I don't believe you can prove a negative, which keeps me from saying !00%, but I'll say that I don't have the patience to hold down the 9 button if I typed this 99.999...% in a complete form.
Mathematical Universe.... Hmm... You are either 1 over 0, or you don't exist. Hence if you don't exist there isn't any of you, and you are then at best a figment of the imagination, a non-entity. You can't escape the mathematical Universe or exist outside it. The argument of such is like saying my god exists outside of existence and is not in existence... It's incoherent self-refutation. Also you are, I think, conflating Observable Universe with the term Universe. These have entirely different meanings. The Universe according to the Oxford dictionary is defined as "Everything that exists". It is synonymous with the term "Existence", or "Reality".. These are all terms for the same thing in which is a Universal Set of all Sets. The Observable, whether it's a simulation, an illusion, or as is, is a subset of Existence. It's relevancy depends on the context.. As in is it just a figment of the imagination, or real?
Now Ted, you say you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove it if it's a self-refuting concept.. Self-refutations are 100% certain, and so I need not argue for needing a 99% statement.
Lastly, as I pointed out earlier regarding the existential paradox, or when you move the god goal post as far as you can, it's either all or nothing.. As in it is entirely moot at best due to calling Existence itself as GOD would mean that everything and everyone is GOD while the latter statement would make everything everyone not.. Logically at the furthest extremes, it is either all or nothing.. Hence take your pick.
Please elaborate so we can understand which part you are confused about.. Perhaps then we can elaborate as well :)
You make it so complicated with a mathematical thesis et al......Why can't anyone just say they either believe god exists or god does not exist.....Everyone makes it so complicated.......We slam the theists for going on and on about how god is real and that we should just have faith.......Well if we can simply disregard all that and become Atheists....Are we not telling the world that we do not Believe....... just saying
Stating it's all or nothing really isn't complicated at all.. Which part of that was complicated? All you need to know is the definition of existence, and what the implications are when you do or don't call Existence god. Logically that is the furthest you can move the goal post, and I did it to demonstrate the point of why it really is either all or nothing at the end of the day..
Yes we can simply say we believe or not, but that doesn't establish anything in regards to the question vs when you take it and move the goal posts to the furthest extremes to where you can see the entire playing field.. That's Atheism to Pantheism, as in the two furthest extremes regarding the concept of GOD.
And I think it's agreeable that once you state that Existence itself is GOD, it becomes entirely moot as that by definition makes everyone and everything god. I would also think it would be agreeable that once you say Existence is not, there is no god or gods by definition.. This is an existential paradox and the consequences by definition literally make it all or nothing. How is that complicated?
This paradox is the very reason I question and refute the concept of GOD entirely.
To simplify... You have a soccer field with two goals on the furthest possible ends of the field. This being (No GOD - Atheism), and Existence itself as GOD (Pantheism) where everything and everyone is god by definition. Here everyone else is just people kicking the ball around aiming for their own imaginary goal posts somewhere on the field while ignoring the two farthest goal posts on the ends of the field (Atheism / Pantheism).
Literally, it's all or nothing where there is no god or gods, or that everything and everyone is god, a god, or gods. Quite literally this subject is entirely moot. The concept of god is meaningless at the end of the day.
I remember asking a Christian when I was a Pantheist:
What is GOD without Existence?
And that is when I realized the concept of GOD is entirely meaningless. That is when I realized the paradox in which effectively makes it all or nothing.. Atheism is thus the most logical stance to take.
You are right, there is no sense in making it so complicated. But (I might have written this earlier), at least I am one-hundred-and-ten-percent sure that there is no god. Why in the universe would anybody allow the slightest bit of doubt or say they are only 99.999...% sure there is no god?????
Thank you Michael Planko.......At least someone here agrees with me....If you allow the slightest hint like 0.001% that god exists what does that mean exactly.....You either believe or you don't believe...
Giving the paradox, regardless if seen complicated, it puts me in the 100% certainty there is no GOD. I cannot fix the paradox to where even .0001% would be able to squeeze in. :/ I don't mind doubt, but this paradox has literally removed any doubts.. This is only of course the reason I don't believe.. However this thread isn't a question about if you simply believe or don't, it's a question of whether or not I am 100% certain or not. :)
I think a lot of us say 99% or 99.9% sure to avoid the 100% closed mind. Asserting God as the cause of any natural phenomenon shuts off intellectual curiosity, and so does a bald statement that there is not God. Given the wealth of the evidence for science with which I am familiar and the lack of evidence for God (plus the weakness of the fallacious arguments), I am as sure as I can be that there is no God. I just leave the door cracked a tiny bit as a hedge against my human fallibility. Besides, any new argument or evidence for God, when subjected to scientific examination, might spur new scientific discoveries that disprove them.
I used to say 99 percent, and I am all for being open minded, however it is the consequence of the paradox that has brought me that one .01% further. At some point you reach a logical conclusion, an absolute due to consequence or due to problem of definition..This is the point where you can't take the concept any further intellectually, conceptually, philosophically, or scientifically.. And that is the consequence of the paradox.. Hence I can't fix that no matter how open minded I am as it literally is the furthest the goal posts can be moved on either end of the field.