How much confidence do you place in the scientific theory that ordinary matter is made of discrete units, or 'atoms', as opposed to being infinitely divisible?
Atoms are divisble. It possible to believe that matter is made of atoms and matter is infinitely divisible.
A reasonably accurate rewording is: "Do you believe 'H2O' is a meaningful description of water?".
What the heck does meaningful mean? While we are at seeking meaning: "What's the meaning of life?" I don't think that the word makes specific predictions that would allow you to put a confidence rating on the claim being true.
It's very important to mentally distinguish different classes of statements. If you start giving claims that make no predictions confidence levels you mess up your way of thinking precisely about the world.
The map is not the territory. Asking for the confidence in the belief that the map is the territory is wrong on a fundamental level.
How much confidence do you place in the scientific theory that ordinary matter is made of discrete units, or 'atoms', as opposed to being infinitely divisible?
More than 50%? 90%? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%? 99.999%? More? If so, how much more? (If describing your answer in percentages is cumbersome, then feel free to use the logarithmic scale of decibans, where 10 decibans corresponds to 90% confidence, 20 to 99%, 30 to 99.9%, etc.)
This question freely acknowledges that there are aspects of physics which the atomic theory does not directly cover, such as conditions of extremely high energy. This question is primarily concerned with that portion of physics in which the atomic theory makes testable predictions.
This question also freely acknowledges that its current phrasing and presentation may not be the best possible to elicit answers from the LessWrong community, and will be happy to accept suggestions for improvement.
Edit: By 'atomic theory', this question refers to the century-plus-old theory. A reasonably accurate rewording is: "Do you believe 'H2O' is a meaningful description of water?".