Anyone here a Category 7?

[Angrboda]

If nature has no other qualities beyond being nature then nature is not God.

I'll get back to you on the knowledge question, VL, and I acknowledge that it was a tall order.  You don't necessarily have to defend what you think knowledge is in order to describe it.  It would seem elementary that in order to say that you don't have knowledge concerning a proposition, you would have to know what does qualify as knowledge.  It would seem some definition of knowledge is necessary in order to make the claim in negativo.  But more to the point, you seemed to suggest that knowledge is absent if certain questions of probability are answered in the negative.  I would have to ask you two questions on that basis.  One, how is probability related to knowledge, and two, if knowledge is related to probably, as you seem to be suggesting, can we ever satisfy that condition?

I've been called out on this before. My epistemology is not as developed as I'd like. But it's workable, and I can explain myself enough to answer your questions.

I speak of "certainties" as probabilities due to my penchant for questioning things others take for granted. Right now, I see a desk in front of me. Is the desk there? Yes. Do I know it's there? Well, yes... pretty much. I am not certain. I see a 99.99999% chance that the desk is there. That's where probability comes in. Maybe the desk is not there. Maybe I am hallucinating. Maybe, in a few seconds, I will wake up in a pod filled with goo while Morpheus detaches the jack affixed to my spine. Are these "non-desk" scenarios probable? No. But they are (very remote) possibilities. You see why I speak of certainties in terms of probabilities. In all that, you might also suss out why I will never be a 7 or 1 on any scale, theistic or otherwise.

To answer your second question, I don't think we will ever be able to get to 100% certainty concerning anything (if that is what you meant by "satisfy the condition"). But why bother? 99% is good enough to proceed to the next item. I "round up" when I get to 99% and proceed as if it were 100%. To me 99% certainty "satisfies the condition" of knowing something.

Your reply reminds me of a poem by Mark Strand which describes a woman as packing a suitcase with one hand while unpacking it with the other.

FWIW, I'm not sure I see where you're getting anything to assign probabilities to these various non-desk scenarios. But that's not my point, anyway. I thank you for your description of your epistemic standards. When you introduce probability as a standard, you introduce a standard which can be met in practice. Whether God's non-existence meets that standard for you is a factual question, him not meeting that standard does not show that he couldn't meet that standard, which seemed to be the point in your introducing the unlikely probability that Odin or Yahweh created the universe, which, by the way, doesn't sound all that different than the unlikely possibility of the non-desk scenarios. I see that as inconsistent. Am I wrong?