100% Certainty God Does Not Exist [2] (meaning, scientific, delusion, Revelations)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each time you go somewhere in your car, you are not 100 % certain that you will not be killed in a road accident.
But do you not use a car because of that uncertainty? Do you even think about dying in a wreck each time you start your car?
No, you behave as though you are 100% certain that you will arrive safely because the odds are so low that any other outcome will take place.
There is absolute certainty, and there is defacto certainty. The former is impossible, the latter is practical.
I live my life with that defacto certainty about there not being a god. Just as until you are in an auto accident you really aren't thinking about it happening, until such time as some credible evidence for a god is presented to me, I shall continue with my defacto certainty.
With that practical solution, there is never a need to argue about the semantics of absolute certainty. It does not apply, I've got it covered.
The Overriding Principle of Rationality
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell
This is a fine quote, and one that I agree with. The deeper I dug into philosophy the more I saw that Solipsism appears to me to the only entirely consistent epistemological approach, it just isn't very useful. So me make do with less consistent, more arguable foundations for our understanding of reality, because they give us more useful results.
Because of this, because the only real way to have absolute certainty is to know every thing, absolute epistemological certainty seems like it must be taken off the table from the get go. So, philosophically speaking, we do not, and cannot have "100% certainty" of anything.
Becasue of this, and because human beings are not rational, it is impossible to come up with some sort of grand unifying theory about religion that everyone will be forced to acknowledge. Just about every religion thinks they already have this, their own theology. And this commonality with religious thought is one reason why this is entirely counterproductive. We as atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, and whatever else simply do not need some form of unalterable, undisputable dogma that is so compelling it will force others to conceed. We can simply follow the evidence.
I am not sure I understand the applicability of your "Fish" scenario. All it does is point out that you dont have 100% certainty, becasue no where in there do you prove that invisible ninja scubadivers are not cutting your net and then repairing it seamlessly. Nor do you rule out Cthulu consuming the sanity of the fish and then absorbing their very beings...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The above can be applied to atheistic [I prefer not-a-theist] discussions where atheists should adopt Scenario 1, i.e. '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' within a Critical Philosophy Framework and System to support such a 100% certainty. This Framework and System is then conditioned to the overriding Principle of Rationality as mentioned above.
What this appears to mean is that you want to artificially constrain the problem so that your answer is the only possible one, which is to be frank, intellectually dishonest. It is also the approach theism takes. ("But, if there IS a god!", "Who made everything then?") If we are going to examine a problem, there is no point in putting constraints and provisos on it in an attempt to "be right", we should exmaine the issue and follow where evidence and reason take us.
Atheists should avoid presenting merely unorganized and unsystematic haphazard propositions to argue 'God do not exists' militantly or with some degree of agnosticism [like Dawkins grading scale].
This leave room for theists to eel their way through the slightest cracks to cling to the hope that since you [atheists] are not sure, then God exists from my [theistic] perspective based arguments from Design and other proofs. SOME Theists: Since God really exists and God's Law sanction I can kill you for not believing in my Supreme God ... Beware! This unfortunately is a reality!
What atheist need is a Critical Philosophy Framework and System to 'checkmate' the theists position that leave no room [100% impossible] at all to argue or hope there is a possibility of God exists in the real world and therefrom for SOME [not all] theists to kill non-believers in the real world which is actually happening.
I am not insisting theists should not believe in a God. Theism is a critical necessity for the majority of humans for this present phase of evolution [not the future] and without it at present there could be anarchy internally [self] and externally. Theists should continue to believe in a God via faith ..
However the only room for theist to discuss is merely based on psychological reasons and without any rational basis nor grounds. This will make room for theists to proceed with self-improvements toward the well being of humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The main gist of the proposition '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' is analogically to demonstrate that it is almost the same of trying to prove 'A Squared Circle Exist' which is an impossibility.
Yep, I would go one further and say that as best I can tell, it is an impossibility. Which is why I wonder that you are so invested in something that you conceed is probably not possible...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
I have the substance to justify my Critical Philosophical Framework and System to support the proposition '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist'.
However one constraint is the difficulty to explain it in a forum and besides I intend to write a book on it so I am not revealing too much to avoid plagiarism.
Sorry to be so cynical, but this just sounds like the opposite of, "I have 100 proofs of God but I won't tell you what they are unless you agree to accept them before I tell you." I think the fact that you have to impose framework or system to come to the answer you want is telling, though. It measn that to get the kind of certainty you are craving, you have to make assumptions to limit the scope of the problem ( exactly as was done in the fish problem), which a priori destroys the idea of 100% certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Your views?
