★★ [4.3 SECOND conversion] ★★: CONVERT religious to atheist, in roughly 4.3 seconds.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The point is, human has zero awareness of absoluteness, as we observe things probabilistically.
God is said to be an absolute quantity.
So, as the original argument expresses, there is no empirical method of calculating of absolutes in science.

Keep in mind that we don't have absolute conviction for any event, neither for 1, or 2, or 1 and 2 etc.

Okay, but this was not a part of your original premise.  Nothing in your original premise asserted that humans observe things probabilistically or that it is impossible to have absolute knowledge.  It sounds like you don't know what omniscience is or you are assuming that the link between non-omniscience and the impossibility of certainty is an obvious one. Considering there is an entire branch of philosophy devoted to what we can know with certainty if anything(epistemology), I would argue that you really can't make that leap without qualifying it in your argument in some way.

You should change your argument to assert two things.
1) That we observe things probabilistically.
2) That we can't have absolute knowledge of anything.




I imagine once you change your argument like this, everyone who is absolutely certain that god exists will claim that premie 2 is not true, and that every theist who does agree with premise 2 will already be of the position that they are not certain that god exists, but that they find it to be more probable than not that he does exist.

Non omniscience = probabilistic expression, as far as science goes.

In other words, there doesn't appear to be any scope, beyond omniscience, or probabilistic expression, so if you aren't omniscient, you do things probabilistically...

Also, it appears I wrote down this obvious probabilistic thing, as a part of a later post of mine, long before your comment above: http://atheistforums.org/thread-47212.html