Dawkins' Scale

[brimstoneSalad]

Where would you place yourself if the question was whether you think that reality is actually a computer simulation? There can arguably be made a more reasonable case than a case for an eternal God.

6 too. I don't think I will ever get to 7 on anything.

Anything empirical anyway. On the matter of 2+2=4, I'm a 7, as well to any logical question that can be soundly answered without appealing to empirical observation. Contradictions are just wrong, and any god that evokes them in its definition is certainly false. The trouble is, there are a lot of different definitions out there.

[VeganChristian]

I'm Number One, definitely!

[cluoca]

shouldn't Number 7 be: I do not question existence of God: I know it does not exist. (??)

[brimstoneSalad]

shouldn't Number 7 be: I do not question existence of God: I know it does not exist. (??)

"Question" also means to challenge or contradict. It doesn't mean necessarily uncertainty, but more implicit negation.

[gogogadgetarms]

Somewhere between a 5 and a 7 depending on the day.

[alienbrain]

I don't think any reasonably minded person could go with seven. Six seems the most logical.

[miniboes]

I don't think any reasonably minded person could go with seven. Six seems the most logical.

You can reasonably take the 7th position towards religions with logically impossible aspects, e.g. an omnipotent god. If we were only talking about Christianity, then 7 would be a reasonable position. If we are talking about all gods, however, it is not.