Rank your religiousness II

[oskar]

In celebration of reaching 100 pages on my original thread here:
Rank your religiousness. - Page 100

I'm going to restart this here.
I still dunno why the original thread gets so much attention. 4 years! geez peeplz.
linuxquestions really needs a sexy thread.

[pantherhound]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank God

















For making me an atheist

[StarGrinder]

Atheist and it's not even close. I'm too open-minded to think otherwise. Thoughts on other religions? Jews and Buddhists are cool while I consider a large population of Muslims, 'Witnesses' and Christians mentally ill. No offense to those who aren't mentally ill but you may want to talk to your people.

[a500lbgorilla]

My thoughts on the matter are this: If God exists, no one has ever known anything about Her/Him/It/some other word; and of the many ways which lead to supposing a God, none seem to support any validity.

Also, agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist are not exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist because of the many difficulties in knowing for certain something. You can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic theist/deist. A/gnostic is just a way of saying whether you know with certainty or not. It's an aside, since the poll makes sense without considering this.

I'd assume most everyone would be agnostic about their beliefs however they may fall. Though some do brush their agnosticism away by using faith to build their confidence.

[CoccoBill]

I'd consider myself an agnostic atheist or a pragmatic agnostic. Celestial tea pot agnosticism will do also.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[a500lbgorilla]

I like pragmatic agnostic and I'm taking it. I still wouldn't back down from self-identifying as an atheist, though.

[kiwiMark]

I'm definitely an atheist, although I don't like that that the title often seems to put me in this group of people that go out of their way to feel superior and to make it clear that they find laughable everyone of any religious persuasion at all. In fairness I too enjoy a good laugh at people that believe silly things in silly ways, but you don't need to be a wanker about it I guess, and being religious certainly isn't synonymous with that anyway.

[BennyLaRue]

Can it be a sequel if the first was on another board? This is a remake, imo, or at least a reboot.

[swiggidy]

Who is that girl?

I can't support people making life decisions based on imaginary figures (sorry star wars fans). I also don't apply labels to myself.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm definitely an atheist, although I don't like that that the title often seems to put me in this group of people that go out of their way to feel superior and to make it clear that they find laughable everyone of any religious persuasion at all. In fairness I too enjoy a good laugh at people that believe silly things in silly ways, but you don't need to be a wanker about it I guess, and being religious certainly isn't synonymous with that anyway.

I hold it this way - I've never met a douchebag/bitch who I would later identify for being a douchebag/bitch because of his/her a/theism.

Atheists have shit for branding these days, especially in America, and every atheist knows that this has nothing to do with them. Some might be dicks, but they occur at the same frequency as in any large group of people.

Can it be a sequel if the first was on another board? This is a remake, imo, or at least a reboot.

lol, what?

Who is that girl?

I can't support people making life decisions based on imaginary figures (sorry star wars fans). I also don't apply labels to myself.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I always thought if I gave anyone a stack of dossiers containing no names, no identifying pieces of information, just a list of every label that accurately applied to that person, few would be able to perfectly place each list of labels to each person even if those people were their closest friends/family members. Beyond that, you may be given a dossier of someone's full list of applicable titles and still not know that person any better than a hole in the ground (or the hole in the ground equivalent of people).

Still, sometimes you come to a title that doesn't grant you any better lot in life and accept it because it's true. Do you believe in any Gods that you've heard of? Do you believe in any Gods that you haven't heard of? Do you know this with any certainty? No matter your answer to these questions, there (are more questions and) is a title for you.

[philly and the phanatics]

lol idk i feel like there has to be something..obviously i dont think there some big guy in the sky listening to my prayers or helping athletes win sports championships, but idk theres gotta be some sort of magic that makes the world go round and put it here in the first place. The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

[wufwugy]

Agnosticism used to mean what atheism today means, and many people today think atheism means what antitheism means

[wufwugy]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

If it was possible to truly disprove anything, god would be the first on that list

[wufwugy]

The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

But the option isn't then that there is a possible god. That assertion is itself an attempt to fathom what you claim to not fathom. Any meaningful concept of god imposes a plethora of different things into existence

The truth of the whole thing is born out of quantum mechanics. We peer as deeply as we can, and we see the Universe is fundamentally irrational. Everything and nothing, simultaneously and never, created and uncreated...is the best description we have of existence. There is no room for a god-like being. God is a simple logistical impossibility

Not to mention that quantum mechanics has proven to us the oh so obvious truth of existence that so few philosophers have noticed. That is, the most fundamental "thing" can be nothing other than senselessness. A fundamental that makes sense is by definition not fundamental because it has a building block called "sense" or structure. If you break everything down into its most fundamental, you find it all exactly that, "broken down".

And that's the only true idea of god we have. That existence does not fundamentally make sense because it can't. Human brains are exactly like chimp brains except that it gestates longer and gives us a slightly improved ability to project feelings and develop abstractions. All our superstitious delusions are exactly that

[swiggidy]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

Apparently math is wrong
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-186662.html

[BennyLaRue]

lol, what?

DID I STUTTER? [/toughguy]

[rong]

Jesus Christ Wuf that sig is amazing. Proof of god imo, and that he's a bloke who likes both fapping and casual sex with hot sluts.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol idk i feel like there has to be something..obviously i dont think there some big guy in the sky listening to my prayers or helping athletes win sports championships, but idk theres gotta be some sort of magic that makes the world go round and put it here in the first place. The fact that we are self aware or sentient or w/e just blows my mind. It all blows my mind. Thats why i am an agnostic. It is all too much for me to fathom.

I'll give you the best bullet in my arsenal. and I don't think it's opposite of your views...

Why do you think that you should know what is or isn't? What gives you the power to say there apparently must be something more, over there must apparently be something less, or even there must be what there is as best we know, or even still there is exactly not what we know?

