Certainty.

[Strong Atheist]

What is your definition, and do you apply it consistently? Now, I know that Emerson thought that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds, but I think that most of us can agree that definitions HAVE to be consistent; or they are useless.

My definition of certainty is that if all available data always points to one conclusion, then I can be CERTAIN that conclusion is a true or valid conclusion. Note; this does not assume infinite knowledge, which is never possible…



Let us look at four cases where people usually express certainty on an issue.



Case #1. The existence of god. Many if not most religious people are CERTAIN that god(s) exist, because they have evidence that they think is convincing that god does exist. You know what? I UNDERSTAND this point of view. I disagree with their evidence (their premises), but I understand how they reached their conclusions given their premises, and I know why they are certain. I even agree that they SHOULD BE certain; to them all evidence points in one direction; namely that god exists.

Case #2. The non - existence of (fill in the blank with your favorite made up creature/object/being). Have you done that? Good, let us assume that we all have (made up thing) in mind, and we agree that it is made up by people (a story). I would put it to you that most people would be CERTAIN that (made up thing) does not exist, and I would agree with them. Note again, this does not require looking under every rock in the universe. All we have to know is that it is a made up thing; therefore all available evidence points in one direction, namely that the thing in question does not exist because it was made up, and therefore not real.

Case #3. Physical laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_laws Physical laws are derived by empirical evidence over time, and are said to apply everywhere in the universe. Scientists are CERTAIN of that, and I agree. They are CERTAIN because all available evidence points to these laws being true everywhere. Did they check under every rock in the universe to make sure that these laws applied everywhere? Of course not; that is not possible. All they needed was the weight of the evidence; that it all pointed in one direction.



… and, finally, we come to the strong atheist position (at least as seen by myself; atheists are like cats, and notoriously don’t want others speaking for us, but this is how I see it).

Case #4. God(s) does not exist. I am CERTAIN of that, because all evidence points to it (there IS no evidence of god(s)), and all evidence points to gods having been made up by people as stories, just like in example #2.


Immediately there is a chorus of complaints. The theists argue that I have the evidence all wrong; that all the evidence points to god existing, and that god is not a story. I UNDERSTAND their argument; I DISAGREE with their evidence, and therefore their conclusion, but their argument makes sense and is CONSISTENT.

The second type of complaint that I have heard is “Whoa, Strong Atheist, you can’t say that god does not exist; you haven’t checked everywhere in the universe”. True, but we haven’t checked everywhere in the universe for made up things (example #2) or physical laws (example #3). All we need is for all evidence to point in one direction (which it does as far as I am concerned); not infinite knowledge (which is impossible). If we needed infinite knowledge for CERTAINTY, this would make certainty completely impossible, and destroy any common usage of the term/idea.

The last objection I have heard seems to go along the lines of that last thought; it is impossible to be certain of anything. This is fine if you are a solipsist (See: Cartesian doubt) which in practice no one is; if you can’t be certain that anything other than yourself exists why: get up, eat, obey laws, interact with other (possible non-existent) people, expect stop lights to mean the same thing everyday, etc. No one actually puts solipsism into practice; we all act like the universe is real and more or less the way that it appears as a practical matter. I would, however, like to see the people who say it is impossible for me (or the theists, for that matter) to be CERTAIN about the existence/non-existence of god be consistent and say that we can not be CERTAIN of #2 and #3, made up things and physical laws. If they can not do that, I would appreciate a good explanation of why they are being inconsistent in applying their definition of CERTAINTY.


So, what is your definition of certainty, do you apply it consistently, and if you do not, how do you justify using a different criterion for different examples?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

1. Certainty, huh...

I personally go with Case 3.

Of course, I don't particularly expect faith to be certain by this definition. Depending on your perspective, faith is either irrational because it is housed in the will, something more primal than reason (Kierkegaard) or super-rational because faith is housed in the intellect and can only be brushed against to a certain extent because of God's intrinsic otherness (Aquinas). And even then, Aquinas stated that one could only conclude that a god/gods probably existed and relied on revelation/tradition to demonstrate the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I tend to agree with Aquinas more than Kierkegaard, but for reasons that don't have much to do with the current issue at hand (certainty).

