(June 10, 2014 at 9:15 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, while I remain agnostic about god's non-existence, that doesn't mean that I think his existence is equally likely. (Indeed, due to internal contradictions, I'm comfortable saying that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist).
I'm very happy to say that I don't think any god at all exists. That is my considered opinion.
I'm not happy saying "I know that there is no god," because that is knowledge which I do not possess.
Epistemology is not black and white.
Why do you not apply that same logic to everything? How do you know that you are seeing blue? Just because you call it blue and everyone else calls it blue doesn't really prove anything, does it? You could be colorblind and what you call "blue" is actually what everyone else calls "red". In fact, how do you even know anything else exists? You can't prove their existence, therefore you can't know for certain. To be honest, how do you know anything? Prove to me something that can be proven to 100% certainty. Go ahead. Don't give me math, though. "1 + 1 = 2" is simply based on what we've observed, and therefore can't really be proven (known). Same goes for cogito ergo sum. Why do you believe (know) that, just because you think, you actually exist? Because you've observed it. You can't prove that with 100% certainty, and therefore can't know it.
That is the logical conclusion of the "I can't prove anything" mentality. If you set your standards ridiculously high enough (like, say, proving something beyond what is possible, which is what you are demanding of god in order to become a gnostic atheist), you won't be able to prove (know) anything at all.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?