RE: Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
February 25, 2012 at 5:31 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2012 at 5:34 am by Whateverist.)
I find no inconsistency in Dawkins admitting he can't be sure God does not exist. I'm in the same boat.
I am 100% certain that I have no objective evidence that god either does or does not exist. That makes me entirely agnostic. I do not know if anyone else has this knowledge nor do I know whether such knowledge is possible. Maybe, but I don't have it.
I am also 100% certain that I am operating on no beliefs in gods. That makes me entirely atheistic. I don't deny the existence of gods I just don't find any coherent reason why I should believe they're out there. Pascal's wager describes a variety of belief which is different from those I have. If I don't think, feel or intuit that something is true then I can't believe it. Though perhaps I could pretend to believe something, I wouldn't be able to fool myself.
I am 100% certain that I have no objective evidence that god either does or does not exist. That makes me entirely agnostic. I do not know if anyone else has this knowledge nor do I know whether such knowledge is possible. Maybe, but I don't have it.
I am also 100% certain that I am operating on no beliefs in gods. That makes me entirely atheistic. I don't deny the existence of gods I just don't find any coherent reason why I should believe they're out there. Pascal's wager describes a variety of belief which is different from those I have. If I don't think, feel or intuit that something is true then I can't believe it. Though perhaps I could pretend to believe something, I wouldn't be able to fool myself.