Honestly, when it comes to matters of faith, I think certainty is a bit superfluous. Doubt and faith have always been two sides of the same coin and can't really be separated, something which Aquinas came to accept towards the end of his life. I believe that the intrinsic tension between belief and doubt is what makes a healthy faith so vibrant - it's more about the quest for truth rather than the absolute possession of it. It's like my favorite story from Genesis in which Jacob wrestles an "angel of the Lord" (probably a euphemism for God) one night. Just when Jacob manages to pin the angel, the angel suckerpunches him in the hip, giving him a permanent limp. Ultimately Jacob is rewarded for contending with the angel, promised that he would be the father of a nation, and given the name Israel (and a limp to keep him from getting too cocky). The believer is like Jacob - he/she wrestles with these issues, thinks he/she has them in hand just to have them slip away. But in the end, the believer is left better off by the struggle.

Sorry... I kinda got on a roll there.

[Strong Atheist]

4. Interesting. You and I are not really arguing here

(insert favorite Monty Python joke here), but if the truth must be known, I was actually directing this post more at weak atheists and agnostics (some of whom I have unofficially quarreled with on this topic in the past...).

I think I will end up, strangely enough, agreeing with many theists on this lone issue (because we are both CERTAIN; we just differ in our premises/proofs).

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. You're probably right, although I can think of a number of theists who would take issue with you.

[cosmik debris]

2. I don't believe in certainty.

I am willing to accept high probability instead.

There is a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.

But tomorrow may be the day when the sun doesn't rise.

So I am willing to accept the high probability of sunrise.

I suspect that the need for certainty arises from the fear of being wrong, but I'm not certain.

[Strong Atheist]

5. "but I'm not certain."

:rofl:


So, to ask again, is anything CERTAIN, according to you, or is the word meaningless?

[cosmik debris]

9. I don't know

But I don't need to know. I'm willing to accept a very high probability. So the concept of certainty is something I don't need.

Or to paraphrase, there is no "certainty sized hole in my heart".

[Strong Atheist]

11. One of (but not the only) reasons for this post was that imo

a major (if not THE major) difference between strong atheists, weak atheists, and agnostics is the degree to which they are certain there are no gods. Thus, I wanted to clarify the definition.

Of course, strong atheists and (many) believers are certain of opposite things.

Due to dmallind's post, I will have to add to/amend my definition tomorrow to make it more accurately reflect my views.

[cosmik debris]

12. I don't see the difference as just a matter of degree

But rather as an x-y graph with the degree of certainty on the horizontal axis and the "give-a-shit" on the vertical axis.

But that's just me.

[skepticscott]

8. So what you're saying is

that you're certain that you can't be certain of anything...

:crazy:

[cosmik debris]

10. I don't even try to be certain. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

16. "I suspect that the need for certainty arises from the fear of being wrong"

This line sounds more like a case for agnosticism than certainty.

[cosmik debris]

18. Did you think I was trying to make a case for certainty? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

19. Not certainty, the need for certainty vs the need for agnosticism.

I should have typed that response better. Sorry.

[cosmik debris]

21. we are splitting hairs now. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

39. I think your statement about the need for certainty is fit for agnosticism.

Check out your statement with the word 'certainty' (1st occurrence) replaced with the word 'agnosticism'.

I suspect that the need for agnosticism arises from the fear of being wrong, but I'm not certain.

My goal here is not to change the words in which you typed, my goal is to point out my belief that your statement about certainty is well suited for agnosticism.

[dmallind]

3. Close, but cannot agree.

Just because something is made up does not mean it is nonexistent, let alone will eternally remain so. Jules Verne made up stories about men going to the moon. Pure fiction in all details at the time, but men did in fact go to the moon. Using lasers as weapons? Made up for decades. Feasible now. Likely practical quite soon. Giant monsters were fictional before fossils were found looking quite similar.

Again make no mistake I have absolutely NO expectation that stories about specific gods will be proven true, but that does not mean I can be certain that it is impossible that some kind of god will not pop his head round the corner at some point. if that incredibly unlikely event occurs, I would expect such a god to be either amused or wrathful at all the lies made up about him and all the horrors done in his name, but that would not stop it from being a god, just like Neil Armstrong not fighting moon monsters made human visits to teh moon imaginary.

[Strong Atheist]

7. Okee dokey, when god shows up

I will change what I was certain about and admit I was wrong.

BTW, you dodged the question. Is anything certain, or is certainty a meaningless concept? If it isn't, what is your definition?

[dmallind]

13. But you miss the point

It is irrational to BE certain that no gods exist. You can be certain that specific ideas of gods don't exist as long as they are inherently contradictory or proven incorrect by evidence (for example anyone who posits an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god can be proven wrong with certainty by simple theodicy). But to be certain that no gods at all exist anywhere? How can we make that claim? For all we know the gods that do exist are deliberately hiding their presence from us - and who could blame them given what we do with the concept?

