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: 12987

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In the scientific method, one always allows that one might be wrong in any facet of its knowledge. Future discoveries may cause us/science to modify our ideas. While acknowledging that, we still accept that our current state of knowledge is the best so far. Room for doubt is a rational attitude. It does not mean that we can't accept the status quo as our position.


Refusal to be swayed by a better argument or new information is precisley the kind of thing most atheists despise in the religious. To be intellectually honest, we need to leave a pocket of room for doubt, on the off chance that some new information comes along to cause us to change our minds. In the meantime I label myself an agnostic atheist. That means I call myself atheist, because I acknowledge no god, serve no god, take instruction from no god, fear no god; yet I have that pocket of room for change, which I feel is the intellectual imperative of the person who is science minded.


I tack on the prefix agnostic, because I cannot disprove the existence of "God", because it is a logical impossibility for anyone disprove a universal negative. If a god is supposed to be perfect and ALL LOVING, then that god must be 100% loving. I am not a god, any more than the guy religionists call "God", so I can be atheist, with some room for doubt, (doubt which I explore on an almost daily basis, in the interests of my own valued intellectual honesty and integrity).


So far I remain an agnositc atheist.

@ Gila "In the scientific method, one always allows that one might be wrong in any facet of its knowledge. Future discoveries may cause us/science to modify our ideas. While acknowledging that, we still accept that our current state of knowledge is the best so far. Room for doubt is a rational attitude."




Again, we are talking about God here. We have zero knowledge of God. How can we be wrong in our knowledge toward God? How can we modify our knowledge of God? What is our current state of knowledge in regards to god? How can we have a rational attitude in regards to God? 


We can't apply science to God.

Being certain of something does not equate to a belief or refusal to be swayed.  If I were presented compelling evidence for god, and in some way eliminated the inherent contradictions in its common definition, I'd listen and accept it.  The point is, the current definition of "god," especially in the christian religion, is self refuting.  It is itself logically contradictory, and reality as we know it refutes its existence.  That refutation can be counted, in my mind, as evidence of its non existence.  Reality is evidence against the christian god, not some other watered definition that people may bring into this.  I will not state absolute certainty against a trickster god, a pantheist god, or a god whose existence bears no result on the universe~ there is no evidence to support such a position.  I will, however, state with absolute confidence that the god of the bible does not exist, and that the god of popular christianity, as well, does not exist~ because I have evidence to disprove it.
I donot see anything in this post that I disagree w at all. If we were disagreeing elsewhere, then I can easily imagine that it was not over anything substantial.

In another post you made an issue of weather or not we could trust our senses. I think that w/in limits we can and in fact have to as that (and reason) is all we have. A trickster god by definition tho, would be able to fool our sences.

And like I stated earlier, Christian mythology actually does make room for trickster god type actions like w my theist relative believeing dinosaur bones were put there by Satan.
"A logical impossibility for anyone to disprove a universal negative."

Bullshit. In spite of all the people littering the internet with such folky assertions that one cannot prove a negative, it just ain't so. Among professional logicians, please name one... just one... who believes this. Good luck.

I know, I know... you've been slippery enough to avoid the plain negative and properly quote "universal negative" as in proving that there are no gold shitting bears on Pluto or some such nonsense.

We're all supposed to pretend that the only way to prove this would be to send a team of thousands to Pluto and conduct a thorough survey of the planet. That being currently impossible, it should therefore be equally impossible to prove that there are no 24 karat bear turds on the Plutonian shore. We're supposed to pretend that some ursine breed might be able to metabolize whatever rocky ice one finds on Pluto into precious metal and survive in conditions that we know full well do not allow for bears whether or not they poop gold.

Save it for the 8 year olds.

Otherwise, posit a God. Define the word coherently.

Pluto is now classified as a Dwarf Planet

pic related

your face when

You are serious about not understanding how to disprove a god hiding as a negative?


The abrahamists don't have a monopoly on god. There are other ideas of what god is. I don't believe in them, but I leave the possibility that i'm wrong open with anything.


99.9999% for me is more short for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


I just don't feel like typing all those 9's. besides, its 100% anyway.

@ Paul "however one can't be 100% sure of any assertion based on any observed bit of evidence, as it is always possible to be wrong on our evidence"?


Paul you are 100% correct here and this is the basis of science.


The the topic of conversation here is God. And it is impossible to mix science with God. And the reason is nobody has ever observed God. 


I know as a fact, that is 100% true, nobody here has ever observed God. And until such time, science, by definition, can never be used to prove or disprove God.

To be 100 percent sure of an unprovable concept would likely make me as dogmatic as those I criticize. So I'd have to say I'm as certain as I can be, considering what my faculties can provide. Maybe the deists have it right, and the creator is an absentee landlord, but it hardly matters in the practical sense.
As Christopher Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

However, note that serious scientists devote no time whatsoever to disproving the existence of a clone of Abraham Lincoln strumming a banjo on the dark side of the moon.

All this blather about scientific inquiry and leaving room for doubt about the existence of the Abrahamic God or Lincoln's lunar-living, banjo-strumming clone is to fail to understand science in the first place.

Check your premise.

If your premise is self-contradictory, insane, or otherwise does not warrant serious hyposthesis, let alone testing, experimentation, prediction, etc., and does not deserve to be given serious consideration, much less the stature of a theory with the rigors of scientific inquiry and a budget the size of NASA's expended upon it.

Again, if you can fathom a coherent God that you'd like to put forth as potentially real... go for it. Otherwise, that .01% of doubt is just you trying not to be an ass. For me, that's obviously not a good enough reason. :)
not only that, but the saying that "the lack of evidence need not be construed as evidence against" is often misinterpreted to mean "having no evidence is not evidence against."  That is wrong.  The qualities of "gawd" that christians have are qualities that have been prescribed to god, they are not descriptive.  If they are qualities of a true entity, then reality should reflect those qualities (never mind the fact that they are self refuting and contradictory.)  Reality does not~ and thus can be evidence against the common god described.


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