"I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist."
The problem of course is the definition of the term.
I can safely say that i am 100% sure "some" god exists.
And i can safely say that i am 100% sure "some other" god doesn't exist.
I can also tell you that i am 100% sure that (currently) any potential existence of god is "irrelevant" for me. In order to change that one would not only have to proove that such a god exists but that his existence is actually relevant (which means his existence should make a measurable difference to his nonexistence).
There is no god.
This is a provable fact.
“There is massive compelling evidence that gods do not exist.”
This assertion of yours constitutes neither proof nor evidence.
“Every single one of them ever described has been amply shown to be completely fictional.”
no they haven’t.
yes they have.
no they haven’t.
yes they have.
Nay saying is not proof.
“Logical induction alone gets us to the position that the very notion of a god is preposterous.”
If you know anything about logic, then you understand the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative.
"Logic" simply dictates that there can be no evidence of something’s non existence.
If something has never existed in the first place, how can there be evidence of its non existence?
My argument, if you pay attention, is not that gods do exist, it’s that you play a fool’s game when you assert, absolutely, that gods do not exist.
Objects of faith (such as gods) are not subject to logic or proof or 100% certainty.
They are subject to faith and faith only.
Concerning this matter, it is only your own faith that you can be 100% certain about.
Are those people who claim 99.99999% certainty that there is no god, simply incapable of abandoning all faith?
Is that why there are people who claim agnosticism?
I have my suspicions.
Asa, novelists routinely create fictional characters. People are known to hallucinate. These are pieces of evidence that gods do not exist outside human imagination. Simply proposing a nutty idea does not confer on that idea the benefit of the doubt. 99.99999% unlikely means 0.00001% likely. The idea of a god or gods is not that likely. Its likelihood is precisely zero, because we know it is a made up thing, not something observed in nature using careful measurements and proper investigation.
I do not believe that proving gods do not exist is an example of proving a negative. The null hypothesis doesn't even come close to applying to the kind of fantasy conjecture that the idea of god constitutes. Psychology is the field that applies here, not physics or cosmology. There is ample evidence from the field of human psychology that gods are, in fact, completely imaginary. Any other conclusion ignores massive evidence to the contrary, such as brain imaging under the influence of drugs and powerful magnetic fields, historical analysis, known frauds in the name of gods, etc, etc.
Further, as I stated elsewhere on this thread, the very notion of a god as commonly semi-defined, is logically impossible, which is further evidence of the nonexistence of gods. Your own argument presupposes the nonexistence of gods, which makes it circular, and therefore invalid: "If something has never existed in the first place, how can there be evidence of its non existence?"
My argument is that you play a fool's game if you allow a nonsensical greater-than-zero probability to apply to something you know for sure is fictional. Because of the mountain of evidence that gods are the product of human imagination, it is ludicrous to accord the concept the tiniest probability of reality. Probabilities simply do not enter into the picture under the circumstances. You say yourself that, "Objects of faith (such as gods) are not subject to logic or proof or 100% certainty. They are subject to faith and faith only." That means objects of faith are precisely 0% certain, which is to say, certainly nonexistent.
Theism is an assumption of faith.
Without faith there are no theists.
The absence of faith in the existence of god(s) is the default setting of human beings at birth.
Without theists, atheists would not exist because atheism exists ONLY if theists, for some reason, spring into existence.
No one is born assuming the non existence of god(s) any more than they are born with faith in the existence of god(s).
God(s) are objects of faith, neither provable nor “unprovable”.
To discuss whether or not
“...everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist” is nonsense, folly, and certainly does not lead to a serious discussion.
The REAL question, which is easily answered, is:
“Do you posses faith in the existence of god(s)?”
If you do, you are a theist.
If you don’t, you are an atheist.
Your faith, or lack of faith is something you can be 100% sure of.
Once we can get past the silly discussion about the existence or nonexistence of an object of faith, we can discuss the real issue which is the nature of faith.
I very much liked how you described what I consider to be a more accurate answer to this question. This question does seem to be a Black or White Fallacy - trying to force the "belief" portion out of the "knowledge" question of god's existence.
You won't be standing alone to discuss the nature of faith if the silliness ever concludes. Though I've found that extremists, religious and non-religious, tend to need to "know" absolutely rather than be satisfied with continuing to learn and having firm beliefs. So, we might have to wait a long while.
All the gods to which names have been put were invented by mankind, and exist only as imaginations in people's brains. Many of us are 100% certain of that.
This leaves only some remote possibility of there being an unreachable creator god of the Universe about which we know nothing. This is where Richard Dawkins hesitates. He is a scientist through biology, not through theoretical physics. I have written about the unlikely possibility of some sort of creator god several times in this same very long-running thread (q.v. the thread's many pages a year or more back).
The short of it is that if one posits a creator god, then what created that god? And so on ad infinitum--- with creator god after creator god.
This means you would do better to specify that a Universe is always present, even if the current Universe has replaced earlier ones
I prefer to call up the physics of quantum mechanics as set out by Vic Stenger, viz. that of the quantum instability of an unstable void as providing a purely natural mechanism for the transition empty Universe to non-empty Universe.
That is to say, the Universe was instantly self-created, uncaused, from an unstable void or false vacuum --– an abiding, timeless, quantum void -- with the property that incipient, virtual particles were omnipresent.
Thus on the basis of known theoretical physics, one can postulate that the unstable void and its alter ego the Universe is all there is to contemplate--in effect, meaning that universes in real time are all there can be.
They are eternally present, forever existing, because their absence would imply an unstable state of the void that cannot exist in time.Thus, our Universe simply is . . . because at least one universe is always necessarily present.
For if not, there would be a void instead—but a void being truly unstable, a universe would instantly replace it (via perhaps a Big Bang, for instance).
On this reasoning, a universe–or universes—must be. Always were; always will be.
Therefore too, because time cannot exist prior to universes, universes cannot have any first cause.
With no first cause, there is no primary origin, no creation. Therefore postulations of the supernatural are superfluous, dispensable, worthless.