100% Certainty God Does Not Exist [2] (Abraham, hell, verse, religions)

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Very nice. But that is related to the management pf personal resources. What flowchart could we devise to address the problem of the God -claim?......

And even as I say it, I can see the idea clear. If indeed there are not god -claim feasibility flowcharts already. We certainly wouldn't need a global computer system, processing every scrap of data in search of a specific set of answers, but again I think theists would simply define God as something beyond and outside anything mentioned in such flowcharts.

Mind, doing so would probably discredit them pretty much, in the eyes of anyone who wants some serious arguments to go on and would only appeal to those already God believers who want a way of ignoring all doubts and questions.

One point:
One basic point is we need to convince theists to get to a common ground, otherwise each we debate/discuss till the [antinomy] cows come home.

Here is at least one theist who get the point leading to my 100% proposition from the ground of Rationality;

Originally Posted by KingJohn

Neither the Christian nor the atheist can say with 100% certainty that their views are absolute, because you cannot know any and all things. Knowing for 100% certainty that there is no God means you have observed any and all evidence in the world, any and all theories in the spectrum of philosophy and science, and any and all claim proof(s) of their being a deity that exist.

A human being cannot know any and all things. That is illogical and impossible. It's the same with Christianity.

(Now just so you know, I identify as a Christian, but I recognize that if I am to follow the laws of logic then I must put myself under the same standard as I put atheists under)

-A novice philosopher.

It is a default a human being cannot know any thing absolutely with 100% certainty. This is why I brought in the Principle of Rationality in the OP and elsewhere.

Thus both the theists and the atheists MUST agree to the default of the Principle of Rationality, which is at best 99.999.....9% certainty.
So what we have [Venn Diagram] is the following

[ Rationality {Certainty} ]

What I am proposing is we can have 100% certainty within the highest level of Rationality.
So what we end up is with the following terms of reference before we argue our case.


Atheist: 99.99..9% certainty of [100% certainty God does not exist in a real world]

Theist: 99.99..9% certainty of [100% certainty God exists in a real world]

Now when both the theists and atheists agree to discuss on the same grounds of Rationality [at 99.999..99% not e.g. Dawkins 7/8 ] then there is no room for theists to go beyond and outside any where to get his 100% certainty.

Since both theists and atheists share the same ultimate ground, i.e. Principle of Rationality, then we [non-theists]can present a flowchart to demonstrate why it is 100% certain it is impossible for God to exists in the real world.

The theists will present their case but conditioned on two basis, i.e.
1. It is grounded on the Principle of Rationality.
2. Proofs to support why '100% certain God exists in the real world'

I am confident the theists will not get through 2, i.e. to produce the necessary proofs.
Even if by a miracle they can establish 2, ultimate they are still subject to 1, i.e. The Principle of Rationality.

Whatever the case it is a 'Hung' situation for the theists leading to no where but is not critical for the non-theists.

When we have the true elements we can draw a flowchart re '100% Certainty it is Impossible for a God to Exists as Real'.
Note the Flowchart Method is merely to facilitate in organizing the thoughts and logic so that we can see the full picture holistically instead of merely a part of it. Imagine how can one handle 100s or 1000++ interconnecting and interdependent elements at one go.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Humans have a pretty close match with monkey DNA.

So "religious evolution" among humans is making them godless - and eventually we become monkeys since monkeys don't have a religion either, or do they?

P1 All Monkey are godless
P2 All Atheists are godless
C3 Therefore all atheists are monkeys.


Go enroll in a Logic 101 class to understand why validity is not 'soundness.'

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Continuum

One point:
One basic point is we need to convince theists to get to a common ground, otherwise each we debate/discuss till the [antinomy] cows come home.

I don't see it as my job to get theists to agree on anything. In fact the more they fall out, the more Honest Athe gets her due.

Thus both the theists and the atheists MUST agree to the default of the Principle of Rationality, which is at best 99.999.....9% certainty.

In fact neither are obliged to agree to any such thing, because logic, rationality and indeed scientific evidence are the best - indeed the ONLY valid tools for assessing data and coming to conclusions. But even atheists will admit that it is only good for what we can know of (which is not to say 'know about') and investigate or at least make plausible speculations about. Even atheists will not deny there is a lot we don't know and gods, aliens, and the glugolitical mass of the creative cosmic slime could be possible. So your 100% certainly is shot at the start even from the atheist point of view, even if you could get 100% certainty in the areas of the scientific and rational..which I doubt.

I need hardly say that Theists, though they do in fact sign up to reason and logic even though they say they don't and play the Faith card, just to scrape a draw in a debate are going to be even less inclined to forget about the unknowns and agree to be pinned down by you to a some kind of strict rational framework.

