Anyone here a Category 7?

[polymath257]

It depends on how you define the term 'God'. There are just too many different criteria and definitions out there.

A pantheist will identify God and the universe. Well, I do believe the universe exists, so by that definition, I would be a 1. But I also think that's a misuse of the word 'God'.

Is it *possible* that there is a race of beings in the multiverse that are able to create universes and ours is one of those? Sure. We have absolutely no data one way or the other one that issue.

On the other hand, I am as convinced of the non-existence of the standard deities of human religions as I am in the existence of black holes. So, for all practical purposes, I am a 7 on those.

Count me as ignostic/atheist.

[Shell B]

If I get to define "God" as some form of intelligence responsible for creating our environment, then I'd be a 4; except I wouldn't go so far as to say it's equally probable both ways. I just have no idea about probabilities either way. No data.

If "God" is some specific cartoon character, then I'm a 7 for all practical purposes, but I'm always open to the possibility of some bizarre cosmic coincidence.

Basically, the more stuff you hang around god's neck, the closer I get to a 7.

And that's why the very concept of a god survives by being ambiguous and ill-defined. The god concept has literally evolved, with more specific ideas of gods dying out as we discover that they do not exist and the more nebulous ones more able to spread to other potential believers.

I'd find it easier to be a solid 7 all the way across the board if there were one definition, but that doesn't exist. You could call the kid in the LEGO movie a god with some accuracy. I'm not saying we're LEGO pieces being moved around, but rather that I like clearly defined goal posts. Religions present those, and they're easily dismissed. However, there are definitions like "a superhuman being or spirit" that I actually wouldn't be surprised to find exist elsewhere.

[Jehanne]

I like the example that one scientist gave 15 or so years ago on NPR's Science Friday where he said, "If you want to take a piece of wood, paint it, put flowers on it and place it in your backyard and call it 'God', that's your business."

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot of people get the order of progression wrong when it comes to gods.  The nebulous ones are positively ancient.  The march to monotheism has not been one of increased ambiguity, but ever spiraling specificity..to the point of inanity.  

When a christian, confronted with objections, retreats to "the god of the philosophers"..the philosophers they're referring to were pagan greeks.  Even beyond that, we see evidence of spirituality or religiousity for tens of thousands of years before we see any evidence of a concrete belief in a gods, or a specific god.  

I know that it can feel like nailing jello to a lake, getting some consistent definition of god out of theists (or out of the record of belief) - but since every single one of those definitions can be (and is) flawed, can be (and is) unevidenced, can be (and does) have contravening evidence against it..it doesn't matter how many we come up with.  I can predict with confidence that the next god we come up will not be any more existent than those that have come before it. The category itself is the problem..not any specific representative of the set.

The plurality of god ideas is no barrier to knowledge. Or, if one prefers, the plurality of ideas...about anything.... -is- a barrier to knowledge..about everything. This goes back to something jorg mentioned a few pages ago. Knowledge..as in knowledge itself, is hotly debated. This issue isn't specific to gods. I do think..though, that regardless of what side of -that- issue we come down on..we ought to make sure we apply it consistently.

[Whateverist]

It's exactly as easy or as difficult as proving any other assertion.

I'm not sure that works in favor your favor here.

[The Grand Nudger]

IKR, lol?  I can only decide that I have the same level of confidence, for the same reasons, in the proposition "the sun rises in the east" as I do "there are no dragons" and "god's don't exist".  Similarly, I can only decide that I find the same sorts of objections to those statements compelling or uncompelling in equal measure and equal application.  

It's not as if I cant find some idiosyncratic or semantic defeater for either proposition (or any proposition), it's more that they don't affect either knowledge claim.   I can concede a thor planet or a dragon planet and still maintain my confidence in the propositions denying their existence.  In the case of gods..it's positively baked in.  I know what gods exist as, and that's -why- I know that they don't exist.  While it may seem semantically confusing, it's content is flatly coherent.

A large portion of the thread has been people expressing their frustration at idiosyncratic definitions (for truth, knowledge, gods, exist, etc) and semantic equivalence (gods..like..the universe, man!). I don't feel those frustrations..because, like gods, I recognize them for what they are, lol.

[warmdecember]

I think I"m a 7. But sometimes I'm a 6.9. My Christian indoctrination and guilt were very severe. Also, I think that we can't truly know if there is a god until we see proof there isn't. Aw wtf, I'm a hard 7.

[Whateverist]

In the past I've represented myself as a 7, but that depended on making certain things clear.  When people speak of knowing something, they typically embrace the idea that it is known with absolute certainty.  I liked Mathilda's point about the contextual nature of the meaning of "to know" but I would go even further and suggest that except in certain contexts, such as the question of God, the sense in which absolute certainty is required is never employed.  Not in science.  Not in everyday life.  We don't even ultimately have a firm grasp on what even makes something knowledge.  It's a very divisive philosophical issue.  However, seeing that most people assume the sense of knowing with absolute certainty when discussing the existence of God, and I do hold that my beliefs could be in error, I incline toward a softer stance on the question if I'm not going to fully qualify my remarks as I have done here.  Ultimately it's less a stance about our knowledge of God's non-existence as it is a concession to reasonable dialogue based on shared assumptions.

All good points.  There is almost no other question about which we require absolute certainty to say we know.  But there is another way we could split this question up.  

1)  Are you certain enough that God does not exist that you don't ever wonder if you could be wrong?

2)  Are you certain enough that God does not exist that you would feel justified to insist to a believer that there can be no justification for their belief?

I'd answer yes to 1 but no to 2.  I'm not satisfied that there is a simple explanation for why people believe in God which amounts to their simply being mistaken.  Some people admit to believing in God as a choice, admit they could be mistaken but still choose to live their lives as if God exists.  

Plus, like Boru, I place a great deal of stock in treating others with respect.  If another adult tells me  they find reason enough to believe in God I simply don't feel it is my place to tell them they are wrong.  That doesn't mean that I myself harbor any doubts about dismissing everything supernatural.  But then I myself have faith that the natural world is robust enough to account for everything we may experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I'm not going door to door...lol..but if somebody comes to me or asks I don't see any place for deferring to politeness in a discussion about what is or isn't true and how I know it.  

If the faithful could keep their gods zipped up in their pants the subject would never come up, anywhere, eh?

[Shell B]

IKR, lol?  I can only decide that I have the same level of confidence, for the same reasons, in the proposition "the sun rises in the east" as I do "there are no dragons" and "god's don't exist".  Similarly, I can only decide that I find the same sorts of objections to those statements compelling or uncompelling in equal measure and equal application.  

It's not as if I cant find some idiosyncratic or semantic defeater for either proposition (or any proposition), it's more that they don't affect either knowledge claim.   I can concede a thor planet or a dragon planet and still maintain my confidence in the propositions denying their existence.  In the case of gods..it's positively baked in.  I know what gods exist as, and that's -why- I know that they don't exist.  While it may seem semantically confusing, it's content is flatly coherent.

A large portion of the thread has been people expressing their frustration at idiosyncratic definitions (for truth, knowledge, gods, exist, etc) and semantic equivalence (gods..like..the universe, man!). I don't feel those frustrations..because, like gods, I recognize them for what they are, lol.

Or just have decided which definitions you’ll accept and have superglued yourself to them. It can’t be dismissed as semantics when we’re talking about actual, commonly used definitions. If you want to ignore dictionaries, sure, there’s no valid semantic argument for a kinda 6.

You do know you’re trying to convince atheists that they aren’t atheist enough. Bahaha.