; that would just be some sort of cognitive failure on his part, but at least in that case he would be bothering to consider the arguments against his position. But he doesn't get to state that any atheistic knowledge claim of the form "I know that God does not exist" gets dismissed merely out of hand (and totally regardless of any supporting evidence or arguments) putatively because no such claim could, even in principle, be correct, based on some harebrained infallibilist notion of knowledge. Sorry, that's just too rich, especially when he employs this infallibilist notion in his life only selectively and inconsistently as it suits him.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Most individuals, myself included, take "know" to indicate absolute certainty

No. Most individuals, like you or Sumydid or whomever, do not consistently take "know" to indicate that. Sumydid thinks he "knows" a crapload of stuff about which he doesn't think he has absolute certainty. This is exactly why his demand here is not only unre ysis of knowledge? You think it could be that one knows P, when P is in fact false?[/b]

When a person on the street is being careful, they will claim they "know" something to be true when they have either observed it directly or learned about it from a source that is authoritative in the matter. Careless people will say they "know" something to be so when they mean they "guess" it to be so or think it's "rather likely". I take "know" to be a strong word connoting absolute certainty, or at the very least a degree of certainty that passes muster for a concept to be considered a "theory" in the physical sciences. This may indeed be the connotation you and Bbar are using (made more precise with your 4-point definition), but one person's "know" is often another person's "guess", primarily because of item (3) in your definition.

In my mind and in my heart I have no doubt god does not exist, and I have a lot of knowledge and arguments with which to corroborate this attitude such that I personally feel that I "know" god does not exist. But now I have to acknowledge that I'm using the word "know" is a weaker sense -- a sense I would only use between me and myself, and wouldn't think to proclaim to the world at large. To wit: I don't think Bbar can "know" god does not exist with nearly the same degree of confidence that he knows that 1+1=2. Indeed, I don't think he can know god does not exist with the same degree of certainty that we know the theory of relativity is true. In other words, I don't think we atheists can claim that "God does not exist" can be elevated to the status of a scientific theory. I wish it were so, but in my opinion it ain't. We've got the nonexistence of god nailed to maybe three sigmas, not five or six. That's easily good enough to commit to a life of atheism without losing a wink of sleep over it, however.

You think it could be that one knows P, when P is in fact false?

Well, item (1) in your definition of "know" kind of precludes that, doesn't it? If we throw (1) out, what are we left with? It's certainly possible for someone to think they know something that is in fact false. It comes down to item (3) and the criteria we apply to determine whether "S is justified in believing P".

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]You cannot entirely dismiss Sumydid's charges because you cannot lay claim to having (1) "in the bag".

I am having trouble understanding what you are actually arguing. But this statement of yours seems to cut to the heart I guess of what you are arguing. But, yes I can entirely dismiss Sumydid's charge. His charge, basically, is that one cann n fact, it's one that Sumydid himself does not adhere to consistently (and how could he?).[/b]

basically, is that one cannot claim to know that God does not exist if one cannot completely rule out all possibilities that God does exist. That's just false. That is a totally absurd requirement to place on a knowledge claim; and, in fact, it's one that Sumydid himself does not adhere to consistently (and how could he?)."

But really it is the Atheist, who by making the unqualified claim has left themselves open to this 'requirement'.

It is easy enough to 'know' that any given physical claims surrounding or concerning any given 'god' are false by virtue of the fact that the claims themselves can be dis-proven, usually through empirical evidence to the contrary.

But a claim of proof concerning the non existence of god or gods per-se is unnecessary and impossible to defend.

Originally posted by twhitehead
After all, the sky at night is not blue and most grass in Zambia at this time of year is brown.

Geez, I think you know what I meant. But okay, substitute "Carbon nuclei have six protons" for "The grass is green," and "Rush Limbaugh is a moron" for "The sky is blue."

Originally posted by Soothfast
When a person on the street is being careful, they will claim they "know" something to be true when they have either observed it directly or learned about it from a source that is authoritative in the matter. Careless people will say they "know" something to be so when they mean they "guess" it to be so or think it's "rather likely". I take "know" ...[text shortened]... y to determine whether "S is justified in believing P".

I take "know" to be a strong word connoting absolute certainty, or at the very least a degree of certainty that passes muster for a concept to be considered a "theory" in the physical sciences.

I don't think we atheists can claim that "God does not exist" can be elevated to the status of a scientific theory.