The need to want the correct answer is great. Having the answer is supremely difficult. That you might know that earthquakes are caused by crust islands afloat upon oceans of molten rocks or that mass falls towards greater mass dependent upon radius, or that the distance of one meter is true to only the observer, or that on certain scales you cannot (yet?) know fully the attributes of any particle, or that you can look into a person's or dolphin's or dog's eye and build a relationship, and all of the other things, does not still imbue in you a full understanding of things.

That you might suppose something else does not mean there is something else. Simply because your understanding knows it, likes it, or needs it, or feels like it should be, is not reason for it. It is all too easy to see that there should be something greater...

As easily as you could think that a God made it this way, is as easily as He made you question and search for a false god, on your vanity and foolishness and need to know.

Eventually it all comes down to: if there is a God, why do you think you know anything about that God? And if you accept that there must be a God, and also accept that you can't know anything about him, why live in any fashion other than to ignore him? And if you think there must be something more, beyond what I can know and you can know, how is the problem a problem at all?

Which is all why I like my new title: pragmatic agnosticism.

[a500lbgorilla]

God is as good as dead. There exists nothing more disproven than all the religions of the world. It is more reasonable to say that math is wrong than that there exists a god. The concept of god is itself an inherent contradiction as well as a contradiction to the evidential universe

If it was possible to truly disprove anything, god would be the first on that list

Deserves a quote from someone who said that science had solved everything but the minor details (before the sun was known to be a nuclear furnace and that light was the pan-ultimate speed limit).

[a500lbgorilla]

But the option isn't then that there is a possible god. That assertion is itself an attempt to fathom what you claim to not fathom. Any meaningful concept of god imposes a plethora of different things into existence

QFT

Apparently math is wrong
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...-a-186662.html

If I had buttons, this would literally be my hottest button. I still haven't any appreciation for spoon/lukie's belief that the problem is well defined.

edit seriously hottest button. This problem has nothing to do with the math of the problem and everything to do with the grammar of the problem. It's more about communicating an answer than deriving an answer.

edit edit I look like, feel like, and am a douche for still bringing this up but I'm right gods dammit.

DID I STUTTER? [/toughguy]

Uh, yessa massa... you did.

[OngBonga]

God exists alright, he's a big fucking ball of fire in the sky.

[d0zer]

why does existence exist?

[kiwiMark]

God must've tripped the fuck out when everyone started playing the sims.

[mbiz]

The amount of agnostics just goes to show how shit the religious status quo is or we might consider believing in or taking up on one of em

[kevster]

God is essentially fucked.

Either he doesn't exist or he's a complete bastard.

[OngBonga]

The amount of agnostics just goes to show how shit the religious status quo is or we might consider believing in or taking up on one of em

Not a chance. Spirituality is all fine and good, but religion is nonsense. God and religion do not need to go hand in hand. I can accept one and fuck the other.

[bigred]

God must've tripped the fuck out when everyone started playing the sims.

That SMBC comic from the pictures thread is along the same vein, haha.

[givememyleg]

if there is a god may he strike all of you dead.

[boost]

Not a chance. Spirituality is all fine and good, but religion is nonsense. God and religion do not need to go hand in hand. I can accept one and fuck the other.

I can see absolutely no difference between spirituality and the belief in a god or gods. Both require the observer to suspend the rational process in favor of faith. Either that, or it requires the observer to commit to poor logic. Both require the presence of an immaterial entity or entities to exist, and the belief that these entities can interact with and influence our material world. Spiritual people are just as detrimental to society as theist, which kind of leads into another point..

...Atheism and antitheism are used interchangeably, and incorrectly so, but I'm not sure I understand the position of an atheist who is not an antitheist. Is it really possible to reach the logical conclusion that the probability of the existence of an immaterial force, capable of influencing our reality, is so incredibly low that it is more practical to consider the probability zero, yet at the same time be blind to how detrimental it is to have the majority of society believe in such entities? How could you ignore the immensely negative impact of laws being passed or repealed, wars being waged, and elections being decided based on legislators' and/or voters' belief in these entities?

Now to be perfectly clear, I do not subscribe to any sort of action that would forcefully suppress religions. Not only because I think it would be inhumane, but more so because it would clearly not offer the desired results. In the same line of thinking, if your goal is to open peoples eyes to reason, and have them detach themselves from their irrational beliefs, aggression is inappropriate. But I think it is extremely important for an atheist to tactfully present and discuss the rational thought process that leads to atheism when appropriate. As logic and reason are promoted, the influence of irrational beliefs will shrink, creating a better world for us all to live in.

sidenote: It really irks me when atheism is defined as "the lack of belief in god." It may be nit picking, but when "belief" is used in the definition, I think it can be inferred that an atheist "believes there is not a god." And if that is to be my position, it is just as weak as a theist's, since belief is hopelessly tied to faith. Pardon the double negative, but I do not believe there is not a god; I know there is not a god, just as I know there are not ghosts, a magically generous man named Santa Claus, or the easter bunny. Of course my knowledge that these fictional characters are fictional could be wrong, but where I stand on the issue of whether they exist or not is based on knowledge, not faith.

[Keith]

The truth of the whole thing is born out of quantum mechanics. We peer as deeply as we can, and we see the Universe is fundamentally irrational. Everything and nothing, simultaneously and never, created and uncreated...is the best description we have of existence.

Haven't you just proven that god is female?

[wufwugy]

Modern agnosticism is dumb. Are you unsure if there's a pink elephant orbiting Jupiter? Are you unsure whether or not Tom Cruise is Jesus? Are you unsure if South America really exists?