I think it is an unnecessary and quixotic attempt to validate non-belief in ways that don't need validating. As other have said, we simply follow the evidence, no need for frameworks or even certainty. Nothing else is needed.
There is absolute certainty, and there is defacto certainty. The former is impossible, the latter is practical.
I live my life with that defacto certainty about there not being a god. Just as until you are in an auto accident you really aren't thinking about it happening, until such time as some credible evidence for a god is presented to me, I shall continue with my defacto certainty.
With that practical solution, there is never a need to argue about the semantics of absolute certainty. It does not apply, I've got it covered.
You (and Cruithne) are arguing 100% confidence in your belief, not in your knowledge, if I understand you correctly, and this is what I do. It's really a question of which you emphasize in philosophical debate, especially with theists.
Of late I have come to emphasize my belief position as a rational one, and distinct from my (also rational) knowledge position. I see no reason at all to believe at all; so I don't. I see vanishingly little evidence in favor of any deity so I discount it, which is a rational response; therefore my knowledge position has no appreciable influence on my belief position. I would have to have at my disposal, data or rational argument that brings credible knowledge of evidence of a deity, to even begin to credit it with belief.
Regarding your auto accident analogy, we have a certain level of concern for such things because it's justified; pedestrians and cars and the difference in mass between them, are not imaginary or invisible or subtle, nor are the interactions between them unknown or unknowable. You are probably saying you don't have hand-wringing angst about getting places in your car safely because accidents are infrequent and terrible injury or death are even less frequent, and you've made reasonable precautions against them ... and that is what you are relating to concerns about appeasing the gods, concerning whom we have quite a bit LESS reasons to be worried than auto accidents.
You set out on a car trip 100% BELIEVING you will get to your destination without incident given you are a competent driver, the weather is acceptable, and your car has passed a recent safety inspection, etc. But NOT 100% KNOWING you will get there in one piece, nor really claiming that you can possibly know that. In fact just a little doubt is a Good Thing as it motivates you to be more careful and less hurried. It's just that it's not worth fretting about such unknowns unless they present themselves, nor are such unknowns enough to tip you into believing you are in great danger.
The problem with theist arguments for gods is that the consequences they claim for ignoring the possible but unprovable in that realm are basically infinite. If this were something more than asserted dogma, we might be given some pause. But that is all it is.
I am not sure I understand the applicability of your "Fish" scenario. All it does is point out that you dont have 100% certainty, becasue no where in there do you prove that invisible ninja scubadivers are not cutting your net and then repairing it seamlessly. Nor do you rule out Cthulu consuming the sanity of the fish and then absorbing their very beings...
My point with the 'Fish Scenario' is we can have [A] 100% certainty within the main set of Rationality of 99.999...9% certainty[Russell].
This is in contrast to other system that are 90% certainty within 99.999..9 certainty.
Therefore [A] is more certain than at least theoretically and for a start.
Therefrom what is need to establish solid grounds to justify that 100% certainty.
Quote:
What this appears to mean is that you want to artificially constrain the problem
so that your answer is the only possible one, which is to be frank,
intellectually dishonest. It is also the approach theism takes. ("But, if there
IS a god!", "Who made everything then?") If we are going to examine a problem,
there is no point in putting constraints and provisos on it in an attempt to "be
right", we should exmaine the issue and follow where evidence and reason take
us.
I wonder how you arrive at the judgment of 'intellectual dishonest'.
There is a difference between theism and what I proposed. Theism ground is merely Faith, what I proposing is to establish the solid grounds to justify my conclusion based on reason and rationality.
Evidence? Empiricism is useful but very limited.
Even complimenting evidence with basic philosophy would end up with a Kantian ANTIMONY. Big word, what is meant is no one side can prove the other wrong on the main issues relating to God. e.g.
1. Atheist - no evidence no god
2. Theist - evidence prove God exists - Designer, first cause
What we end up here is a stalemate of personal convictions.
To overcome the above to higher truths what we need is higher philosophy as supported by a Critical Philosophical Framework and System to counter the potential threat to humanity's well being and avoidance of premature extinction.
Quote:
Yep, I would go one further and say that as best I can tell, it is an
Quote:
impossibility. Which is why I wonder that you are so invested in something that
you conceed is probably not possible...
