comments on "Top 10 arguments for the existence of god"

[pile]

This was posted on the talk page for The top 10 arguments for the existence of god. Rather than get into it on the wiki, I thought I would post the comments here and respond:

I feel the need to correct you on some points.

1. Nobody is born an atheist. Children are born without knowledge of the concept of God and therefore are unable to make a decision regarding His existence.

2. The burden of proof actually does lie upon the atheist. Or rather, the burden of disproof. Logic dictates that the only method of argumentation which leads to certain conclusions is deduction. This is why all arguments for the existence of God are invalid. Not because they are somehow objectively not compelling, but because they are inductive arguments which provide only vague probabilities.

3. Disbelief in God is actually the same as belief in the non-existence of God. It's the same statement. The worldview you are actually supposing to have is agnosticism: uncertainty on the subject of the existence of God. Certainty either way makes it a belief.

4. Early on you say: "there is no indisputable, tangible evidence of the existence of any God"? So you want indisputable tangible evidence? Who decides what is undisputable? You? So what you're saying is that for some reason you can depend on the reliability of your mind, observations, and analysis. Why is that exactly? You simply accept such things as an act of faith. Simply put, your faith rests entirely on your own perception, which is subjective. Certainty in anything is ultimately impossible to "prove" since you have to start with certainty in something else to prove it (infinite regress). So don't criticize theists for being unable to prove their faith to your satisfaction. Furthermore, tangible and indisputable evidence is a contradiction. To be indisputable, it has to be purely abstract and philosophical, otherwise it leaves room for subjective interpretation. Let's say, for example, God comes down and talks to us all. Maybe we were all hallucinating as you said. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe we were in the matrix. Maybe our memory is wrong. It is not possible to form "indisputable" evidence. I think before even debating about the evidence, we need to debate about the basic assumptions we are making, since the evidence is shifted based on those assumptions.

One last thing I would like to point out: "This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator." You're missing the point here. There is a certain state of complexity which seems absurd without assuming it was designed. It is not a fallacy to exclude God from this principle. As long as we are discussing objects that exist in time and space, they are dependent and we have to trace them back to some origin (this is similar to what the first cause argument is getting at). The origin, of course, cannot be nothing, nor can it be something simple. Nor can it exist in time and space since those things didn't exist. It must be complex and self contained. God is both of those things, which makes God a very intuitive answer to the problem. It would be more of a stretch to suggest that lack of complex structure would produce a complex structure.
Retrieved from "http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Talk:Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God"

[wayneNilsen]

1. Nobody is born an atheist. Children are born without knowledge of the concept of God and therefore are unable to make a decision regarding His existence.

True, children are technically agnostic. This should be changed. This article is intresting for those considering themselves agnostics.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

Please don't mistake me, this only applies to adults and children able to understand it.

[pile]

I feel the need to correct you on some points.

1. Nobody is born an atheist. Children are born without knowledge of the concept of God and therefore are unable to make a decision regarding His existence.

I think you misunderstand the definition of atheist. Yes, in fact, everybody is born atheist. I suspect you feel the term "atheist" means a specific rejection of god-beliefs, and along those lines, yes you have to have knowledge of something before you reject its existence. However, that's not the true definition of atheism. It is a lack of belief and not a rejection or alternate belief in the non-existence of someone or something.

For example, you were born not knowing about Santa Claus. In other words, you lacked any belief in that myth, and it was only later when you were taught about him, did you recognize he did exist, and then later as you matured, if you're like most, you abandoned that belief once again. While later you might hold a conscious contention that Santa Claus does not exist, you still lacked the belief in his existence later in life, just like you did when you were born. That's analogous to atheism. When you were born, you were a "weak atheist" towards Santa Claus, and later you were a "strong atheist" towards Santa.

2. The burden of proof actually does lie upon the atheist. Or rather, the burden of disproof. Logic dictates that the only method of argumentation which leads to certain conclusions is deduction. This is why all arguments for the existence of God are invalid. Not because they are somehow objectively not compelling, but because they are inductive arguments which provide only vague probabilities.

Again, you are wrong. Atheists are not making claims. Religious people are making claims, such as, "Jesus was the Lord and Savior and he walked on water and he healed the sick and he was all-powerful and will return." Those are specific claims that intersect with the physical world, therefore they should be subject to examination and scrutiny. If someone suggests God doesn't exist, that's not a testable hypothesis. I could say the same thing about flying pink elephants. There's no way to prove something "doesn't exist".

