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: 11994

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It depends entirely on how you define the term "god". 

 

I'd rate the probability of there being a Christian-style god of any of the varieties that I have become familiar with (and there are quite a few!), as pretty much the same as you: 99 point several nines percent against.

 

If you define "god" loosely enough to include extremely simple non-sentient quantum energy fluctuations then the probability goes up to 99 point several nines percent for.  Of course, few people define "god" as loosely as this because it is essentially tautological.  We already have words to describe this kind of thing so why use a word that ambiguously implies a whole lot of different things to everyone else?

There were and are certainly people who mix Hinduism with Buddhism... which is a gross failure to understand Buddhism which does not believe in a creator god in any context.

 

Now, as for this "nothingness that is the origin of all possibilities." Yeah, on second thought, I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that and shoot it down.

 

If there were ever a state of nothingness, that state would necessarily continue. I offer this mathematical proof:

 

0 + 0 = 0

 

We have a state of nothingness (0) and nothing to act upon it or add to it (0), and can only yield the result of nothingness (0).

 

Therefore, there must have always been something. Words like "universe" and "multiverse" and such get defined and redefined according to our ability to fathom beyond our solar system, our galaxy, our cluster, supercluster, and so on.

 

So let's cut to the chase and label the whole shebang filled with every universe, macroverse, microverse, multiverse, and rural outhouse as THE Universe or THE Cosmos. Let us turn to Webster and understand that the Universe is defined as the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. In other words, the universe is the set of all things that exist.

 

There is nothing outside that set that actually exists... otherwise it would be inside the set. So there is nothing outside the set to act upon the set.

 

The set can never have been null, or it would still be null.

 

The set, therefore, is uncaused. It is not an effect, even though various elements of the set can affect other elements. It does not, therefore, require a creator, rendering a creator God moot and oxymoronic. The set may rearrange, but it is eternal.

 

So we see that in nothingness, there are no possibilities.

An excellent BS call. :-P

It reminds me of Ingersoll's lectures where he put forth that matter is eternal, and all we've ever seen is either matter or force, which is a property of matter. Of course back then the cosmic microwave background radiation had yet to be discovered, so the Big Bang was unheard of. Back then one could still postulate that the universe was eternal, with no beginning.

 

Now that we know it did have a beginning, at least in some sense. For some reason this seems to make people giddy with anthropomorphic desire. I've never understood why.  

 

As for being certain, I am as certain that there are no gods as I am certain about the nonexistence of ghosts, fairies and their ilk. 

KS,

The big bang does not show that there was a beginning. A beginning is incompatible with causality and reason. The above comment by Vince Watkins explains this well.

You're right. I should have said "the universe as we know it."

Again, Big Bang merely asserts that there was an expansion of a singularity (I tend to think of this as time/space infiltrating matter/energy) that eventually resulted in what we have rather naively called the universe. But there is nothing in the theory to cause one to assume that the singularity was created.

 

Current theories suggest further that we might do well to think of our universe as a local element, one of an infinite number of universes, all comprising an infinite multiverse. For the purposes of this conversation, I've chosen to stick with Webster's definition of universe and assert that all these bubbleverses in the infinite multiverse soup are still members of the set of all things that exist.

 

When we discovered that our solar system was not the universe or that our galaxy was not the universe or that our cluster was not the universe, we continued to maintain our use of the word "universe" as the set of all things that exist, adapting new words to define the smaller elements.

 

Now, I think we would do well to continue this trend by not referring to multiple universes, but rather agreeing upon a name for this thing we have previously thought was the totality of the universe. We can call it a singularity expansion locality or a multiverse bubble or we can call it Scooter. But continuing to call it the universe would be like continuing to call everything that revolves around the earth the cosmos.

 

And while, yes, the rearrangements and expansion of our little fraction of the cosmos have been most impressive, to assume that big bang was an origin event rather than a "rearranging event" or that it is the set of all things that exist... is unfounded.

Vince: "Now, I think we would do well to continue this trend by not referring to multiple universes, but rather agreeing upon a name for this thing we have previously thought was the totality of the universe."

 

It is for this reason that I have used the new word "infiniverse". 

Let's call it Scooter!
I call everything that exists as simply put as Existence :)
The concept of God is invalid and contradictory. Contradictions cannot exist. So, yes, I am 100% sure that God does not actually exist.

 

I don't want to be presumptious, but do want to answer all comments addressed to my mine. Rosemary and ITP, were either of yours so intended?

Before any of you start reading this posted reply, I suggest all of you to read up on information Theory :) I wrote an article on it myself that helps explain it, and you can find it here:

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation.

Thus unfortunately for Christians, their GOD is literally impossible to exist. I can just simply crush the entire concept using just basic information theory. We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

  1. Omniscient
  2. Boundless
  3. Unlimited
  4. Uncontained
  5. The containing and sustaining of all things
  6. Omnipresent

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essence of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me? If he is uncontained then what separates him from me? If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?.. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist? If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

2) The Christian GOD concept can only ever at best describe existence itself as a whole. You may as well be worshiping yourself.

3) Even solipsism will fail under information theory because consciousness can not exist without cause! Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation.

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information

There are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings. So what are they?

POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin! And their 3 fundamental properties/attributes/laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

 

The Christian GOD is literally Impossible. It can only at best be used as a metaphor for the entire sum total of existence itself! And here is an interesting video that does a very good job of expressing some of my points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service