A lot of people claim to not be atheists because they're confused about what atheism means. Atheism isn't about god or religion, it's about reason. Atheism is not holding a position on something without sufficient reason to hold that position. Atheism asserts nothing, it believes nothing, it is merely the position of not asserting and not believing. It's about acknowledging that which is true to be true, and that which is false to be false

youtube atheists like thunderfoot, donexodus, andromedaswake, aronra, and several others have explained it very well. They've had to since they're always debating with creationists who accuse them of believing in atheism. There's nothing to believe in. In a way, everybody's an atheist. There's a million gods xtians don't believe in, and a million and one I don't believe in. Claiming atheism is an assertion is as dumb as claiming xtians assert akrishnaism, athorism, or aflyingpinkelephantism

[wufwugy]

Haven't you just proven that god is female?

dammit i had the greatest mind asplode gif for this but forgot where it at

[OngBonga]

I can see absolutely no difference between spirituality and the belief in a god or gods. Both require the observer to suspend the rational process in favor of faith. Either that, or it requires the observer to commit to poor logic. Both require the presence of an immaterial entity or entities to exist, and the belief that these entities can interact with and influence our material world.

I disagree with these comments here. Let me just be clear, I'm agnostic, which is another way of saying I haven't got a fucking clue, nor am I going to pretend to. If everyone was honest with themselves, then this is how everyone should feel. But, people like to think they know, don't they? Very rarely will you hear a Christian say "I might be wrong". And it's the same with the "I know there's no God" people. That is a statement of faith, not fact.

God doesn't have to be an immaterial entity, that's just the words of someone who has already decided that God doesn't exist. To some people, the Sun is God. Well, the Sun exists, I can tell you. Without it, there is no life. The Sun isn't a conscious entity, but it's certainly the reason we're here.

I do not abandon logic or rational thought when it comes to trying to understand God. That is why I reject religion so strongly. Religion is to embrace one idea and to reject everything else, which is completely contradictory to my science-based thinking.

But, at the same time, science has not yet explained to me what makes me different from a rock. Why am I alive, aware? What makes me think? What makes me conscious? Where does life come from? Why is a rock not alive?

My very existence, and indeed awareness of it, proves to me that there is much more than we understand. I can't even begin to put into words what that means to me, because I don't know. All I know is there is more. I do not believe for a second that when I die, that is the end of it all as far as I'm concerned. By body might not be able to play host to my soul any longer, but my body is just carbon and stuff, my body is no more than a rock when I die. It is the life, the soul, that is the unexplainable bit, that is what I don't understand. All I know is it's there, it exists. Life exists, and for me, that is God.

[CoccoBill]

A lot of people claim to not be atheists because they're confused about what atheism means. Atheism isn't about god or religion, it's about reason. Atheism is not holding a position on something without sufficient reason to hold that position. Atheism asserts nothing, it believes nothing, it is merely the position of not asserting and not believing. It's about acknowledging that which is true to be true, and that which is false to be false

Well, the modern (although no idea how modern) view is that atheism can also mean exactly that, a conviction that there is no god:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has of course become the strawman that all theists keep beating up, claiming that atheism is a religion itself, that also atheists believe in something without proof etc. yadda yadda. That's why it may be more productive to describe your position in more precise terms.

For example, I'm 99.9% convinced there is no God in any literal earthbound religion sense, but how the hell would I know? I don't think we have any concrete proof for or against. If a burning bush starts talking to me or an angel comes down to speak to me, after checking my blood for any psychoactive compounds, I might be willing to consider the idea of believing. This in contrast with a theist who believes without evidence (or I suppose also when faced with contradicting evidence), or an atheist who presumably would not believe when faced with contradicting evidence.

[wufwugy]

I disagree with these comments here. Let me just be clear, I'm agnostic, which is another way of saying I haven't got a fucking clue, nor am I going to pretend to.

That's more atheism that you think. Modern agnosticism is more a cop-out than anything. Atheism is what agnosticism used to be which is basically "evidence is insufficient homey"

If everyone was honest with themselves, then this is how everyone should feel. But, people like to think they know, don't they? Very rarely will you hear a Christian say "I might be wrong". And it's the same with the "I know there's no God" people. That is a statement of faith, not fact.

We must be careful not to equivocate definitions. From the most fundamental perspective, everything is a product of faith. We can't actually prove anything, and everything is based upon fundamental assumption (like math isn't fake). However, in our practical world, there is no statement truer than "we know god doesn't exist". We have as much evidence for the falseness of any meaningful assertion of god as we do for literally anything. If we're wrong when we say god doesn't exist, we're also wrong when we say the world goes round.

But, at the same time, science has not yet explained to me what makes me different from a rock. Why am I alive, aware? What makes me think? What makes me conscious? Where does life come from? Why is a rock not alive?

Not sure where you're getting this. Science does so very well, but not absolutely, as nothing can be absolutely anyways

My very existence, and indeed awareness of it, proves to me that there is much more than we understand. I can't even begin to put into words what that means to me, because I don't know. All I know is there is more. I do not believe for a second that when I die, that is the end of it all as far as I'm concerned. By body might not be able to play host to my soul any longer, but my body is just carbon and stuff, my body is no more than a rock when I die. It is the life, the soul, that is the unexplainable bit, that is what I don't understand. All I know is it's there, it exists. Life exists, and for me, that is God.

Your "soul" is your body. Consciousness and feeling is biological

You're doing the ever so popular God of the Gaps fallacy i.e. whatever we haven't explained, that's god

[wufwugy]

Well, the modern (although no idea how modern) view is that atheism can also mean exactly that, a conviction that there is no god:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has of course become the strawman that all theists keep beating up, claiming that atheism is a religion itself, that also atheists believe in something without proof etc. yadda yadda. That's why it may be more productive to describe your position in more precise terms.

For example, I'm 99.9% convinced there is no God in any literal earthbound religion sense, but how the hell would I know? I don't think we have any concrete proof for or against. If a burning bush starts talking to me or an angel comes down to speak to me, after checking my blood for any psychoactive compounds, I might be willing to consider the idea of believing. This in contrast with a theist who believes without evidence (or I suppose also when faced with contradicting evidence), or an atheist who presumably would not believe when faced with contradicting evidence.

