I realize some of us atheists are so married to the rules of logic that we refuse to say we are 100% positive there is no God because there is no way to be entirely certain.
So for those of you who feel that way, I'm going to tell you about my God whose name is Pruitt. I can't prove to you he doesn't exist but he's spoken to me in my brain and told me he's real.
Those of you who say you can't be 100% certain there is no God, do you now afford the same level of possibility for Pruitt? If not, why? There is the same amount of evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God as there is for Pruitt.
This is my problem with worshipping at the alter of logic. It turns logic into a religion in it's own right. By creating this small gap of certainty, we leave room for all manner of things to be stuffed in it. Over time it will never grow smaller, only bigger as you need to widen the gap to allow for more and more things to fit in there that you can't be certain if they exist or not.
There is the same amount of evidence for unicorns, zombies, leprechauns, pixies, and fairies. In fact, there is more evidence for those than there is for Pruitt if a book written about these things, as it is for the Abrahamic God, is evidence.
But we all know unicorns don't exist. We know leprechauns and pixies and zombies do not exist and can say it with 100% certainty. Just because a human mind fabricated these fictitious creatures does not mean they need to have the possibility of existence reserved for them in the minds of the rest of humanity. Otherwise, every time a human uses their imagination to conjure up something and then opens their mouth, thus entering their creation into the public domain, we would need to consider the possibility of existence for all of those things.
To me, this is a failure of logic and why I feel atheists should marry themselves to empirical evidence instead. Logic has it's uses and can bring us down the long path but empirical evidence is that last 0.0000000001% and I for one am not ashamed to claim, due to a lack of empirical evidence, that I am 100% certain there is no god(s), unicorns, leprechauns, etc.
Bravo. This is well spelt out. It is what I have been writing in this thread these last two years ever since it started.
The short of it is: can everything be expected to be explained by science, or can't it?
Those who doubt a little start saying 6 out of 7 like Richard Dawkins [wrongly] does, or they say something like 99.999999999999999999999999%
Yet those who won't say 100% or 7 out of 7 are letting a bit of the supernatural pick at their brains; and I will have none of that inside my head.
Physics has explained everything so far, and has the potential to explain the rest.
I rest my case with the depth, magnificence and awesomeness of physics.
And like I have been saying for quite some time, we don't even need science at all to state with certainty that god does not exist. It is an epistemological fact that something without a noncontradictory identity cannot exist.
"without a noncontradictory identity"
Why not just say "with a contradictory identity"? With all due respect some of your sentences are unnecessarily ponderous, man. Keep it simple.
I like my way better, but I thank you for your advice. I'm pretty sure people reading these threads can handle the overly cumbersome placement of out and con, but if I reply to you, I will try and make it extra simple, with as few syllables as possible.
Oh no doubt people can handle it. It's a wonder of the human brain that it can, for the most part, make heads or tails over very garbled language.
No need to make any special accommodations for my part. All I ask is to use correct syntax. :) I was just trying to help. I get the impression you put a lot of effort into what you deem to be the infallability of your arguments and figured that might extend into the mastery of the very language you use to communicate those ideas. "My bad" if that's not the case!
MCT, you need not make it extra simple. Making it clear will suffice.
It is clear and simple enough.
I don't think using few syllables will help. I just don't understand the individual words. Sorry to be such a dunce, but philosophy often just doesn't make sense to me, especially when there are other ways to explain something. For example, how can "noncontradictory identity" prove to me there is no god?
There are rules of logic that exist and are valid. We use these principles, the most notable, in this instance, is the law of identity to perform science, think and communicate. All science depends on existence existing, consciousness being aware of it and of all existents having a particular identity. Were these axioms not valid, science and cognition would not even be.
Noncontradictory identity is necessary for existence. Identity is one of the most basic foundational conditions of existents. And god has no noncontradictory identity. Omnipotence is contradictory (one cannot create a rock that it cannot lift), omniscience is contradictory for similar reasons. It is contradictory to both exist and be supernatural. You cannot reduce any aspect of his being to perceptual evidence. God has no characteristic that affects the causal changing manifesting its identity. And for those who hold out for someone unyet described being that could hypothetically, in a way we don't understand, be god, there is still no identity and hence no existence.
Thanks, I can understand what you said, and I don't mind the extra syllables and words. You make sense.
Thank you, Joan.