I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 12037

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I concur that this is largely mastabatory hair splitting, and even that my fraction of a percent of doubt is maybe solopsistic. It is not however any attempt to hedge my bets. I have a fraction of a percent of doubt because doubt is t logical and reasonable default position until a convincing argument is made to remove doubt and I not only donot think that any argument has been presented that no god exists to 100% certainty, but I donot think that one can be made.

I can grant that it is reasonable to say that one can be 100% sure that Jehova, as he is described in his press release does not exist as he is described there. His bio is filled w numerous contradictions that one can be 100% sure cannot all be true. I imagine this can also be said about almost any particular god that has thus far been described in any detail.

And I totaly grant that our universe seems to operate as if there is no god. But for every bit of evidence that one can present showing that god isn't responsible or present or anything, there is always t counter argument that maybe gods wants it to appear that way. If there was a god who could do those things and had those desires, then how would we tell that world from this world.

I imagine this is extremely unlikely to t point of being mastabatory and solopsist. But I donot think that it is 100% imposible. There are plenty of definitions of "atheism" that donot require 100% certainty. And I really donot think that last fraction of a percent is that important.

What I think is important is that I live my life as if there is no god or afterlife, or miracles or any of that. And that I think it is actually wrong to do so; wrong both in that it is incorrect and wrong moraly. One of those things that theism does that, I think, is most wrong is that it teaches that faith is a virtue. Faith is claiming to know things that one doesn't and probably can't.

I think this brings me back to my start minus perhaps those bits about being mastabatory and solopsistic.
OK... so maybe Batman keeps his name out of the papers... but there really is a Batman right? Running around battling crime? And Superman? I mean you can't be 100% sure they aren't out there just hiding... operating on the down low... yeah, that's the ticket.

Y'know, science doesn't really demand you extend doubt to every whackadoo notion posited by nutjobs.
As I always say perfection is the absence of reality. So yeah being a good skeptic and atheistic science nerd, 99.9%sure.
That doesn't make you a good skeptic or a science nerd. Don't pin this on science. It's your inability to dismiss BS out of wanting to appear to be PC. Science doesn't demand we give .01% consideration to unsupported mythologies.
I would suggest that we need to first have a definition of a given god before suggesting it doesn't exist. Is there some living entity out there on some other planet that is superior in intelligence and physically superior? Some may call this a god, and its possible this being exists. Or is the god an omnipresent, all knowing, and all loving god? I think deductive reasoning leads to a 100% no on such a being.
I find it fascinating that this string is still going.  We're whipping a dead horse here guys.  Moot point..period.
In that I donot think that it has any bearing on ky life I will concede that this is probably a moot point and even that it is probably mastabatory and solopsist. I think that there is tho that it does bear some relevance tho in demonstrateing that it is in principal not good to make asertians, especially of certainty w/o sufficiently evidence. That is called faith and it is one of my favorite improvements made in my life dice I stopped being a theists. It isn't a matter of being pc. It is a question of applying logic best I can.

I am sorry, but I think comparing this to believing in Batman also to be silly as none of us doubters ever said we believed gods existence to be likely, only that it cannot be ruled out completely. I think it shows an astounding level of arrogance and lack of imagination to state 100% certainty that no god exists is required or admirable.

Again I apologise for doing this as I donot think I should have to but here goes an attempt at making a reasonable case for a god. First off, it is rather well accepted that any society w sufficiently advanced technology can be indistinguishable from magic. Secondly if something is percieved ad magic then it can be considered a god. Thirdly, as Mr. Bowling points out it is conceivable that aliens may have powers that dwarf ours and may, in fact be beyond our imagination. An entity living outside of our four dimensions of space/time may have abilities to have knowledge of and abilities to manipulate our four dimensions comperably to our ability have knowledge of and manipulat images on a sheet of paper. We are used to being able to say that things are possible or impossible w/in our universe. Science has shown that there are other dimensions. An entity moving about in these dimensions would be governed by whatever physical laws that govern things there. We shouldn't expect this entity to be any more bound by our physical laws than we are bound to exist as images on a piece of paper. It is, in fact, possible for an entity bound only by whatever laws govern its dimension to have created our entire university complete w its own set of rules a science project of some type.

Is this likely or probable? No. That our universe exists and operates in t naturalists deterministic manner that it appears to is was more probable. But all us doubters are saying is that some sort of god is possible. And not only did I just explain how a god could possibly exist but how one might have created our universe w/out violating physical laws.
A fictional character is a fictional character. Call it, "god", John Galt, or yes, even Batman. None of them are real...no matter how good their press may be. To think otherwise to me shows a bit more irrationality than I want in my reality.

Whenever I read atheists who try to hedge their bets on nonsense that makes even less sense than religion, I wonder why it is that some people can't commit to reality without so much as an inkling of a reservation.

There may exist alternate universes, worlds, dimensions and so on that exist out of our field of vision, so to speak, but that doesn't mean that those alternates are the avenue for the supernatural, metaphysical, or whatever the hell you want to call it. Once again, we run stumblingly back into intellectual masturbation.

God either is or isn't...like any of the other deities that have been created by man throughout the millenia/centuries/years/days. Since none of the other "spirit critters" we've created has ever existed, why continue to mentally masturbate over this?

I agree wholeheartedly; God either is or isn't.  But neither side can prove one way or the other, so...why care?  Honestly?

Clarity. That is why.
Then, Xavier, you're an idiot.

Christianity, for all that they do, cannot prove to the disbelievers that there is a supreme being. Atheists, for all that they want to do, cannot prove that there is not. Either step is a leap of faith, and if you choose a side, then you're deciding to believe something that cannot be objectively proven.


I'm not saying I think there is. I'm simply saying that whether there is or isn't is irrelevant, and any decision made otherwise is a conscious effort toward something personal.
Except that I am not sure that Xavior is an idiot I too agree w you completely. The chance that there is any god is admittedly small enuf such that it doesn't warrant a discussion anywhere near this long.I am not particularly intent on convincing anyone that there is or even might be any god.

My issue mostly is that I find it frustrating that I am being misunderstood as badly as I apparently am, in spite of my repeated explanations. It isn't that I am insistent on having t last word but I do have two other items to atempt to clear this up.

One, maybe comparing gods existence to Bertran Russels' celestial teapot.(I think this is Bertran Russels). He did not believe it existed, but he did acknowledge that its non-existence could not be proven. If my life depended on finding one, then I still wouldn't devout an iota of attention towards finding one in space. I simply cannot prove it doesn't exist. And therefore I am not 100% sure that it doesn't.

And here is my second item and I hope that this ends it for me. Rather than simply repeatedly making assertions that one is 100% certain no god exists and insulting people who differ w you, then make an argument proving no god exists. Knock yourself out.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service