I do agree however, it is presumptuous for some atheists so suggest "there is no creator entity of any sort, and when we die, that's it" -- because in reality, nobody has ever been able to prove one way or another -- this is still an unknown. Yes, the lack of definitive evidence of any "god" or "life after death" seems to suggest there may not be a creator or an afterlife, but the truth is, we don't have enough information to conclude one way or another. People that make these suggestions are what we call "strong atheists" and they are by no means, the majority of atheists.

3. Disbelief in God is actually the same as belief in the non-existence of God. It's the same statement. The worldview you are actually supposing to have is agnosticism: uncertainty on the subject of the existence of God. Certainty either way makes it a belief.

Please see the definition of atheism. Agnosticism, for the most part, is a subset of atheism. You cannot believe in something if you're not sure it exists.

It's worth noting that the majority of your argument is based upon a false presumption of what it means to be atheist.

4. Early on you say: "there is no indisputable, tangible evidence of the existence of any God"? So you want indisputable tangible evidence? Who decides what is undisputable? You?

So what you're saying is that for some reason you can depend on the reliability of your mind, observations, and analysis. Why is that exactly? You simply accept such things as an act of faith. Simply put, your faith rests entirely on your own perception, which is subjective. Certainty in anything is ultimately impossible to "prove" since you have to start with certainty in something else to prove it (infinite regress). So don't criticize theists for being unable to prove their faith to your satisfaction. Furthermore, tangible and indisputable evidence is a contradiction. To be indisputable, it has to be purely abstract and philosophical, otherwise it leaves room for subjective interpretation. Let's say, for example, God comes down and talks to us all. Maybe we were all hallucinating as you said. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe we were in the matrix. Maybe our memory is wrong. It is not possible to form "indisputable" evidence. I think before even debating about the evidence, we need to debate about the basic assumptions we are making, since the evidence is shifted based on those assumptions.

There are established standards to prove claims. Look up The Scientific Method. It's been used for centuries and is a very reliable and solid way to test theories.

Every day, you avail yourself of technology and resources that are the result of tests and experiments using the Scientific Method. This is the driving force behind almost all human progress. I understand that it doesn't seem to back up your pretense about god, but that's not my fault, nor the fault of the process. It's just the way it is, and that's why people like you had to coin a new term called, "faith" to make it seem like believing in something that has yet to be proven real, sounds like a credible perspective. Not unlike how "intelligent design" is just another word for a bullshit, unproven theory that some people want to infect science with.

One last thing I would like to point out:

"This most famous argument for God is also the easiest to completely deflate. If anything sufficiently complicated must have a creator, then who created God? It's as simple as that. However, when you point out this flaw in theist logic, they commit another logical fallacy: special pleading to claim that God is the exception to the rule and doesn't need to have a creator."

You're missing the point here. There is a certain state of complexity which seems absurd without assuming it was designed. It is not a fallacy to exclude God from this principle.

HAHAHAHAHA That's awesome...

You just used the special pleading fallacy to explain why the special pleading fallacy is not valid.

Like most religious people, you simply arbitrarily declare your point of view to be superior... not because you've provided any contrary evidence... just because.

Lame.

[awjohnson]

Scientific method uses induction which makes it technically logically invalid, by use of inductive "proofs". If for some reason I didn't accept the scientific method though, would you consider me to be unreasonable? That's the issue I'm getting at. I want to know the limits of what you personally would accept as reasonable, so that I can decide if those standards are in and of themselves reasonable.

I don't need to explain the origin of God in the argument I'm making, that's why I exclude God. I'm making an argument for the reasonability of the presupposition of God, and I think that's what other theists are doing in the same argument. I'm saying that the reason that complex things exist is because they originated in something complex. A complex origin is necessary for a complex structure. God would be a complex origin.

The real question, why do complex things in the physical universe need to be explained? I suppose you would say they don't. That's fine. But I actually think that the idea of nothing is a reasonable alternative to a complex universe that contains laws that act in harmony, so I want some kind of answer. Is that unreasonable to you?

[awjohnson]

This is the driving force behind almost all human progress. I understand that it doesn't seem to back up your pretense about god, but that's not my fault, nor the fault of the process.

So are you saying that I disbelief in science? Did I actually say that, or are you assuming that? I believe in certain aspects of science, though it is not because of pure "logic" but because of my predisposition. However, I do feel that some scientists make claims unsupported by the evidence, merely because it fits their perception. I'm debating your need for some kind of a rational proof. I think that the very request is unreasonable.