My '100% Certainty God DO NOT Exists' is leverage on 'It is Impossible for a transcendental idea of God to exists in the real world.'
As a very concerned citizen of humanity, why I am so vested in the above point is,
we need a higher philosophy as supported by a Critical Philosophical Framework and System to counter and prevent the potential threat to humanity's well being and avoidance of premature extinction.
Quote:
Sorry to be so cynical, but this just sounds like the opposite of, "I have 100 proofs of God but I won't tell you what they are unless you agree to accept them before I tell you." I think the fact that you have to impose framework or system to come to the answer you want is telling, though. It measn that to get the kind of certainty you are craving, you have to make assumptions to limit the scope of the problem ( exactly as was done in the fish problem), which a priori destroys the idea of 100% certainty.
I understand and anticipate such cynicisms which is very natural from most.
What is critical to validate my proposals is the question of how solid and justifiable [epistemologically and philosophically, not empirically] are the grounds that I bring forward. As for theism the most solid ground the theists can rely upon is ultimately Faith [>50%].
I am confident of the Framework and System I propose because I have spent years researching and reflecting on it and the knowledge/grounds are sourced from the giant shoulders of philosophy. Thus it has a reasonable degree of credibility and it is not something that is picked from the air nor driven by primal psychological impulses like the theists' faith-based conclusions [oxymoronic].
I am hoping someone will come up with ideas that are aligned with my proposals.
Quote:
I think it is an unnecessary and quixotic attempt to validate non-belief in ways that don't need validating. As other have said, we simply follow the evidence, no need for frameworks or even certainty. Nothing else is needed
-NoCapo
Note my above point on the limit of evidence.
One limit is Hume's assertion it is psychological, 'custom' and 'habit'.
As a concerned citizen of humanity, what I proposed [theistic related] is of critical-necessity to counter the threats against the well-being of humanity and its premature extinction.
[b]The other point re concerned citizen of humanity is whilst I am not a Buddhist per se, I adopt one of the Bodhisattva's vow of extending empathy and compassion to all sentient beings within my possible reach.
Last edited by Continuum; 09-07-2015 at 10:08 PM..
Those are irrational people who aren't interested in justifications, airtight or not. They are interested in being "right" by their lights, and telling them they are wrong just makes them angry. In fact having a good argument just makes you more dangerous to them.
Agree. There is nothing much we can do with those in ISIS and the likes at present. The only way at the moment to deal with them is to use violence against violence.
What I am proposing need to start with laying the groundwork but the effective results can only actualize in the long term, say >50 years from now. Then we can tackle the problem from the proximate root.
All evils and violence that are religion-inspired [btw not religious-related] are traceable to the holy texts grounded on the belief that God exists as real arising from the fundamental inherent existential dilemma.
As and when we can convince a critical mass that it is impossible for God to exists as real then there is no solid grounds for jihadists to commit evils and violence because God sanction it. The only explainable ground is due to their psychology which can be resolved by various means.
If you are saying you 100% know there are no gods, then to an extent you are playing into the theist trap of the "arrogant atheist who knows it all". And maybe you don't care. I'm not sure I do, or should. But from an argumentation standpoint I like to chip away at their stereotypes rather than feed them.
Note the following;
P1. ALL contradictions [e.g. squared-circle] are an impossibility and do not exists.
P2. God is a contradiction
C3. Therefore God is an impossibility and do not exists
What we need to justify is P2, i.e. in what manner is God a contradiction, thus an impossibility.
What I am proposing is we can come up with a Critical Philosophical Framework and System based on all available knowledge to support P2.
If we present the above based on knowledge and grounded justifications, there is no basis to accuse of any one as 'know it all.'
I am not 100% sure about God existence. But I believe there is a God. What's your recommendation?
I agree with hiker. Carry on with your belief if it makes you happy. If, however, your brain cannot stop bothering you with questions like: "If I don't have a really good reason to believe there is a god (let alone a specific one) can I go on believing in it?" I wouldn't shut it out.
One of the activities I enjoy here are the questions I get about my beliefs or lack of them. What about cosmic origins? Isn't the Bible generally reliable? What about miracle healings, NDE's and cancer remissions? Is an Old earth and evolution really a done deal? What if I'm wrong? I like to have all these views tested.
Can't be 100% certain of what's true, but I am generally 100% certain of which has the stronger and more believable case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think. Plus you need a little thing like a describing what god you are talking about.