Well, the conviction that there is no god is supposed to be the conviction that no evidence has borne out god

Also, there's a ton of false equivocation on this subject and what might be called anti-equivocation (it's not, but I don't recall its formal wording). What I mean is that we're using different standards arbitrarily and irrationally. If we're consistent with our logic that we use for virtually every other aspect of reality, then the statement that "god is proven false" is super duper mega true. Does it not strike you as stupid that even when we use very stringent standards for other aspects of life (like the scientific peer review) we confirm things to be true or false, yet when it comes to magic we suddenly have standards so incredibly high that the very reality that there are truly no absolutes is enough to confirm in our minds that god could exist?

Name the most ridiculous thing/idea you possibly can. That idea/thing is just as reasonable to believe as god/spirituality/superstitions. Everywhere we look for anything magical, not only do we not find it, but we find overwhelming evidence that it's not even possible in the first place. God of the Gaps fallacy is so important to understand. It's the ultimate goalpost shift, and it's incessant. Back when we knew very little, god was in the gap we didn't know. Now when we know most things, god is still in the gap between those things. When we know everything that is humanly possible, god will be labeled in the gap between a quark and a gluon

[CoccoBill]

Re: consciousness, recommended reading:

User illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CoccoBill]

If we're consistent with our logic that we use for virtually every other aspect of reality, then the statement that "god is proven false" is super duper mega true. Does it not strike you as stupid that even when we use very stringent standards for other aspects of life (like the scientific peer review) we confirm things to be true or false, yet when it comes to magic we suddenly have standards so incredibly high that the very reality that there are truly no absolutes is enough to confirm in our minds that god could exist?

Well I disagree. I do not think we can even prove that there is no god that fits into our observable universe, our measuring tools or our comprehension, let alone to prove that there is nothing beyond them. To say that god or whatever being cannot exist outside of what we know or understand is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it is turtles all the way down.

Name the most ridiculous thing/idea you possibly can. That idea/thing is just as reasonable to believe as god/spirituality/superstitions. Everywhere we look for anything magical, not only do we not find it, but we find overwhelming evidence that it's not even possible in the first place. God of the Gaps fallacy is so important to understand. It's the ultimate goalpost shift, and it's incessant. Back when we knew very little, god was in the gap we didn't know. Now when we know most things, god is still in the gap between those things. When we know everything that is humanly possible, god will be labeled in the gap between a quark and a gluon

I personally think its arrogant to say we know most things, I think we're only starting to understanding many of the basic things. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of, we really only have a very primitive idea of how our brain operates, what intelligence is, where life comes from and how much of it is there etc. Just as dangerous as believing something blindly is disbelieving blindly, and I think we're very much in the dark still. I may think it's incredibly improbable there is a god, but I simply cannot know for sure.

[OngBonga]

Your "soul" is your body. Consciousness and feeling is biological

We're miles apart here, bro. I'm not saying you're wrong, far from it, I'm saying this is not something I agree with. The body is merely a collection of atoms and molecules, clumped together to form a host for the soul. If the molecules alone are the reason for consciousness, then why isn't a rock conscious? It too is molecules. The rock lacks something that I don't... life. Where does the biological activity come from?

And I was under the impression that atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist in any form... that's not me. I neither accept nor dismiss God.

[OngBonga]

I do agree with you wuf when it comes to faith though. I "know" water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. That too is a statement of faith, since I can't demonstrate this assertion as fact, I can only point you in the direction of respected scientists who agree, and there's a lot of them! I can't even prove a ripe banana is yellow, you have to accept my definition of yellow before you can accept this is the colour of a ripe banana. All of our beliefs are based on faith, it's just some beliefs require a greater leap of faith than others.

[CoccoBill]

If the molecules alone are the reason for consciousness, then why isn't a rock conscious? It too is molecules. The rock lacks something that I don't... life. Where does the biological activity come from?

Because of the different functions and interactions of said molecules.

Organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My favorite theory of consciousness is described in the book I linked to; that consciousness is an illusion created by complexity. Our brains have enough neurons, synapses, neural pathways, neurochemistry and electronic activity to create enough options for us to create the illusion of sentience.

[wufwugy]

Well I disagree. I do not think we can even prove that there is no god that fits into our observable universe, our measuring tools or our comprehension, let alone to prove that there is nothing beyond them. To say that god or whatever being cannot exist outside of what we know or understand is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Maybe it is turtles all the way down.

I was trying to make a distinction between what we consider real world "proof" and the most fundamental epistemological reality that proof is impossible. We use different and dumb standards for the consideration of magic than we do for anything else in our lives

The notion of "god existing outside" is tricky. It's a go-to argument that seems reasonable, but it's not reasonable at all because god loses its meaning. Flesh out the idea that god does exist in our gaps, then try to figure out how that god fits into our practical earthly existence. You'll find it's senseless. The Universe performs without god, and if there is a god in the gaps, this god is inconsequential to our reality

I personally think its arrogant to say we know most things, I think we're only starting to understanding many of the basic things. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of, we really only have a very primitive idea of how our brain operates, what intelligence is, where life comes from and how much of it is there etc. Just as dangerous as believing something blindly is disbelieving blindly, and I think we're very much in the dark still. I may think it's incredibly improbable there is a god, but I simply cannot know for sure.

This is debatable as from one perspective, we don't know much, but a different perspective, we know a ton. If we're talking about fundamental theory and laws, we know a shitload, but if we're talking about all the details, we know little. I'm having trouble explaining this to myself even, but the reason we have laws and theories in the first place is from a strong understanding of the physical reality. Scientific process doesn't really ever get overturned because our outline is developing extremely well. We're at the edge of our understanding of physics. We're nowhere near the edge in our ability to engineer, but that's different. But there isn't a whole lot more to learn in physics. There is more and there is tweaking, but let me put it this way: they're looking for the theory of everything because we got the components stamped down well. Most problems in theoretical physics boil down to basically not knowing what happened at the big bang WRT the four fundamental forces. If we ever figure that out (I don't think it's possible) we won't have much deeper to go. We can't discover anything outside of or before the big bang, it's not possible. Theoretical physics is overwhelming about mathematics because it's the last vestige. Testable observation is nearing its human conclusion on this subject. We will forever develop the details, but we're not going to find things out like the four fundamental forces are somehow a delusion and not fundamental

[wufwugy]

We're miles apart here, bro. I'm not saying you're wrong, far from it, I'm saying this is not something I agree with. The body is merely a collection of atoms and molecules, clumped together to form a host for the soul. If the molecules alone are the reason for consciousness, then why isn't a rock conscious? It too is molecules. The rock lacks something that I don't... life. Where does the biological activity come from?

