Originally posted by divegeester
Are you absolutely certain that God doesn't exist?
Are you absolutely certain that God does exist?
How can you be either of the above?
There are at least two different senses of the term certainty. One is psychological certainty, relating to one's degree of sureness in the truth of some proposition. The other is epistemic certainty, relating to the degree to which one's grounds for belief, or one's evidence, are truth-indicating for the proposition. Ideally, these two will track each other well, such as when one's degree of confidence is properly apportioned to the strength or lack thereof of one's evidence. However, the two are different in principle and do not have to align.
For there to be "absolute certainty" that God does (doesn't) exist, in an epistemic sense, the evidence would need to be of an unusual nature, basically ruling out even mere epistemic possibilities of falsity of that proposition. One relevant candidate for this would be -- as others have already pointed out in this thread -- if the definition of 'God' is logically inconsistent. Then, since the existence of such a thing would violate basic laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction, we could appropriately be more or less maximally sure that such a thing does not exist. (But not even cases like these are noncontentious when it comes to the subject of epistemic certainty. )
Obviously, in most cases under debate, epistemic certainty is not to be found, and thus having an attitude of "absolute certainty" is likewise not warranted. But, of course, that still allows that one could appropriately be very or even overwhelmingly sure. Best we can do is try to apportion our confidence level to whatever our evidence dictates.