It's just the way it is, and that's why people like you had to coin a new term called, "faith" to make it seem like believing in something that has yet to be proven real, sounds like a credible perspective.

I don't really like being associated with people that I don't even know, first of all. I'm trying to have a discussion with only you, so let's try to keep from these associations.

The term faith refers to the acceptance of something in the absence of proof. However, ALL beliefs, including faith in your own perception, require a leap of faith somewhere. It seems to be less of a leap to believe in your perception, but that's beside the point. I don't have some weird agenda like the one your describing. Faith is reality. You use it all the time, and you don't even know it. Science is an example. Humanity is another. Faith in a God with very specific attributes is important for a lot of reasons that we can get into later. But in principle, it's kind of like having faith in the senses. It's a practical thing, at least for me.

Like most religious people, you simply arbitrarily declare your point of view to be superior...

Did I say superior, or are you assuming that? I actually never said that, and didn't even mean it in that way. Also, my reasons for deciding upon theism are not arbitrary. Though I've come to realize that the decision of what is arbitrary is often arbitrary in itself. So I would appreciate it if you would use it more conservatively. In this instance you are making a (false) assumption about me and then (incorrectly) calling it arbitrary. After viewing your other posts, it seems like you do this often. This is a personal attack, not an attack of my "beliefs". Let's try to reduce the frequency of this a bit, shall we? It would be more conducive for constructive discussion.

What I really want to do with you is establish our methodology. It seems like it may be different. You say that it should be objectively convincing to follow scientific experimentation. But how would I do this with God in a way that satisfies you short of God physically standing in front of you? I would certainly be willing to indulge you in this way if you could tell me what you want.

[pile]

Scientific method uses induction which makes it technically logically invalid, by use of inductive "proofs". If for some reason I didn't accept the scientific method though, would you consider me to be unreasonable? That's the issue I'm getting at. I want to know the limits of what you personally would accept as reasonable, so that I can decide if those standards are in and of themselves reasonable.

Why would you not accept the scientific method? Oh wait, I know... exclusively when it doesn't jive with your deluded foregone conclusions. Other than that, each and every day you rely on the fruits of the scientific method, from the electricity you use, to the transportation you depend upon, to the computer technology you use, you continuously depend upon science and technology, which is anything but arbitrary and subjective. Yet, you arbitrarily decide when and where you're going to acknowledge reality and this always coincides with your personal agenda. Not terribly fair.

What we humans consider "reasonable" is established more or less depending upon in what context you're talking. When it comes to the scientific method, it is based on a very reasonable and universally-accepted series of premises (physical laws -- but these are not prescriptive laws passed down by a higher power - they are descriptive laws that are consistently observable as a product of nature and our reality -- gravity for example is a descriptive law - a phenomenon that we use as a way to measure weight.. the way we arrive at the "truth" of something's weight is based on the fact that gravity is a constant on our planet that we use in a manner consistent with the scientific method to measure the weight of an object on Earth). if you want to get existential, you can argue everything is subjective, but that's not the point here. We're talking about things that manifest in the physical world and therefore we use physical "laws" as the basis for determining whether something is valid in one form or another.

I don't need to explain the origin of God in the argument I'm making, that's why I exclude God. I'm making an argument for the reasonability of the presupposition of God, and I think that's what other theists are doing in the same argument. I'm saying that the reason that complex things exist is because they originated in something complex. A complex origin is necessary for a complex structure. God would be a complex origin.

First off, even if your premise was true (which it isn't) all it does is beg the question, "Who created God then?" at which point you pull a special pleading fallacy and make an arbitrary exception.

So you're saying the "reasonability of god's existence" is based on the premise that complex things come from something equally or more complex? If that's the case, then open your eyes because you're about to give up on the "reasonability of god's existence" because that claim has been proven to be false.

Atheists are not making any "argument" against god. We make arguments against various claims relating to god. But ultimately I can't tell you god doesn't exist. But if you say Jesus died on the cross for my sins, that's a claim that intersects with the physical world and we can scrutinize that presupposition and determine the likelihood of the claim being real or bogus. Likewise, if you use the bible as any sort of evidence, we can examine the bible, its origin, its history, the cultural, political and anthropological context in which is was conceived and determine whether or not it is "reasonable" given everything we know, that its claims are potentially legitimate.