Everything in existence has the exact same fundamental building blocks. Every single thing that has ever been demonstrated to be different than anything else is due to arrangement and interactions of the building blocks. It starts with quarks, goes to particles, on to atoms, chemicals, and on. We have not mapped the brain in order to fully determine what consciousness is, but every shred of evidence we have shows that it's all just chemicals, nothing magical like a soul

And I was under the impression that atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist in any form... that's not me. I neither accept nor dismiss God.

Philosophically, atheism is not believing things without sufficient reason. Colloquially, it's not believing in an asserted god for this reason

[wufwugy]

I do agree with you wuf when it comes to faith though. I "know" water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. That too is a statement of faith, since I can't demonstrate this assertion as fact, I can only point you in the direction of respected scientists who agree, and there's a lot of them! I can't even prove a ripe banana is yellow, you have to accept my definition of yellow before you can accept this is the colour of a ripe banana. All of our beliefs are based on faith, it's just some beliefs require a greater leap of faith than others.

You're referring to a sort of microcosm of what I'm talking about.

Everything is an assumption. EVERYTHING. Break epistemology down into it's most basic form and you get us going "well we assume mathematics are accurate, we assume the physical universe is physical, etc). All knowledge is based in assumption at its deepest level. We can't actually prove math. We can only assume that two plus two equals four. In order to prove it, we would require absolute knowledge, but absolute knowledge is not even possible in the first place. So every bit of knowledge we have, even though it is flawless, it's based on assumptions at its deepest level

So when you're assuming scientists are right about water, they're assuming the universe isn't lying to them

This should not be equivocated with normal everyday things. Everything about our lives depends on those assumptions being true, and so far they have been. And I don't think it's possible for humans to understand the deepest reality I'm trying to explain. That also fits into my idea that the most fundamental is itself senseless and unidentifiable

[OngBonga]

Everything in existence has the exact same fundamental building blocks. Every single thing that has ever been demonstrated to be different than anything else is due to arrangement and interactions of the building blocks. It starts with quarks, goes to particles, on to atoms, chemicals, and on. We have not mapped the brain in order to fully determine what consciousness is, but every shred of evidence we have shows that it's all just chemicals, nothing magical like a soul

I hate to point this out, but this post just shows how little you (and of course the rest of us) understand. It starts with quarks? You know this, do you? Didn't they once say it started with atoms? You make a statement of faith, and present it like fact.

Rocks are made of atoms, quarks, whatever, just like I am. If it's down to the basic building blocks, then everything should have conciosuness, or nothing should. Clearly that's not the case. Well, I say clearly, I don't know the rock isn't concsious, I just assume not.

A soul isn't magical, that's atheism talk right there. It's no more magical than a bunch of quarks smoking weed and playing chess.

And besides, even if I agree with the notion that our awareness is merely chemical reactions, that's still something. Why should chemical reactions create awareness? That's coming from somewhere, no? Maybe I don't have an individual soul, I can get on with that, perhaps I am a collection of billions of little souls, all working together to create a viable life-form. In fact that sounds more plausible than a single soul.

[boost]

I'll reread later, or hop in later, but wuf pretty much covered it I think.

A general statement: This debate is well treaded, and one side is packed full of all sorts of fallacies.. I'll let you guess which one it is...

And please, to those disagreeing with me and wuf, carefully read what he has said about arbitrary changes in the standards of proof. Saying that it is arrogant to say god does not exist is the same as saying its arrogant to claim that you know the moon is not made of cheese. If we are to discuss any issue, and I mean any, we have to first make basic assumptions and build from there. If you insist on introducing abject skepticism into the debate, I have to start to assume you are just clinging to your last hope, or you're trolling.

WRT belief in the soul/afterlife: If you look into the issue at all, you'll see that there is really no good reason to think there is a soul and/or afterlife... yet there is a perfectly understandable reason for someone to want the soul to be real, because without it, there is no afterlife. So we can see there is a clear conflict of interest when trying to conclude whether living things have souls. Is your conclusion/belief being influenced by this conflict of interest?

[wufwugy]

I hate to point this out, but this post just shows how little you (and of course the rest of us) understand. It starts with quarks? You know this, do you? Didn't they once say it started with atoms? You make a statement of faith, and present it like fact.

I was referring to current understanding. Also, the claim that incomplete knowledge is evidence of complete wrongness is, well, wrong. I mention it because that logic is being used unwittingly. Scientific understanding doesn't really tip over, it develops.

Rocks are made of atoms, quarks, whatever, just like I am. If it's down to the basic building blocks, then everything should have conciosuness, or nothing should.

Nope. I know you can figure out why. Existence of building blocks =! a particular interaction of building blocks

A soul isn't magical, that's atheism talk right there. It's no more magical than a bunch of quarks smoking weed and playing chess.

It is magical i.e. make believe i.e. a belief without reason. There is no more evidence for the soul than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hail his noodley appendages)

And besides, even if I agree with the notion that our awareness is merely chemical reactions, that's still something. Why should chemical reactions create awareness? That's coming from somewhere, no?

Why is this even a relevant, answerable question? Do you see what I did there?

Unfortunately, I do not have the best response for this. Dawkins once laid out an excellent rebuttal to why "why" is irrelevant and unanswerable, but I don't remember it. But really, the answer to these fundamental "whys" is, it just is. The human mind (possibly more like the english linguistic mind) considers this a real question, but it's actually not. The fundamental "why" is meaningless and unanswerable

[boost]

I hate to point this out, but this post just shows how little you (and of course the rest of us) understand. It starts with quarks? You know this, do you? Didn't they once say it started with atoms? You make a statement of faith, and present it like fact.

