The Hayter-Braeloch Scale

[Violet]

Of course, Paul... which would be indistinguishable from you thinking he's on your shoulder

Shame... I do love thread derailments ^_^

[Caecilian]

---

That argument seems silly. A table is brown, therefore it is. To perform an action... a thing must already exist. To be perceived... a thing must already exist. To be defined as a certain thing... a thing must already exist.

"I think therefore I am" has no possible comparison with "a table is brown, therefore it is".

The point of the argument is that beings that are capable of cognitive thought exist by definition (i.e. you can't have a non-existent being capable of thought). So in asking the question "Do I exist?" you are in fact answering it. The mere ability to ask such a question (or think it) confirms the beings existence, by the definition of existence.

---

That, at least, is what Descartes thought. IIrc, Kirkegaard argued that the whole exercise presupposed the 'I', thus presupposed that 'I' existed, and was therefore logically trivial. It doesn't confirm anything- it just says that if you exist then you exist.

Anyway, to get back to the original question. It seems to me that you're conflating 2 seperate (but related) issues here. They are:

1. Strength of belief, i.e. certainty.
and
2. Finding one or more theist or atheist arguments convincing.

The 2 don't have to go together. Many theists, maybe most theists, don't know any of the arguments anyway. Their belief is primarily emotional rather than intellectual. If you were to ask one of those believers 'are there conclusive arguments for the existence of god?' they might answer 'I don't know, and I don't even care, I just know that god exists'.

Similarly, a more intellectual theist might accept the ontological argument as 100% intellectually compelling, yet still have deep and distressing doubts about god's existence. Or not find any of the theist arguments compelling at all, and yet still be absolutely certain of the reality of god.

Less likely, but still possible, is someone finding one or more of the theist arguments completely compelling, but still not accepting theism on an intuitive/ emotional level.

In other words: believing that there are conclusive ways of establishing god's existence is not the same as having faith.

[Violet]

That, at least, is what Descartes thought. IIrc, Kirkegaard argued that the whole exercise presupposed the 'I', thus presupposed that 'I' existed, and was therefore logically trivial. It doesn't confirm anything- it just says that if you exist then you exist.

So the guy is saying about the same thing I'm saying? How weird... and here I thought my criticisms were unique

[Scented Nectar]

I am a 5 for sure. I won't add any .00000000001% to it, as that feels like paying lip service to something very silly.

[Caecilian]

That, at least, is what Descartes thought. IIrc, Kirkegaard argued that the whole exercise presupposed the 'I', thus presupposed that 'I' existed, and was therefore logically trivial. It doesn't confirm anything- it just says that if you exist then you exist.

So the guy is saying about the same thing I'm saying? How weird... and here I thought my criticisms were unique

Nah, its not weird at all. Great minds think alike.

Or maybe Kirkegaard just ripped off your ideas.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, I would consider myself a four. Quite honestly, in the context of this scale, I am actually finding myself welcome the word "apatheist." I find the use of the word "agnostic" as a complete position on the existence of God to be extremely flawed, especially as it seems to refer to potentiality of knowledge, but not one's own individual belief. Although if we're talking about playing along with a set with the three categories of "atheist", "agnostic", and "theist" (like most outsiders would do), I would stand by equating agnosticism with apatheism.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Sorry to be pedantic (OK, I'm not)

A skeptic first, I see my atheism as an effect of that position. I don't seem to fit into your definitions.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence. I do not assert a belief that no such evidence is possible, only that none has been provided so far in recorded history.

That no one has so far managed to prove or falsify metaphysical propositions such as the existence of god(s) and free will,implies (does not infer) such evidence cannot be produced.

[fr0d0]

I'm certain through faith that God exists. I know that God cannot ever be known. I am an agnostic theist.

I don't think Adrian is conflating certainty with knowledge. the two are kept separate... belief (certainty) and conclusively establish (knowledge).

[Dotard]

"God" is not clearly defined enough for me. Without a clear definition of what "God(s)" is/are, it makes no sense to me.

---

So where does Dotard fit in this list as he is God?

Gnostic theist I guess, assuming he understands the "I think therefore I am" argument for personal existence.

Assuming I understand? Were you holding an assumption I wouldn't, ya condescending bastard?

[Violet]

That, at least, is what Descartes thought. IIrc, Kirkegaard argued that the whole exercise presupposed the 'I', thus presupposed that 'I' existed, and was therefore logically trivial. It doesn't confirm anything- it just says that if you exist then you exist.

So the guy is saying about the same thing I'm saying? How weird... and here I thought my criticisms were unique

Nah, its not weird at all. Great minds think alike.

Or maybe Kirkegaard just ripped off your ideas.

No mind thinks like mine. I guarantee it. More seriously... mine is hardly a great mind.

I'm almost certain that this guy did rip off of my ideas... but he has a different way of orating related points, so I'm not going to make anything of it to him

---

I'm certain through faith that God exists. I know that God cannot ever be known. I am an agnostic theist.

I don't think Adrian is conflating certainty with knowledge. the two are kept separate... belief (certainty) and conclusively establish (knowledge).

If you're using 'belief' as I use 'knowledge'... and you're using 'knowledge' as I use 'intersubjective knowledge':

I agree 100%!

Yay! *Throws confetti and waves her party hat over her head*

---

"God" is not clearly defined enough for me. Without a clear definition of what "God(s)" is/are, it makes no sense to me.

---

So where does Dotard fit in this list as he is God?

Gnostic theist I guess, assuming he understands the "I think therefore I am" argument for personal existence.

Assuming I understand? Were you holding an assumption I wouldn't, ya condescending bastard?

*Holds a condescending assumption to Dotard*

You're God... you can take it