Is anything certain? Well again as you said ANY claim to certainty can be challenged by solipsism or Matrix-esque hypotheses, but there are things which can be assumed to be certain within the confines of how we experience the world. Since we can perceive it no other way, these are certainities for all intents and purposes. If anything I'd say the idea of certainty being impossible, while technically unable to be disproved, is at its heart a meaningless concept rather than certainty being so, because if we revert to solipsism then there is no way to interact with the world.

Descartes nailed a biggy but I could also offer that in this humble post there lies a certainty. We can be certain that no internally contradictory phenomena exist. No married bachelors or all loving all powerful personal gods.

[Strong Atheist]

14. "It is irrational to BE certain that no gods exist"

No more irrational that being CERTAIN (as scientists are) that physical laws apply throughout the universe. Have they been everywhere in the universe to test those laws, or even SEEN all of the universe? No of course not (heck, we are discovering new planets all the time). So how can these "laws" be said to be universal? Because all available evidence shows that they ALWAYS apply.

I apply THE SAME standard to gods (and so do "strong theists", for that matter). Since all reliable evidence from recorded human history points to there being no gods (for the theists all the evidence points to god existing) I can say with the same certainty that we say anything (where all evidence points to a conclusion) that gods do not exist, they are stories. As far as being wrong goes, check my addendum to my definition of certainty. (edited to add: post #15).

[dmallind]

17. Different constructs

One has positive empirical evidence that universally (to the extent tested anyway) applies. So while we can't be absolutely certain there is nowhere where these laws DON'T apply we can be certain that they do apply where tested (as you are probably aware some supposedly universal laws already have exceptions at the quantum level).

Epistemologically this is completely different from the concept of saying certain things DON'T apply wherever we have looked. It is one thing to say laws of motion apply wherever we have tested and quite another to say that so far we have not found a place where a god exists. You can't compare the two because for the latter there is no evidence at all - just an absence of data. It's not that we can prove there is no god even where we have looked, we can only say we have not found one. In the former case we have looked, we have tested, and we have positive results.

Again remember our disagreement is at the very cusp of possibility. I have only technical reservations about declaring no gods exist. I live my life as if none do, and I follow arguments or data as if none do. I am just unwilling to claim certainty that none do simply because none have been found. There is no veriffiable test for gods like there is for laws of motion, so it is not an equal but opposite proof (pun intended) of divine absence compared to the certainty of those laws. If there were a verifiable test that gos exist or not taht had universally said "no they don't" then I may move somewhat, but for usch a test to exist there would have to be the proven ability to find gods that do exist (just like we have the proven ability to determine how objects move). We don;t have that test so we can't claim that certainty.

[Strong Atheist]

23. "there is no evidence at all - just an absence of data."

Therefore, all the evidence shows no gods exist. when evidence they exist appears, I will change my mind/admit that I am wrong.

I see no difference between the two cases. I am applying my definition consistently.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree...

:pals:

[dmallind]

26. Definitevely untrue there

There's a reason "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a cliché. Absence of data proves NOTHING - not one thing - ever - about potential conditions where evidence as not yet been found or even sought. Surely you can see the difference between positive results of valid tests being extrapolated to assume they will apply to analogous tests as yet unconducted (the assunption that physical laws will continue to apply even though we have not looked everywhere) and no results from no test being extrapolated to assume there will be no results for any potential test in any potyential place (assuming gods don't exist is a certainty even though we have not looked)?

[Strong Atheist]

29. "Surely you can see the difference"

No, I can not see the difference.

I am a person in India several hundred years ago. I travel far and wide in India and come back to my home. I tell everyone: "Everywhere I went, there were elephants. Therefore, elephants must exist everywhere."

Now, come back to the present. We have checked our physical laws, and everywhere we check they hold true. However, if in the future we find one instance where they don't, they will be negated.

The problem is, you are saying that one instance of a god being found in the future will negate my negative evidence. Fair and true enough, but one instance of our physical laws being violated in the future will negate them. I still seen no difference... :shrug:



EDITED FOR: grammar! :blush:

[dmallind]

31. Even your analogy is making my point

You are NOT the equivalent of a person in India 500 years ago saying there must be elephants everywhere. You are the equivalent of a person in Scotland 500 years ago saying that there are no animals over two tons anywhere he looks and therefore there are none anywhere.