Rocks are made of atoms, quarks, whatever, just like I am. If it's down to the basic building blocks, then everything should have conciosuness, or nothing should. Clearly that's not the case. Well, I say clearly, I don't know the rock isn't concsious, I just assume not.

This cup is yellow.
That is also a cup.
It is not yellow.
This cup must be full.
That cup must be empty.

A soul isn't magical, that's atheism talk right there. It's no more magical than a bunch of quarks smoking weed and playing chess.

Magic seems like a perfectly appropriate way to label that which defies the laws of physics and is unobservable.

And besides, even if I agree with the notion that our awareness is merely chemical reactions, that's still something. Why should chemical reactions create awareness? That's coming from somewhere, no? Maybe I don't have an individual soul, I can get on with that, perhaps I am a collection of billions of little souls, all working together to create a viable life-form. In fact that sounds more plausible than a single soul.

And see, now you are changing the definition of a soul to now make it represent the multitude of chemical reactions that create consciousness. God of the gaps. Chemicals react with each other and convert matter into energy. When chemicals are arranged and interact in very complex ways, what we call "consciousness" is present. Why do we need to invoke magic? Physics has already given us the thumbs up.

[OngBonga]

Is your conclusion/belief being influenced by this conflict of interest?

Maybe. I've been pretty clear about this... I don't know the answers. It seems a few people do though, which I must admit I'm rather impressed about.

Look, my point is this... no-one is right or wrong about this subject. We can all passionately make our opinions known, but the bottom line remains that not a single person here can settle this debate with fact. I do not believe that our consciousness is purely down to the chemical interactions or whatever between the molecules, that is as ludicrous as my claims sound to you guys. It's also a pretty boring way to look at life.

And see, now you are changing the definition of a soul to now make it represent the multitude of chemical reactions that create consciousness.

I'm changing definittions? Not at all. I'm looking at things from more than one angle, primarily because I don't know which angle is correct. The cup is yellow. But let's turn a green light on. Now the cup isn't yellow.

Magic seems like a perfectly appropriate way to label that which defies the laws of physics and is unobservable.

And this is a gem. Who said anything about defying the laws of physics? Nothing defies the laws of physics, but we certainly make discoveries that require us to adjust our understanding of physics. I wonder what people in Jesus times would think if you showed them an electro-magnet. I think they would think you were defying the laws of physics, but then that's because they're stupid and have a very poor grasp of physics, wouldn't you agree?

[OngBonga]

There is no more evidence for the soul than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hail his noodley appendages)

Incorrect. I have evidence to support my claim that I have a soul... my awareness of my existence. I realise that you have an argument for that, but I at least provide an argument for my position. I can provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore my conclusion is that the existence of a soul is much more likely than our Pasta God.

[wufwugy]

Incorrect. I have evidence to support my claim that I have a soul... my awareness of my existence. I realise that you have an argument for that, but I at least provide an argument for my position. I can provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore my conclusion is that the existence of a soul is much more likely than our Pasta God.

I am a crazy person who truly feels FSM in his heart. There, we now have equal evidence for both our assertions

Anecdote should not be confused with empiricism. Anecdote isn't evidence for the existence of something, like people think. It's evidence of the belief in the existence of something. As far as reliability in evidence goes, anecdote is smashed by empiricism when it disagrees with it

[OngBonga]

I am a crazy person who truly feels FSM in his heart. There, we now have equal evidence for both our assertions

The difference, of course, is that you don't really have FSM in your heart. No sane person does. We both know that the FSM is a concept created by pedantic anti-theists designed to make religion sound ridiculous. That's pretty cool, if you ask me. But it doesn't work against a person who is quite happy to mock religion, but is also willing to accept that maybe there is something more going on in a lifeform. Save it for the Christians and Muslims.

This subject never gets anywhere, because it's doesn't come down to fact or proof, it comes down to the strongest or most passionate argument. I'm running out of steam, if I'm honest. I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion, nor do I expect anyone to change mine. So what's the point?

Of course, that is also the ultimate question. What is the point of it all?

I think 42 is about the best answer I ever heard.

[wufwugy]

The difference, of course, is that you don't really have FSM in your heart. No sane person does. We both know that the FSM is a concept created by pedantic anti-theists designed to make religion sound ridiculous. That's pretty cool, if you ask me. But it doesn't work against a person who is quite happy to mock religion, but is also willing to accept that maybe there is something more going on in a lifeform. Save it for the Christians and Muslims.

You did miss the point though. FSM or a notion of sanity isn't relevant. I could just as easily pick something that people believe that's clearly ridiculous. Like Xenu or a plethora of forgotten shamanistic gods and superstitions or anything. My point was in illustrating what anecdote really is and its worthlessness in the scope of objectivity

This subject never gets anywhere, because it's doesn't come down to fact or proof, it comes down to the strongest or most passionate argument. I'm running out of steam, if I'm honest. I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion, nor do I expect anyone to change mine. So what's the point?

It does get places sometimes. Only a few decades have shown people throw off superstitions by enormous margins because of discussions like this.

[givememyleg]

oggy boggy, re-read everything wuggy wuf has said thus far.

[OngBonga]

It does get places sometimes. Only a few decades have shown people throw off superstitions by enormous margins because of discussions like this.

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

[boost]

Incorrect. I have evidence to support my claim that I have a soul... my awareness of my existence. I realise that you have an argument for that, but I at least provide an argument for my position. I can provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore my conclusion is that the existence of a soul is much more likely than our Pasta God.

Wait, wat? Because you have presented a feeble attempt at asserting the truth of your claim, it is now more probable than a claim which you have not made an effort to prove true? You're just spewing fallacies all over the place.. you may even be making up some new ones...

[boost]

Maybe. I've been pretty clear about this... I don't know the answers. It seems a few people do though, which I must admit I'm rather impressed about.