As I say, I applaud your efforts and intentions, but I might quote Gandalf to the effect that you are going in the wrong direction, and I see no hope in your quest.

Originally Posted by Continuum

P1 All Monkey are godless
P2 All Atheists are godless
C3 Therefore all atheists are monkeys.


Go enroll in a Logic 101 class to understand why validity is not 'soundness.'

Nicely done. Cardinal's argument is one of the 'convincing to the unaware' type that sound as though they make sense but actually don't. It is not logically invalid (or so it seems to me) to argue that giving up god -belief is a sign of a reverse evolution to a more brutish animal stage. I can well see that makes perfect sense to the believer, and they can point to the Directory, Stalin and Pol Pot as evidence of the reversion to brutishness and brutality if you give up Godfaith.

Yep, it's a good argument. And my only answer is that it is actually wrong. It can also be argued that religion, myth and superstition was a stage humans had to go through in evolving from mere highly intelligent animals.

We have evolved technologically and mentally and I can see the next stage ahead, clearly. Reason and humanist morality. I don't see the dire warnings about Stalin and Pol pot (Hitler has grudgingly been dropped as a stick to beat atheism with, since he was demonstrably a theist of sorts (1 ) as relevant. They were acting in just the same way that Fundamentalist religion does. Authoritarian dogma with good people motivated to do evil things because of obedience to the dogma. I believe that reason and humanist morality will make such close - minded intolerance highly unlikely and more rational ways of settling our differences will replace reaching for the nearest thing that goes *bang*. We will have moved on to a more advanced mental stage. Evolution of a kind if you like.

Ok, I may be wrong (looking about me I sometimes doubt ) but it is the alternative explanation to that logical construct and it has to be tried sooner or later. It looks like being sooner than I thought.

(1) but of course, he was never a real Theist.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

As I say, I applaud your efforts and intentions, but I might quote Gandalf to the effect that you are going in the wrong direction, and I see no hope in your quest.

Thanks for your feedback.
I am confident in my quest as I know I have the stuff on hand and I have only presented a few elements out of the hundreds and possibly 1000+.
I tried to expand discussion on the various elements with the thread 'Certainty within Uncertainty' which is very critical to the point but unfortunately that was deleted even when I have linked it to this OP.

I believe it is a matter of getting out a more effective presentation and I acknowledge what I have done so far has been insufficient partly due to deliberation, time, various constraints, own weaknesses and limitations.

However from the communicator POV, the 'communicatee' also has to explore their SWOT [Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats {limitations}].

[TRANSPONDER]

I shall watch with interest. I am of course willing to be convinced that any kind of god - possibility can be ruled out, but it does seem to entail getting theists to agree to parameters that they habitually regard as irrelevant to their faith.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I shall watch with interest. I am of course willing to be convinced that any kind of god - possibility can be ruled out, but it does seem to entail getting theists to agree to parameters that they habitually regard as irrelevant to their faith.

It is not getting theists to agree.
It is more like at some point in time they have no choice but to agree.

For example, the majority of theists [and others] once believed the Earth was flat but they have to give up such a belief based on empirical facts accepted by a critical mass.

The above example is based on empirical evidence. What I am proposing is not purely empirical based but more on a more encompassing philosophy, rationality and epistemology. As I mentioned it will be something like rejecting a squared-circle.

As for any individual, one has to do a lot of self-analysis via know thyself.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by Continuum

For example, the majority of theists [and others] once believed the Earth was flat but they have to give up such a belief based on empirical facts accepted by a critical mass.

No, the majority of theists and others did not believe the earth was flat.

People in Columbus' Time Did Not Think the World Was Flat

Most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century.

Ordinary people could see things disappear over the horizon so they knew the earth was not flat.

[Grizzly Addams]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Arach Angle]

only a fundamentalist has to be 100% certain that his take is better than everybody else's.

They only see what's in front of them,
an image in a mirror.

[cleatis]

I'm not going to take the bait on the 100% positive that god doesn't exist claim. Its a nice sounding attempt to debunk atheism, but its not 100% effective. I am however 100% positive that people lie, believe nonsense and will tell you any matter of things to get you to support their agenda. And seeing as how the existence of god hinges solely on what people say and believe I simply not buying the sales pitch. That's not to say I claim absolutely that there is no god. But I do claim 100% that everyone is full of s--t now and then. I am 100% sure that people would tell you bald faced lies to get you to give up your money once a week. And I am 100% sure that religious texts are not infallible. Long story short, I wont say with absolute certainty that there is no god. But I will say with 100% certainty that the god described in the bible is as fictional as Candide