The fundamental difference is that the Inidan is extrapolating from universal (to him) positive evidence and the Scotsman is extrapolating from a universal (to him) lack of evidence one way or the other. One is using data to answer a question (wrongly, but understandably) and the other is using nothing at all except his own lack of experience.

[Strong Atheist]

33. Sigh.

I was not saying I was a person in India. I was pointing out that BOTH our physical laws (positive evidence as in the elephant) and gods (negative evidence) can be negated by ONE INSTANCE in the future where they are found to be wrong, therefore there is NO difference between them that I see for purposes of certainty...

[Occam Bandage]

36. Which might be a rational statement were the claim that

divinity could theoretically be proven in future through objective observation not totally at odds with the concept of divinity espoused by most religious people.

[Strong Atheist]

15. ******** Addendum/addition to my definition, courtesy of post #3*********

The point was brought up that I could be CERTAIN and WRONG as proved by future information. True. That is ALWAYS the case, as has been show in science many times.

The thing is, certainty based on all available evidence at the time pointing one way, and being proved wrong in the future are not incompatible, and not mutually exclusive parts of a definition. I can be CERTAIN that I am right based on all evidence, and be proved wrong later. In fact, since theists who are CERTAIN that god exits based on their evidence believe the opposite of what I am certain is true, it follows that one of us is wrong automatically. One group is certain and right, one group is certain and wrong. :shrug: That does not detract from my definition of being certain based on all available evidence; it merely posits that the evidence will change in the future.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I am CERTAIN that I am pretty sure that I chuckled the first time I saw this.

[Occam Bandage]

22. The first time I threw a dart, I hit a bullseye.

I am otherwise unaware of how often bullseyes occur in darts. All available information suggests that 100% of my throws have been and thus will be bullseyes. I am CERTAIN that I will hit a bullseye every single time I throw a dart.

[Strong Atheist]

24. Yep, you have one instance. However, when there is no credible evidence

(or overwhelming evidence, if you are a "strong theist") THROUGHOUT RECORDED HISTORY, I believe that the cumulative lack of evidence can be viewed as more than one instance...

[Occam Bandage]

25. But you're looking for a type of evidence that cannot exist for the subject at hand.

I might well say that there is no credible evidence of the sublime nature of art throughout recorded history, and that art is in fact nothing but what fools call unattractive and crude reproductions of things they see, and that therefore I am certain that artistry does not exist. The problem with that line of reasoning is that I am looking for an inappropriate type of evidence. Objective observation cannot possibly prove the existence of subjective experience (and let's not get into EEGs quite yet).

When we talk about divinity, we are talking about something which is held by the vast majority of its proponents to be supernatural--that is to say, which is by definition not demonstrable through objective observation, and which is only noticeable through subjective experience. In my first post in this thread, and in your reply, we seem to agree that induction doesn't work if there's inadequate evidence to make a claim; certainly one throw of a dart is not enough to claim certainty of anything. I now propose that the proposed concept of divinity is by definition immune to objective observation, and therefore there exist zero instances from which to draw an induction.

Under a situation in which there are zero instances, it is impossible to make a claim of logical certainty either way. Certainly it is impossible to claim that there is reasonable evidence God exists. It is reasonable to say that there is no logical reason whatsoever to adopt the concept of God, just as it would be to adopt any other idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And it is reasonable to say that the lack of evidence for God is cause to discard the idea as insignificant. But to claim that it is certainly untrue seems a violation of either the word "certainly" or "untrue."

[Strong Atheist]

27. "violation of either the word "certainly" "

... which brings us right back to the definition of certainty. It does not violate my definition. What is yours? :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

28. I don't think we disagree on the definition of the word "certainty." Rather,

we are disagreeing on the validity of the claim that the absence of reliable objective observations of divinity says anything about the existence or nonexistence of divinity. My case is laid out in the previous post.

[Strong Atheist]

30. .

From my OP:

"My definition of certainty is that if all available data always points to one conclusion, then I can be CERTAIN that conclusion is a true or valid conclusion. Note; this does not assume infinite knowledge, which is never possible…"

This includes "the validity of the claim that the absence of reliable objective observations of divinity"

All available data points to there being no gods (All data points to there being a god, if you are a "strong theist"). Therefore, there are no gods till proved otherwise as far as I am concerned.