Look, my point is this... no-one is right or wrong about this subject. We can all passionately make our opinions known, but the bottom line remains that not a single person here can settle this debate with fact. I do not believe that our consciousness is purely down to the chemical interactions or whatever between the molecules, that is as ludicrous as my claims sound to you guys. It's also a pretty boring way to look at life.

First of all, we can come to the conclusion that many people, possibly everyone, is wrong since there are many views regarding the factuality of a defined issue. It is possible that no one is right, but it is not possible that no one is wrong... many many people are wrong.

I'm changing definittions? Not at all. I'm looking at things from more than one angle, primarily because I don't know which angle is correct. The cup is yellow. But let's turn a green light on. Now the cup isn't yellow.

Yes, just as creationist back peddle and redefine god to fill the gaps, you are redefining the soul to fill the gaps. The presence of an immeasurable, undefined, and unobservable force may be comforting, but it is not needed in any way. Why must you continue to insist on its existence?

And this is a gem. Who said anything about defying the laws of physics? Nothing defies the laws of physics, but we certainly make discoveries that require us to adjust our understanding of physics. I wonder what people in Jesus times would think if you showed them an electro-magnet. I think they would think you were defying the laws of physics, but then that's because they're stupid and have a very poor grasp of physics, wouldn't you agree?

If you cannot see how the idea of a soul defies the laws of physics... I'm just not sure what to say...

[wufwugy]

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

The bottom line on this subject is that epistemologically (which is what matters, the study of knowledge after all) there is no difference between an assertion like ghost or souls or Ra or that Oprah's minge can talk. This is because there is no difference in evidence. You claim soul belief due to experience, well some people claim ghost belief due to experience, and the statistical significance of the evidence is the same in both cases

Now, if there was some physical, empirical, observable, testable, repeatable evidence for the spirit world, then you would have a case. But without that, a spiritual assertion is no different than any other assertion with equal evidence, which is currently any random thing that anybody has professed to believe. Until the physical universe gives reason to believe that the non-physical is not make-believe, it is as irrational to assert the non-physical as the most irrational thing you can think of

On top of that, if anything non-physical was demonstrable, it would actually be physical. If souls existed, they would relate to physics and we would be able to find the footprint. Currently, the soul footprint is believed to be consciousness, as you've shown. However, we have not found one bit of reason to believe consciousness is a soul at all, but that it's just physical biology

The physical universe point shouldn't be missed. The non-physical or spiritual idea is itself a false idea. Every single thing that has ever been experienced by any existing thing is physical simply by merit of it having happened. Something being something is a determination of its physicalness because it couldn't be something to us if it wasn't physical

[boost]

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

Again, you keep wandering into the realm of abject skepticism. Go away if you insist on making us point this out every time you post. Or keep trolling, cuz thats what you're doing.

WRT the charge of arrogance... I mean, come on man, this is just low and childish. It is the same tactic that is used by creationist, climate change deniers, and all sorts of quacks that want to promote willful ignorance. Some people do know more than others... for the others this can be a big hit to the ego... but they can either lift themselves up and try to educate themselves further, or they can plug their ears and say, "LALALALALLA I don't know, and so if you claim to know, you are being arrogant! LALALALALALA!" If you want to be willfully ignorant, then fine, but go somewhere else; there is no rational discussion to be had with you.

[OngBonga]

Wait, wat? Because you have presented a feeble attempt at asserting the truth of your claim, it is now more probable than a claim which you have not made an effort to prove true? You're just spewing fallacies all over the place.. you may even be making up some new ones...

Are you missing the bit where I say "I do not know the answers"? I am asserting no truth to my claims, and I have made this clear several times. I am sharing my opinion, which is exactly the same as you. The only difference is, I do not think I'm right. You clearly do, oh wise one. Who's trolling? I'm tired, it's 2.30am, I'll read the rest tomorrow.

[OngBonga]

Ok I've read the rest properly, I couldn't stop myself. Wuf's posts are a little more directed at debate, and less at just arguing for a rise, so I'll respond in kind.

So Wuf, if you were alive 2000 years ago, you would sneer at the idea of magnetism, yes? There would be no evidence to prove it exists, beyond the crazy ramblings of some guy who was likely to get nailed to a cross for saying what he thinks. If everyone shared your attitude, then I can't help thinking we'd still be banging rocks together to make fire.

Of course, magnetism exists. I don't know this 100%, again we come back to faith vs fact, nothing is fact if we want to be pedantic, but I have much more faith in magnetism than souls, ghosts or spaghetti monsters.

You guys seem to have your minds made up. That's cool, just don't confuse this feeling with fact. You know exactly the same amount about this subject as I do, which is bugger all, only I am willing to accept this.

[OngBonga]

WRT the charge of arrogance... I mean, come on man, this is just low and childish. It is the same tactic that is used by creationist, climate change deniers, and all sorts of quacks that want to promote willful ignorance.

Your tactic is "SHUT THE FUCK UP IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME."

Who's childish? I get the impression you're incapable of rational debate. It's your way or no way. Creationists will never accept they might be wrong. You seem to fit that description more than I. I am not promoting willful ignorance. I'm glad you took offense to my arrogance comment though, at least you're not too stupid to not know when you're being insulted.

[oskar]

Who is that girl?

I dunno. Just some pic I found in my pic folder.

[wufwugy]

So Wuf, if you were alive 2000 years ago, you would sneer at the idea of magnetism, yes? There would be no evidence to prove it exists, beyond the crazy ramblings of some guy who was likely to get nailed to a cross for saying what he thinks. If everyone shared your attitude, then I can't help thinking we'd still be banging rocks together to make fire.

The analogy doesn't fit. I would scoff at a guy rambling how my son is really a girl. Because the evidence is to the contrary.

We're not dealing with unknowns on this subject. We're dealing with assertions being contradicted by known physical observation.

[OngBonga]

The analogy doesn't fit. I would scoff at a guy rambling how my son is really a girl. Because the evidence is to the contrary.