You employing the "argument from design" - or as you suggest "complicated things come from other complicated things" is simply not a legitimate claim, and its been dissected a thousand times in a thousand different ways by numerous scientists as well as philosophers. There is just as much, if not more evidence to show that complex things evolve than are the product of more complex things. In fact, the bacterial flagellum... the so-called "holy grail" that creationists have used for decades to suggest a component of life was too complex to have originated from a lesser form, has been thoroughly dispelled -- see the Nova documentary called, Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial and it will destroy your claim with oodles of factual evidence.

Aside from the mountains of scientific evidence which clearly shows complex things can evolve from more simple things, take a look at your own life and you can see things too. If you have children, do you think they're coming out less intelligent, less capable than their predecessors? Or do you see humanity becoming smarter, bigger, more capable than say they were 100, 500, 1000+ years ago? Our increased knowledge and capability on this planet is not the result of divine intervention. It's clearly the result of our species advancing in observable, material ways to increase our knowledge and capability. There is no higher or more complex entity involved.

The real question, why do complex things in the physical universe need to be explained? I suppose you would say they don't. That's fine. But I actually think that the idea of nothing is a reasonable alternative to a complex universe that contains laws that act in harmony, so I want some kind of answer. Is that unreasonable to you?

If mankind followed religion's suggestion, that once we answer "Because God said so", we no longer need to search for any additional answers, we'd still be living in the dark ages and the average life expectancy would be around 35 years of age and people would still be dying en mass from everything from common colds to smallpox and broken bones.

The bottom line is we all want answers and we all (if we're not retarded) constantly strive to improve ourselves and our environment. Some of us simply refuse to make stuff up when we don't have an answer, and some of you are content with sitting on arbitrary claims. The problem is those arbitrary claims really haven't benefited humanity nearly as much as the secular method of progress.

[pile]

So are you saying that I disbelief in science? Did I actually say that, or are you assuming that? I believe in certain aspects of science, though it is not because of pure "logic" but because of my predisposition. However, I do feel that some scientists make claims unsupported by the evidence, merely because it fits their perception. I'm debating your need for some kind of a rational proof. I think that the very request is unreasonable.

No, I know you believe in science whether you admit it or not. I am suggesting that you arbitrary extrapolate bits and pieces of science when it proves your conclusions and ignore other bits when they don't.

Maybe one issue here is whether or not we're having a purely philosophical conversation of a scientific one. Because I see you dancing back and forth. When you get backed into a corner in the material world, then you start citing metaphysical stuff, then you leave the existential world and get back into the real world and try to suggest you've been consistent in your claims.

The term faith refers to the acceptance of something in the absence of proof. However, ALL beliefs, including faith in your own perception, require a leap of faith somewhere.

There you go... you just left reality and entered into philosophical existential-land.

Let's see if you try to jump back into the material world and pretend you've been talking about the exact same plane of existence....

It seems to be less of a leap to believe in your perception, but that's beside the point. I don't have some weird agenda like the one your describing. Faith is reality. You use it all the time, and you don't even know it. Science is an example. Humanity is another. Faith in a God with very specific attributes is important for a lot of reasons that we can get into later. But in principle, it's kind of like having faith in the senses. It's a practical thing, at least for me.

Yep, you dance back and forth between a hypothetical philosophical realm where wow man, like is my existence only real because my brain says so, so maybe all life is just electrical energy and I only exist because I believe I exist... wow man.. and then you jump back to the real world and suggest that because there is some existential questions not totally answered, this somehow legitimizes your material claims about god and his existence.

you can't have it both ways...

If you make claims in the physical world, about physical things, don't start talking metaphysically about abstract philosophical constructs... you're just creating a big smokescreen to make it seem like what you're saying makes sense when it doesn't. This reminds me of that piece of trash movie, "What the bleep do we know?" It did the same thing and hoodwinked a bunch of people who didn't know any better into thinking any of their claims made sense and were backed up by science, when they weren't... not at all.

Faith is belief in something in the absence of evidence. A persons perception is not faith-based. Not at all. It's based on a person's experience, which is based on the evidence they've gathered during their lives. There is no faith involved. Again, you arbitrarily make claims as the basis for other claims and your core claims are not legitimate. And when pressed on them, you abandon the material nature of the claims and start to talk philosophically as a way to appear like you're making some sort of legitimate, logical point, but you're not.

What I really want to do with you is establish our methodology. It seems like it may be different. You say that it should be objectively convincing to follow scientific experimentation. But how would I do this with God in a way that satisfies you short of God physically standing in front of you? I would certainly be willing to indulge you in this way if you could tell me what you want.

