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: 9655

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am 100% certain that every god that is currently worshipped on the face of the earth does not exist.  100% certain, not a shadow or sliver of any kind of doubt what so ever.  That said, I am not 100% certain that some kind of god does not exist somewhere but I have seen zero evidence to support such an entity and until I do I will politely decline to believe in such a thing.  So put me in the 99.999999....... category.

1. 100% certainty is a straw man argument generally used against atheists.  An atheist no more has to be 100% certain of god's nonexistence than a theist needs to be 100% certain.   There are very few things that a thinking person can be 100% certain about, and there is a degree of agnosticism in any endeavor.

2. Another problem with this question is the issue of Theological noncognitivism. The noun "god" doesn't have a single clear definition, and many of the definitions tend to be incoherent, contradictory or obviously made-up.  

3. Even if there were an entity somewhere that looks like what we think of as a god, the question still remains, why call it god?  What type of phenomenon would actually deserve that title, with all the ramifications?  (An interesting set of characters from the Star Trek series were the Q and the Q Collective.  These were aliens who, for all intents and purposes, could be labeled gods - but clearly were not.)

Hello George,

your point 1. got me thinking about something..

Isn't a person who isn't completely certain about god's existence, techincally an agnostic? Even if he is leaning towards the non-existent possiblity.

 

I always thought that atheism was affirming the non-existence of god. And you can't really affirm it, without being 100% sure.

The strawman, in my opinion, is the percentages that are very close to 100%, without quite being 100%. It's a way of reminding that we are only human and can be wrong about our certitudes. While virtuous and very atheistic (I've never met a religious person saying he is 99.99% sure god exists), being 100% certain doesn't stop you from admitting a possibility of error.

 

Certitude comes in absolutes. You cannot be partly certain of something.. that would be, by definition, uncertain. Only if you were uncertain, could you be leaning for an argument in percentages.

So the question is.... are you 0.1% uncertain of god's existence? ;) I know I'm not :).

 

 

"Isn't a person who isn't completely certain about god's existence, techincally an agnostic?"

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.  One can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.   I  like this diagram which illustrates the spectrum of theistic belief:

 

Not depicted in this diagram is the fact that the gnostic-agnostic axis is a scale which represents degrees of certainty in either direction.  Richard Dawkins placed himself at a 6 out of 7 on his own Scale of Theistic Probability, meaning "de facto atheist".  

 

"...being 100% certain doesn't stop you from admitting a possibility of error."

I'm pretty sure admitting the possibility of error indicates less than 100% certainty.
I like the chart! On that, I can put myself in the agnostic atheist category. On Dawkins' scale, I can rate myself 5.5, because I'm definitely leaning toward the atheist side, but don't know that my probability notion is quite as low as as Dawkins' 6, but certainly not as high as 5. Nit-picky, I am!! :-)

1. Which god do you refer to? There are over 3000 gods claimed to exist or claimed to have existed.

2. No-one can ever be 100% positive about anything. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

3. If you are referring to the Abrahamic God, it can't exist because it's definition forms a logical contradiction.

4. If you are referring to the Deist God, it is meaningless and irrelevant because it can't be falsified.

5. It's most likely that the rest of the over 3000 gods claimed to exist or claimed to have existed have definitions which are either incoherent or falsifiable since it's the case with all of the ones that I've come across so far.

 

I don't have any personal concepts of gods since I was never indoctrinated but based on current knowledge and my comments above I believe that it's highly unlikely any exist.

 

Since I'm not omniscient I can't comment on the future and whether that might or might not change.

 

Theists love it when some atheists (very few) make the claim that "gods don't exist" because then they can sit back and demand that the claimer prove it knowing full well that the claimer can't. 

 

It allows them to shift the burden of proof onto the person making that claim and they are no longer required to provide evidence to support their equally unprovable claim that their favorite flavor of "god exists".

 

this discussion will generate enough replies to surpass the theology forum amount of posts LOL
and for the last time on post-modern era Earth there's never going to be a god aside from yer brain; yer god

http://www.godchecker.com/ 

 

Which of the 3000 gods listed at that link am I supposed to be in any confusion about? These are just the ones we know about because someone took the time to write about them, or left their names inscribed on stone temples and effigies. Think of the thousands more that we DON'T know about, because no records of them were left behind. I am 100% certain that NONE of them, known or unknown, exist. Is there one I missed because it hasn't been listed yet?

So many people look to science to prove or disprove the concept of god. This is silly. But god is actually 100% impossible. It an epistemological point that god is impossible. It is proper epistemology that allows for reason, logic and science to begin with and many many new age post-modern 'philosophers' who were brainwashed at modern universities to think that quantum theory shows us that entities can act random and that the fundamental base of our world is mystical. Steven Hawking coming out as an atheist is great, but I find it funny how people think he might be an expert. He's just a postmodern skeptical relativist, like many of the other people on this thread that aren't sure 100% because they wish to maintain some 'open mind' to allow for emotion pleasing magic somewhere. Not only does skepticism as a fundamental principle fail, because it is a blatant contradiction to say that fore sure, always, you have knowledge that certain knowledge is not possible, but god is 100% impossible because contradictions cannot exist and the concept cannot even be defined in any way. An existent must have identity. It must be some things and not others. Identity and noncontradiction are necessary properties for any thing to exist. Science depends on these concepts and so does all concept formation and thought. Way before science comes into the picture, there is no god.
Agreed

I don't entirely disagree with you.  I don't believe gods exist either.

 

My only contention is in your statement "but god is 100% impossible because contradictions cannot exist and the concept cannot even be defined in any way. An existent must have identity. It must be some things and not others. Identity and noncontradiction are necessary properties for any thing to exist. Science depends on these concepts and so does all concept formation and thought..."

 

It is a perceptual fallacy to rest ones methodology on the basis of logical non-contradiction of entities.  There are many propositions (properties of existing things) that are both true and false at the same time.  We humans drive our needs off of absolutes and we pay the price for it.  Science will NOT truly understand the workings of the macro and micro envrionments until it gets over its incessant need to codify things absolutely.

 

Besides, it's always appeared to me that the ones most angry about something (and ramping his or her self up to the point of causing destruction in other's lives) are the very ones who know with absolute certainty and refuse to be open to new ideas.  It's true of the religious and non-religious.

These angry people you refer to might be certain, but they do not have certain knowledge. Saying that you know for sure that certainty is impossible is a blatant contradiction. And by the rules that make any knowledge possible is invalid. There is not a single known entity that has contradictory properties. I would ask you to name one, but I already know that you cannot. And I have already addressed the uncertainty principle which is a description of our limited understanding at the limits of our perception, so don't bring up very tiny things or perfectly precise measurement. I am talking about things, entities, with identity. A leaf cannot freeze and burn at the same time. Balloons filled with helium, if let go, will go up, in this atmosphere and 2+2=4, always, in this reference frame, barring any additional variables. We can understand and have contextually valid knowledge of the macro world and we do with the use of noncontradiction and causal law. That's how come we can create stuff like the IPhone. Gods, with no clear identity or noncontradictory characteristics cannot be contextually valid. Epistemologically, all concept formation and therefore thought is dependent on these things. You cannot use the scientific method or any other form of reasoning to negate the foundations of what you would need to understand and verify something. Science is a process of discovery and verification, it does not understand things; we do. You are still using science in an attempt to gain epistemological knowledge. It is not possible. And neither are invisible pink unicorns.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service