We're not dealing with unknowns on this subject. We're dealing with assertions being contradicted by known physical observation.

So let me get this right, you're saying that me suggesting that we have a soul is on a par with someone suggesting your son is a girl?

I can't believe someone of your intelligence would really think such a thing. I think you're trolling now.

[boost]

Again, as an atheist, I try to approach things with skepticism, then build from there. I very well could be wrong; while probability is my friend, possibility is not. But what I am saying is that while there is the possibility for there to be a god and an afterlife, there is no proof that this is the case. On the other hand, there is evidence which does not prove, but hints at the fact that these things are neither real nor necessary to explain our reality.

And if you wish to toss around insults, you should probably avoid being hypocritical. You have claimed several times to know as much as me, wuf, or I'm assuming anyone else knows on this topic. I mean, this is either arrogance, or willful ignorance. Clearly there is plenty to learn about the subject, and your rudimentary arguments that propose to setup the need for the existence of a soul or a god or an afterlife show that you do not know very much about the topic by any measure.

[boost]

Ong, let me ask you, what all possess a soul? From your earlier posts, I'd assume humans would be included and rocks would be excluded, but how about monkeys, dogs, dolphins, etc?

[wufwugy]

So let me get this right, you're saying that me suggesting that we have a soul is on a par with someone suggesting your son is a girl?

I can't believe someone of your intelligence would really think such a thing. I think you're trolling now.

I've been saying that the entire time. What empirical evidence is there for the existence of souls? Zilch. What empirical evidence is there that contradicts the existence of souls? A tonnnnnn.

It is more likely that my fake son is the first girl born with a dick than souls exist. There is evidence that kind of genetic mutation is actually possible. There is zero evidence that a non-physical thing is possible

[d0zer]

wuf-wuggy, while I agree with a lot of what you say, your tone just projects too much confidence in your beliefs surrounding unanswerable questions, and I stopped listening to people who were too confident that they've answered the unanswerable a long time ago.

[bigred]

Good thread guys. Arguing on the internet is definitely a worthy cause. Arguing about religion on the internet, doubly so.

[bigred]

[bigred]

[d0zer]

in comes bigred to win his billionth thread

[wufwugy]

wuf-wuggy, while I agree with a lot of what you say, your tone just projects too much confidence in your beliefs surrounding unanswerable questions, and I stopped listening to people who were too confident that they've answered the unanswerable a long time ago.

On the contrary, my position is as reasonable as they come. At what point do we say god doesn't exist? When we peer through the vast beyond and find nothing? When we peer so deeply into matter that matter itself breaks down? When we peer back in time so far that all laws and observations break down? When we peer into human history so deeply that we find the statistically insignificant make-believe is par for the course? When we peer into biology so deeply that we find every single thing about biology is explainable via biology?

There are no more gaps for god to sneak into. If he's inside a quark, he's meaningless. If he's outside in the Brane World, he's meaningless. If he's back before the Big Bang, he's meaningless. There is nothing, literally nothing, to even suggest that non-physicalness is possible or relevant

God help us if we applied the same standards in real life that we do to our favorite superstitions. That would mean that because it's possible that Obama doesn't exist and our President is a giant politcal/media conspiracy that it is reasonable to argue for that assertion with exactly ZERO evidence for its truth. The fact alone that it is possible would be enough to argue it's not an unreasonable position. There is infinitely more evidence that back up truthers than religionists, yet how many of us laugh truthers out of the room for being kooks? Superstitions are the ultimate of kookery, but the thing is that they're not kookery inasmuch as humans are designed to believe them. It is normal for us to believe some of the most irrational things imaginable. This is why many make-believe supernatural ideas don't seem too weird to us. They're actually the height of empirical irrationality, but we generally just don't see it.

We are hardwired VERY strongly to believe in things like souls. But that doesn't mean that arguing for their existence without one single shred of evidence is any less irrational than arguing that Rush Limbaugh is five hundred years old without one single shred of evidence. When somebody argues for the former we nod our heads and go "hey maybe", but if somebody proposed the latter you would think they're fucking insane

Goes to show that human sanity is its own insanity

[CoccoBill]

And please, to those disagreeing with me and wuf, carefully read what he has said about arbitrary changes in the standards of proof. Saying that it is arrogant to say god does not exist is the same as saying its arrogant to claim that you know the moon is not made of cheese. If we are to discuss any issue, and I mean any, we have to first make basic assumptions and build from there. If you insist on introducing abject skepticism into the debate, I have to start to assume you are just clinging to your last hope, or you're trolling.

As this sounds like it's aimed at me I'll respond.

I don't disagree with wuf in practice, I disagree in principle. My faith in any deity is as close to being non-existent as to warrant no deeper analysis, saying that I'm clinging to my last hope is a IMO absurd. All I'm saying is that we as humans have very limited capabilities, our modern science is brand new and just starting to find out stuff, yet still constantly evolving and making new breakthroughs. To assume that we know close to everything there is to know is silly, or to even assume that we ever can. We are not that much smarter than apes as we like to think, genetically we share 96+% with chimps. If that ~4% akes us this much smarter than them, what would a lifeform that much smarter than us think? If you think I'm trying to find some god in the gaps or forcefully prove that a god can exist, you're barking up the wrong tree. All I'm saying is that we know shit and to assume that we do, let alone can prove shit, is naive. Let me just say this again for emphasis, we don't know what 96% of the universe is made of. We have no clue. Or it could be that the 96% of dark energy and dark matter just do not exist and our models are out of whack. We don't know where life comes from, we don't know how, why and from where the big bang came, or if it did at all. We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite (btw I don't know which one of these prospects is more mindboggling), whether there's one of them or many, and what, if anything lies outside them. We know shit. To claim with any certainty that "there is no god" is just as absurd as the opposite. No, I do not think there's a god, and I'm mesmerized about anyone who is even in any way uncertain of the fact.

We can with as much certainty as we have about anything say the moon is not cheese, using precise measurements, observations and even samples, but can we prove there are no moons made of cheese?