Yes, let's establish a methodology... make up your mind if you want to talk about the real world or the realm of metaphysical philosophy. The problem with metaphysics is that it's all ultimately arbitrary and it doesn't prove anything. Freethoughtpedia doesn't exist to debunk whether or not there's a super tiny universe under your thumbnail that nobody can detect... those kinds of pursuits are best reserved for people who are really, really high.

Likewise, if you want to claim perception is "faith-based", ergo all of existence is centered around faith, you're making a claim that if applied to our physical world is completely bogus and easily debunked, and if you apply it to the metaphysical world, you're dancing around in an abstract grey area that is pointless. If you want to go there then we just take turns making up arbitrary claims about anything we want and look for ways to legitimize it. And for what purpose.. I don't know because it's all arbitrary and meaningless.

[awjohnson]

Why would you not accept the scientific method? Oh wait, I know... exclusively when it doesn't jive with your deluded foregone conclusions.

A little bit of a stretch considering you don't know what my conclusions are yet, not exactly anyway. Most conversation thus far has been me trying to assess your views on things, and the degree to which you are dependent upon them, the kinds of things you find convincing, etc. I think I've treated you with sufficient respect, I would appreciate it if you gave me the benefit of the doubt.

What we humans consider "reasonable" is established more or less depending upon in what context you're talking. When it comes to the scientific method, it is based on a very reasonable and universally-accepted series of premises (physical laws -- but these are not prescriptive laws passed down by a higher power - they are descriptive laws that are consistently observable as a product of nature and our reality -- gravity for example is a descriptive law - a phenomenon that we use as a way to measure weight.. the way we arrive at the "truth" of something's weight is based on the fact that gravity is a constant on our planet that we use in a manner consistent with the scientific method to measure the weight of an object on Earth).

Great... so does that mean we are using the scientific method on God, or not? I don't object to the scientific method. I object to certain conclusions/theories, especially considering the plethora of valid opinions out there.

Likewise, if you use the bible as any sort of evidence, we can examine the bible, its origin, its history, the cultural, political and anthropological context in which is was conceived and determine whether or not it is "reasonable" given everything we know, that its claims are potentially legitimate.

I have heard such a wide range of seemingly contradictory views regarding these kinds of evidence. That's why I personally prefer not to go there. Ultimately you will find other evidence suggesting mine is false and we won't come into agreement. You say that this is the only arena in which we can adequately debate. I say no, not even here.

There is just as much, if not more evidence to show that complex things evolve than are the product of more complex things.

I'm skeptical of those kind of progressive evolutionary arguments, they seem flawed, but I will look into it more. However things do not "self evolve". Not that you are proposing that, but in order for you to have a valid argument here, you would have to say that a simple closed system evolved into a complex one. In any event, I am talking more broadly about the complexity of the mechanics of the universe itself. I think that it's necessary to talk at that level. But even then, one could make the case for "arbitrariness". I don't really see how you personally differentiate between arbitrary and valid starting point. I honestly think that the least arbitrary point to begin discussion is the origin of the universe, since everything hangs upon that. Any other proof would rely on the incidental details that are less readily known.

Or do you see humanity becoming smarter, bigger, more capable than say they were 100, 500, 1000+ years ago?

Not a valid argument. Humans have amassed knowledge by means of the incredibly complex systems built into them already. The knowledge isn't "evolving". It's just collected. As far as "bigger" and "more capable", sure, by means of the knowledge amassed through science (see previous statement).

So I stand by my original statement: it is reasonable to believe that God created the universe. We have a complex system in this physical universe, which necessitates a complex metaphysical explanation. Or at least some kind of explanation. Instead you accuse theists of special pleading (which I still question), while implicitly accepting ignorance as a viable alternative. If something precedes the physical realm, then that something is not bound by a time-space principle of contingency. This is a valid reason for the exemption. Again, it doesn't "prove" God's existence, just shows that that presupposition is reasonable (given other presuppositions).

If mankind followed religion's suggestion, that once we answer "Because God said so", we no longer need to search for any additional answers, we'd still be living in the dark ages and the average life expectancy would be around 35 years of age and people would still be dying en mass from everything from common colds to smallpox and broken bones.

Once again, I don't object to science. We should by all means continue!

A persons perception is not faith-based. Not at all. It's based on a person's experience, which is based on the evidence they've gathered during their lives.

This is false. If you didn't have faith in your perception, you would not be able to accept the conclusions from your analysis of your experiences, etc. What I'm saying here is that faith is not foreign to you. You have all sorts of pragmatic presuppositions that you implicitly accept in order to function. They aren't proven. You don't give them a second thought. And no, I'm not claiming that God is exclusively a pragmatic presupposition, though that may be part of it. I'm trying explain to you why arguing against "faith" abstractly is absurd, because that's what you were doing. Which brings me back to the original discussion...