Now, you seem to be saying it is not POSSIBLE to prove there is a god. Fine and dandy; that just means that I am certain there are no gods ... :shrug:

Looks to me like we have reached an impasse and can agree to disagree... :pals:

[Occam Bandage]

32. In that excerpt, I would deny the validity of your phrase "available data,"

for reasons I have specifically declared. I hold that we do not have available data of any sort regarding the existence or nonexistence of divinity, and that making any sort of declaration of certainty without the first scrap of evidence is simply unfounded.

[Strong Atheist]

34. "I hold that we do not have available data of any sort"

Sure we do. Negative evidence IS evidence.

There is no evidence of gods (or to a theist, there is LOADS of evidence). Complete lack of evidence THROUGHOUT RECORDED HISTORY (some 12,000 plus years) = no such thing, till proved otherwise...

[Occam Bandage]

35. But you're looking for a type of evidence that cannot exist for the subject at hand.

I might well say that there is no credible evidence of the sublime nature of art throughout recorded history, and that art is in fact nothing but what fools call unattractive and crude reproductions of things they see, and that therefore I am certain that artistry does not exist. The problem with that line of reasoning is that I am looking for an inappropriate type of evidence. Objective observation cannot possibly prove the existence of subjective experience (and let's not get into EEGs quite yet).

When we talk about divinity, we are talking about something which is held by the vast majority of its proponents to be supernatural--that is to say, which is by definition not demonstrable through objective observation, and which is only noticeable through subjective experience. In my first post in this thread, and in your reply, we seem to agree that induction doesn't work if there's inadequate evidence to make a claim; certainly one throw of a dart is not enough to claim certainty of anything. I now propose that the proposed concept of divinity is by definition immune to objective observation, and therefore there exist zero instances from which to draw an induction.

Under a situation in which there are zero instances, it is impossible to make a claim of logical certainty either way. Certainly it is impossible to claim that there is reasonable evidence God exists. It is reasonable to say that there is no logical reason whatsoever to adopt the concept of God, just as it would be to adopt any other idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And it is reasonable to say that the lack of evidence for God is cause to discard the idea as insignificant. But to claim that it is certainly untrue seems a violation of either the word "certainly" or "untrue."

(this time, please try responding instead of latching onto the word "certainly" and saying "oh well we just agree to disagree.")

[Strong Atheist]

37. ??????

OOOooookkkaaayyy....

You reposted post #25........ :shrug:



I gave my answers to that already, I just don't think you LIKED my answers... :shrug:


Look, I gotta go to work....

I will be back (BRIEFLY) after 2:40, otherwise I will see if there is anything NEW on saturday....

[Occam Bandage]

38. I did, because you did not answer anything in it.

I have repeatedly stated and defended my claim, throughout a multitude of posts, that there is no evidence whatsoever, negative nor positive, regarding the existence of divinity. You have completely ignored this and again asserted without defense that there exists negative evidence. Until you feel like explaining why you believe my argument about the validity of evidence regarding divinity in post #25 fails, this conversation is unfortunately effectively over.

[Strong Atheist]

40. Nothing new - check.

You said:

there exist zero instances from which to draw an induction.

To which I answered:

All available data points to there being no gods (All data points to there being a god, if you are a "strong theist"). Therefore, there are no gods till proved otherwise as far as I am concerned.

Check.

You said:

I would deny the validity of your phrase "available data,"
I hold that we do not have available data

And I answered:

Sure we do. Negative evidence IS evidence.

There is no evidence of gods (or to a theist, there is LOADS of evidence). Complete lack of evidence THROUGHOUT RECORDED HISTORY (some 12,000 plus years) = no such thing, till proved otherwise...

Check.

You said:

This time, please try responding

:rofl:

I have! You just don't like my answers. Tough. They ain't gonna change just to make you feel better.

You said:

instead of latching onto the word "certainly"

Duuuude!

The Title of my OP was one word. ONE WORD!!!!!!!

CERTAINTY.




The FIRST SENTENCE was a question asking what your definition of the word CERTAINTY was (which you have never explicitly answered; talk about "please try responding" :rofl: )



All of the examples that followed in the OP were about:

CERTAINTY.



The final sentence in the OP was a question reiterating my request for your definition about:

CERTAINTY.


My OP was all about CERTAINTY, for those who weren't paying attention.



Yet you want me to:

instead of latching onto the word "certainly"

Dude, if you don't feel up to giving a definition/qualified to discuss certainty, I think maybe you're in the wrong thread. :rofl:



Edited to add: Yet you want me to answer your questions, which I have, when you won't answer mine. Double standard much?