So, inferring from these, you don't think we can claim to know that God does not exist. That's fair enough, but I would disagree. One other thing I would add here: the claim of knowledge of God's nonexistence at issue here in the back and forth between bbarr and sumydid is also in reference to a particular conception of 'God' that is related to a common traditional conception of the term. For instance, the argument of evil that was mentioned is in reference to a God with particular supposed properties.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
basically, is that one cannot claim to know that God does not exist if one cannot completely rule out all possibilities that God does exist. That's just false. [b]That is a totally absurd requirement to place on a knowledge claim; and, in fact, it's one that Sumydid himself does not adhere to consistently (and how could he?)."

But really it is the At rning the non existence of god or gods per-se is unnecessary and impossible to defend.[/b]

But really it is the Atheist, who by making the unqualified claim has left themselves open to this '[b]requirement'.[/b]

How so, exactly? And what do you mean by "unqualified"?

But a claim of proof concerning the non existence of god or gods per-se is unnecessary and impossible to defend.

We didn't claim to have "proof". Again, sumydid imported that word in. We claimed to know that God does not exist. This claim is not impossible to defend, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, inferring from these, you don't think we can claim to know that God does not exist. That's fair enough, but I would disagree. One other thing I would add here: the claim of knowledge of God's nonexistence at issue here in the back and forth between bbarr and sumydid is also in reference to a particular conception of 'God' that is related to a common ...[text shortened]... nt of evil that was mentioned is in reference to a God with particular supposed properties.

Oh yes, that is always a problem. Often when a debate about the existence of god begins to go ill for the theists, the definition of god begins to shape-shift into something else. It's like trying to nail jello to a wall -- but certainly not lemon jello!

I'd be curious to see Bbar adumbrate his particular arguments against god in one post, to see what items he brings up that I may not have considered before.

Originally posted by Soothfast
When a person on the street is being careful, they will claim they "know" something to be true when they have either observed it directly or learned about it from a source that is authoritative in the matter. Careless people will say they "know" something to be so when they mean they "guess" it to be so or think it's "rather likely". I take "know" ...[text shortened]... y to determine whether "S is justified in believing P".

Well, item (1) in your definition of "know" kind of precludes that, doesn't it?

Yes, but I thought this was what you were challenging in your first post.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]But really it is the Atheist, who by making the unqualified claim has left themselves open to this '[b]requirement'.[/b]

How so, exactly? And who said the claim is unqualified? We have arguments to back the claim up.

But a claim of proof concerning the non existence of god or gods per-se is unnecessary and impossible to defend.

ist. This claim is not impossible to defend, so I have no idea what you are talking about.[/b]

Well go on then prove to me that god or gods do not exist.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well go on them prove to me that god or gods do not exist.

Are you hard of reading? I am not claiming I can prove that god(s) do not exist. I am claiming that I know that God (as in a traditional conception of, roughly or to first order, a personal creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not exist.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, inferring from these, you don't think we can claim to know that God does not exist. That's fair enough, but I would disagree.

Well, it's all degrees of probability. I would agree that we can bring the probability of any god's existence (not just the biblical god) down to less than 0.01. The biblical god, coming to think of it, has far less going for it, and I just might be convinced that "The biblical god does not exist" could be rendered as certain as a scientific theory. Certainly I would say "Zeus does not exist" is virtually as pat as 1+1=2.

I'll just sign off for today by saying Zeus might have more going for him than Jehovah.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, it's all degrees of probability. I would agree that we can bring the probability of any god's existence (not just the biblical god) down to less than 0.01. The biblical god, coming to think of it, has far less going for it, and I just might be convinced that "The biblical god does not exist" could be rendered as certain as a scientific theory. Cer ...[text shortened]...
I'll just sign off for today by saying Zeus might have more going for him than Jehovah.

I think you are wrong. I think the probability that the God of the Holy Bible exists is about 100%. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Are you hard of reading? I am not claiming I can prove that god(s) do not exist. I am claiming that I know that God (as in a traditional conception of, roughly or to first order, a personal creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) does not exist.

Is English your first language, read my original post again hard ass.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Well, it's all degrees of probability. I would agree that we can bring the probability of any god's existence (not just the biblical god) down to less than 0.01. The biblical god, coming to think of it, has far less going for it, and I just might be convinced that "The biblical god does not exist" could be rendered as certain as a scientific theory. Cer ...[text shortened]...
I'll just sign off for today by saying Zeus might have more going for him than Jehovah.

So if you believe not-P on the basis of evidence that you think renders the truth of P less than 1% probable, you would not claim that you know not-P?