Are you 100% sure that it is impossible to know something for sure? Skepticism fails at the outset.
You are merely theorising. There are many points in my above reply where I have quoted Hitchens. They all need serious consideration. My answer to your question would be " I would not attempt to reply to your theorising, but as far as I am concerned, I am a 100% atheist, no less! If skepticism fails, the first failure would have been Gallileo!
What am I theorizing about? It is not just a theory that the impossible cannot happen. People who say that one cannot be sure of anything are irrational because this is a contradiction in itself. Skepticism in the presence of contradictory evidence is appropriate, but as a fundamental principle is just wrong. Keeping open to the possiblility of the impossible existing is improper skepticism. It is to these two points that I am referring. So your answer to my question is that you won't answer it? I applaud Gallileo and Hitchens, but not in how they may maintain skepticism as universal and fundamental.
What can be clear from my reply is that whatever the theory about the probality of the impossible happening, it is always posssible to take firm decisions. If that remote possilibility is to affect our decision making, bold decesion making wil be nonexisting in the world. Look at the faithfuls. The do not have an iota of doubt about their faith. So, even if you are theoretically right, there will always be subjects on which we will be called upon to take a firm decision. I have stated that I myself have taken a firm decision, just to add force to my argument, because I felt that atheism is one subject that needs my bold decision.
Come on dude,
"whatever the theory about the probability of the impossible happening"
-I just can't take people seriously that think there is even a remote chance of the impossible happening. At least you're correct about there being no god.
My take is that god is extremely improbable. Equally improbable hypothese include unicorns and elves and ghosts.
In terms of everyday life, I think one has to assume that there is no god until such a time that the improbability of god's existence is reduced.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to assume in some improbabilities and not in others. Logic requires consistency. If you believe in god why not believe in other improbabilities such as Ra, elves, the loch Ness monster and Russell's flying celestial teapot?
MK, anti-faith certainty as a counterpoint?
I think if you believe in anything 100% then you are a fool or you have had a very lucky life. :-)
One of the most profound thing that I learned in college was "Never say Never, Never say Always".
So then, the Earth is sometimes flat and sometimes, humans can shit unicorns.
LOL. I just watched two programs about multiverses. Some speculate that every possibility, no matter how unlikely, is real in some multiverse somewhere, because they are infinite. It's disturbing to think there might be a place where the equivalent of angels are real. I don't worry about gods, because logically contradictory stuff isn't just very improbable, that's impossible.
The unicorns would have to be rather small. You bet Prep H is big business there.
One multiverse is fine, but everything in existence is still one everything. And no matter what the shape of the extra dimensions and the subsequent behavior of the vibrating strings, magic cannot happen, I know. For magic, gods, angels and miracles would no longer be such, the moment they have any specific identity or manifestation in reality. The people that speculate about any possibility, I'm sure, well, I hope, only refer to the possible, not the impossible. There is not another universe within the multiverse that, say, houseplants can start a car with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or that 2+2=51.7. Impossible is impossible, wherever you are. And who says that shitting unicorns wouldn't be a pleasant experience? It might feel like eating rainbows, which can make you taller if you do it on a Thursday morning.