BTW: Your post #33 was in the middle of a discussion that I was having with dmallind. Quite apart from the fact that your response was a non-sequitor, I bet dmallind is a big boy who can answer my responses to his posts himself, which is more than I can say for people who find it too hard to give a simple explicit definition of "certain".

[Occam Bandage]

41. Let me try yet again to penetrate.

You point to a lack of objective, observational evidence of divinities. I reply that the proposed nature of divinity is by its very definition--according to the definition most believers have--not subject to objective observation. If something was objectively observable, it would no longer be divine.

Every one of your responses is a claim that there is no objective, observational evidence of divinity. That is true. It is also entirely meaningless, since not being subject to objective observation is part of the definition of divinity. There are zero instances of positive evidence for God, yes. There are also zero instances of negative evidence for God, because by the definition of God it is impossible to observe. It's like sitting on the floor in a pitch-black room, and claiming that you are certain that this particular room does not have a chair in it, because you have been sitting in this room for hours and have not once seen a chair. Of course you haven't seen a chair, but that isn't evidence for or against a chair, because you have not actually taken any observations that could possibly inform you as to the contents of the room. It is too dark to see. You have no idea whatsoever what is in the room.

I don't argue with your definition of certainty. I'm arguing with your use of bad logic to misapply your definition of certainty. And it is true that there is nothing new in this post, but then again, there's nothing you've addressed, either. I'm getting the impression that you're that sad sort of thinker that refuses to even consider opinions you disagree with long enough to argue intelligently or coherently against them.

[Strong Atheist]

43. Earlier when you claimed that I was not answering you, you were right

in one regard. I was ignoring this part of your posts:

I reply that the proposed nature of divinity is by its very definition--according to the definition most believers have--not subject to objective observation.

The reason I was ignoring it was because it was both (1) not factually accurate and (2) irrelevant. I will address it now since you are so ... fixated ... on that part of your argument.

(1) Theists of many different types have quite the opposite view in my experience. The writings in MANY (in fact, almost ALL that I am aware of) different religions have rather active god(s) doing all manner of OBSERVABLE things at one time or another. I can give MULTIPLE examples from MANY religions if you call me on this one ... ;)

(2) Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that what I said in (1) above is COMPLETELY WRONG, and that what you claimed for theists was COMPLETELY CORRECT. It is still irrelevant. It is irrelevant because of my second example in my OP, which you have COMPLETELY IGNORED.

( speaking of

refuses to even consider opinions you disagree with long enough to argue intelligently or coherently

I ask again: Double standard much? It increasingly appears to be your modus operandi. People in glass houses you know ...) ;)

I knew ahead of time that some type of argument would crop up similar to yours, and I carefully prepared my answer to it BEFORE YOU EVEN MADE IT, in my OP. You say you agree with my definition of certainty, given in my OP and amended in post #15 for clarity. Fine and dandy. Look again at example #2 in my OP (assuming that you carefully read it in the first place, or even read it at all; quite an assumption I grant). By the definition that I use (which I would claim most normal people in their daily lives use), people are CERTAIN of the non-existence of a potentially infinite list of made-up creatures/objects/places. Now, if we were to use YOUR definition

not subject to objective observation

all these normal people could NOT be certain that made-up things don't exist. Heck, we haven't checked for (imaginary creature/object) under every rock on Pluto. Or in the Magellanic clouds. Maybe it will show up there in the future. They are certain, however, and so am I, because they (and I) are using MY definition, to wit:

All we have to know is that it is a made up thing; therefore all available evidence points in one direction, namely that the thing in question does not exist because it was made up, and therefore not real.

and:

Note; this does not assume infinite knowledge, which is never possible…

When ALL available evidence (and, yes Virginia, this includes a COMPLETE LACK OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF LOOKING FOR IT) points to the non-existence of something, to it being made-up (caveat: theists argue the opposite, which I understand, I just disagree with their premises; their evidence), then I can be CERTAIN those things don't exist; for the same reason that scientists are CERTAIN that physical laws apply EVERYWHERE, even places that they have not been/observed (which is the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the universe). We can be CERTAIN, because all available evidence points that way.

[frogmarch]

42. Certainty is subjective, so

when, as an atheist, I say that deities do not exist, I am voicing my opinion, which stems from the lack of any evidence supporting the existence of deities. I have no doubt that deities don't exist, which means I am certain they don't.

[Strong Atheist]

44. I agree with this post 100%!

:yourock: