Anyone here a Category 7?

[Jehanne]

1 and 7 are all dishonest answers.

Only 7 is a dishonest answer.

Which category are you?

[Aegon]

I feel like I'm as positive as I can be that there is no god. That should br 7, not 6, no? The idea that "we can't know for sure" is giving in to one of religions' many logical exemptions. Would you really say the same about other things besides God?

I don't think it's a logical exemption. Nor is it "giving in." It's reasonable to approach unknowns with a skeptical attitude. Skepticism is neither denial nor belief, but suspension in between until solid evidence is provided.

Claiming certainty where there is insufficient evidence is for theists. I'd like to think we're better than that.

So you'd rank yourself as a 6 in regards to.... current existence of megladon sharks deep in the ocean, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, etc?

I haven't given much thought to this scale until now though. I'm probably wrong.

[Jehanne]

I consider myself a 5.3, by the way; years of brainwashing from my childhood is probably the reason why I am not a 6+.

You have doubts regarding Sadistic Christian God?

No, I.would say that I am a 6.9 (and counting) with respect to that god.

[Shell B]

I don't think it's a logical exemption. Nor is it "giving in." It's reasonable to approach unknowns with a skeptical attitude. Skepticism is neither denial nor belief, but suspension in between until solid evidence is provided.

Claiming certainty where there is insufficient evidence is for theists. I'd like to think we're better than that.

So you'd rank yourself as a 6 in regards to.... current existence of megladon sharks deep in the ocean, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, etc?

I haven't given much thought to this scale until now though. I'm probably wrong.

On this planet? Or in the whole of existence?

[Shell B]

My point, exactly, Shell. There can be a "thor" planet and it still wouldn't make gods existent..just as there can be a "dragon" planet and this wouldn't make dragons existent..

I’m going to stop you there. That’s just wrong. If there’s a planet full of dragons, they exist. I mean, what?

[Shell B]

I'd add, to the above, that the "you don't know, you can't know" objection works equally well with all of the gods people do rule out.  You don't know whether or not there's a Zues planet.  A Jesus Planet.  A Thor planet.  You can't.

Are any of those planets really more or less improbable than a dragon planet, since we're positing the existence of planets on the other side of the universe where human fiction miraculously accords with reality?

Should a person have to know about them to know..in effect, anything (as this example can be repeated with absolutely any proposition)?

While we're on the subject of the universe..and things on the other side of it.  Could anything actually be omniscient if it didn't know what was happening right here on this side of the universe, right now?  Seems like it's "knowledge engine" whatever that is..would have to move quite a bit faster than the speed of light to inform it of what I'm thinking right here..if it was on the other side of the universe (in addition to being able to read my mind...ofc).  Anywhoo, these are the continuity errors that keep me, personally, giggling about gods.

It's the Russell's Teapot fallacy, for all those things claimed to exist without proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Sure, if I were arguing that gods exist, but we just can’t see them, which I’m not. I’m arguing that there could be something that’s a reasonable approximation, but that there’s still no reason to think that there is. In addition, none of the gods any human has ever described to my knowledge exist, and I feel certain of it.

[robvalue]

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.

[ignoramus]

My issue with the scale is the same issue with the holes in the straw argument. We need to define.
I think by human definition, a God cannot exist. We wrote them that way back then.

If we began to write about gods today, we'd be a lot more technical and congruent in our description of them and their abilities.
But 2-3 thousand years ago, woo was a thing and science was not.

This is why the word "God" is completely loaded. Not different to eg: Medusa, Hercules, etc.. They're all story characters meant to possess "unbelievable" powers.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point, exactly, Shell.  There can be a "thor" planet and it still wouldn't make gods existent..just as there can be a "dragon" planet and this wouldn't make dragons existent..

I’m going to stop you there. That’s just wrong. If there’s a planet full of dragons, they exist. I mean, what?

Sure..as I already mentioned, in the same way that komodo dragons already mean that dragons exist.  Content equivalence is far more important than semantic similarity, in the manner that I address what I can or do know.   It's the same example as my initial comments in thread.  If someone is asking about bigfoot, no amount of pointing at a cat is ever going to change my mind about bigfoot.  

That they might think that cats are close enough doesn't affect my own appraisal. It's a puerile objection, imo, not a barrier to the availability of knowledge.

But, since you stopped me there, wouldn't the thor planet mean that the gods you're certain don't exist...actually do exist? At least one, Thor.

Sure, if I were arguing that gods exist, but we just can’t see them, which I’m not. I’m arguing that there could be something that’s a reasonable approximation, but that there’s still no reason to think that there is. In addition, none of the gods any human has ever described to my knowledge exist, and I feel certain of it.

The wispy non god at the other end of the universe called-a-god is also a god described by human beings. It's still a cat, still not bigfoot. I feel the same certainty, for the same reasons..as you...I just don't have a special godbox. No one, in asking the question "do gods exist" is talking about some alien being hiding out in the far reaches of the universe. They're asking about that peculiar fiction endemic to human beings on this planet. If you're certain that those don't exist, your position is content equivalent to my own. There's really no need for caveats and qualifiers - imo.

If, otoh, the dragon planet is compelling to you as a barrier to my knowledge, then shouldn't the thor planet be equally compelling as a barrier to your own? Repeat ad infinitum with a whole planet full of counter-examples for every other thing you feel certain of.