I think you misunderstand the definition of atheist. Yes, in fact, everybody is born atheist. I suspect you feel the term "atheist" means a specific rejection of god-beliefs, and along those lines, yes you have to have knowledge of something before you reject its existence. However, that's not the true definition of atheism. It is a lack of belief and not a rejection or alternate belief in the non-existence of someone or something.

Meriam-webster: one who believes that there is no deity
Dictionary.com: An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

You're redefining atheism, which is fine, but it's actually important that I know this. It makes the direction of the discussion different. There are only three options. Please tell me where you personally stand:
1. You believe God exists.
2. You believe God doesn't exist.
3. You don't know.
Skepticism counts as 3, unless you have some degree of certainty in God's non-existence, which is 2. You're trying to do something weird with semantics that allows you to evade the only possible positions you can have. But there really are only three. If you are 3, then I think we're done here. I will add comments to other threads though. If you are 2, I am going to hold you accountable for your certainty, question its origin, and point out your hypocrisy.

Again, you are wrong. Atheists are not making claims. Religious people are making claims, such as, "Jesus was the Lord and Savior and he walked on water and he healed the sick and he was all-powerful and will return." Those are specific claims that intersect with the physical world, therefore they should be subject to examination and scrutiny. If someone suggests God doesn't exist, that's not a testable hypothesis. I could say the same thing about flying pink elephants. There's no way to prove something "doesn't exist".

Atheists, in the commonly accepted definition ("strong atheists") are making claims, for which they need to be held accountable. I'm not actually asking you to prove God doesn't exist. I realized that you've kind of done what I wanted already, which is debunked some of the arguments for the existence of God. It just seems like you are making broader claims than that without the important qualification you've made on "atheism".

Likewise, if you want to claim perception is "faith-based", ergo all of existence is centered around faith, you're making a claim that if applied to our physical world is completely bogus and easily debunked, and if you apply it to the metaphysical world, you're dancing around in an abstract grey area that is pointless.

Perception is faith based. This has nothing to say about the actual nature of the physical realm (it's not that you're projecting), but how you perceive it. You will naturally pick and choose beliefs and reasons, though not willingly, but by the nature of your disposition. So, what this means is that you are going to consider certain beliefs basic or natural, and others not. It will of course seem arbitrary to me, as mine seem arbitrary to you. But everyone does it.

[wayneNilsen]

You're redefining atheism, which is fine, but it's actually important that I know this. It makes the direction of the discussion different. There are only three options. Please tell me where you personally stand: 1. You believe God exists.2. You believe God doesn't exist.3. You don't know. Skepticism counts as 3, unless you have some degree of certainty in God's non-existence, which is 2. You're trying to do something weird with semantics that allows you to evade the only possible positions you can have. But there really are only three. If you are 3, then I think we're done here. I will add comments to other threads though. If you are 2, I am going to hold you accountable for your certainty, question its origin, and point out your hypocrisy.

Well Richard Dawkins has a rather ellegant way of pointing out rather more categories:

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God.
2. Very high probability but short of 100% belief in God.
3. Higher than 50% but not very high, teachnically agnostic but leaning twords theism.
4. Exactly 50% Completely impartial agnostic.
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning twords athiesm.
6. Very low probability but short of 0%.
7 Strong athiest 0% probability of God.

I would like to put myself in category 6, but only to the same degree i am agnostic about the invisible pink unicorn.

[awjohnson]

I would like to put myself in category 6, but only to the same degree i am agnostic about the invisible pink unicorn.

Ok, these are all quantitative differences, not qualitative. My point was that there are only three qualitatively different views, and because of the way Pile described atheism, and the way it is described on this website, I wasn't able to determine what his, and your view actually was.

Pile, would you consider yourself at the same level?

BTW, the "invisible pink unicorn" is different in the scope of what a person would try to do with such a claim, and that it doesn't have any relation with the physical realm. If the "invisible pink unicorn" somehow effected reality, it would merit a discussion. The God I'm referring to is an infinite-personal creator of the cosmos, which has all sorts of scientific and philosophical implications. This is why I employ a form the cosmological argument. Though I'm not using it to prove the existence of God, as such a thing cannot be deduced from pure evidence, but rather to show the reasonability of such a presupposition given basic scientific knowledge.