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: 8870

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Cane, how are things?

 

If you are honest with yourself, and you ask yourself whether you know, according to science you can never really know with 100% certainty because you require evidence and you cannot prove a negative.

According to science? Science is based on our 5 senses. If something can not be sensed by any of our senses, then by definition, science can not be used in regards to it. To mix science with God is therefore impossible.

 

What do you mean can not prove a negative? If you mean we can not prove the non-existence of something, then you are wrong. The non-existence of things can be proven easily.

 

 So Cane, can you rephrase the above statement please? It's too ambiguous for me.

Hi Leveni,

You say "Science is based on our 5 senses...To mix science with God is therefore impossible". I think you are wrong in coming to that conclusion. To explain why, I ask you to define God. If you define God as something unreal then it cannot be studied, but by definition, anything that interacts with us in our Universe must be real. 

 

I will try to rephrase my statement. 

 

The lack of evidence does not mean that there isn't evidence yet to be found. Therefore you cannot prove a negative using the scientific method. You can do so with reasoning and belief, but these are not truly scientific.

I hope I have explained where I am coming from.

That would be true of a brand new hypothesis, you don´t yet... but this question has been beaten to death, for a long time, from all angles. If there was any evidence, it would have shown up. It hasn´t.

Hi Cane,

What I said about the five senses can not be wrong, because it is the basis of scientific method. Scientific method, by definition, can only be applied to a phenomena we can sense/observe. It is not used in regards to things of the imagination/delusion. 

To explain why, I ask you to define God. If you define God as something unreal then it cannot be studied, but by definition, anything that interacts with us in our Universe must be real.

I honestly don't not understand the concept of God. It's not a part of my mind set. But, anything and everything that we can sense can be explained through science. As God has never been sensed by anybody, science is not applicable to him. 

 

My take on proof in regards to science is the following. Science in itself is not proof. It is an attempt to explain how and why things are they way they are, and work the way they work, and proof is used to substantiate scientific claims. 

 

'The scientific study of God' is just a play on words. The sentence is grammatically correct, but it has no scientific meaning because before something can be studied scientifically it must be observed (sensed) first.

 

The lack of evidence does not mean that there isn't evidence yet to be found.

This also means that scientific method can not even begin. And it is therefore outside the realm of science. It is a part of science-fiction or fantasy. Also, 'lack of evidence' in regards to God, implies there is some evidence of God. But this is not true, there has never been any evidence ever for the existence of God. 

 

I understand the underlining point of your argument in this debate, but my point is that your argument is outside the realm of science. And therefore science has nothing to do with God until God is observed.

 

I can demonstrate an experiment that is repeatable by anyone and everyone at any time and any place. This experiment proves there is no omnipresent God. Open you eyes and look to your right, your left, in front of you and behind you and up and down. Do this any where and everywhere you go. Never will you ever see God upon doing this. This proves that an omnipresent God does not exist. This experiment is repeatable with the same result every time it is done. And no matter who does it, the result will always be the same. There you go, proof that there is no omnipresent God. 

 

Every single claim made about Gods existence can easily be disproven. 

 

Therefore you cannot prove a negative using the scientific method.

 

Again, what do you mean by not being able to prove a negative. Can you give me an example of a negative that can not be proven.

 

You wrote:

I can demonstrate an experiment that is repeatable by anyone and everyone at any time and any place. This experiment proves there is no omnipresent God. Open you eyes and look to your right, your left, in front of you and behind you and up and down. Do this any where and everywhere you go. Never will you ever see God upon doing this. This proves that an omnipresent God does not exist. This experiment is repeatable with the same result every time it is done. And no matter who does it, the result will always be the same. There you go, proof that there is no omnipresent God.

But I can do the same thing and never see or sense radio waves, either. And in the current American atmosphere, I'm pretty sure radio waves are omnipresent!

I remain open to the idea that there are things that we don't yet know for sure exist. And the existence of God is really dependent on your definition of it. There are some things I can say I'm 100% sure of, for example, the non-existence of a God who will not allow a sparrow to fall. The non-existence of a God who uplifts the good and casts down the evil. The non-existence of a God who makes sure OUR football team wins!

I am honestly pessimistic that there will ever be any proof of a God, but I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about. I truly invite believers to try to convince me, but no one has passed the test yet, and I doubt they ever will.

Hi Natalie, how are things?

 

You can sense radio waves. As soon as you turn on your radio you can sense them. This is proof that they exist.

 

The argument I am making is in relation to science and God. Science is only applicable to that which we can sense/observe, by definition. Because nobody has ever sensed/observed God, God is not in the realm of science. He is outside science. He is in the realm of science fiction/fantasy.

 

I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about

Again, science can explain everything that can be observed/sensed. If it can not be observed/sensed then it is not in the realm of science.

 

 

 

I generally agree with you, except for god being science fiction. God is definitely fantasy, but I would say that things that are science fiction are possible, theoretically. Teleportation, for instance, might be possible in the future. But, invisible pink unicorns or magic are not. An omniscient, omnipotent, acausal, prime moving creator is impossible and not even in the realm of science fiction.
Fair enough. You have convinced me to change my stance, please replace science fiction with fantasy, in the case of God. Sorry for any confusion.
I think I agree. I like to explain it as such; science, logic and reason depend on epistemological concept formation which is a very real causal process, and dependent on identity, causality and noncontradiction. You cannot use the building block of cognition to discredit that which is necessary to think. Science cannot say whether there is a god or not. God is impossible, even before the scientific method comes into play. If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
I never thought about it like that, but you are right. Because he could just make a planet appear from nothing, and make Venus habitable by just wishing it so, and he could walk on water etc.

Actually, that strikes me as a very succinct demolition of the idea of god. If miracles were possible, physical laws couldn't be, and vice versa.

Exactly. This whole thing is so damn simple. For something to exist it must have identity. It must be some things and not others, otherwise it would not stand out in reality. For something to be is to have identity. Specific identity. This comes way before science. Science depends on this. Epistemologically, god is impossible, as are contradictions. And some things can be known. This is also epistemological and comes before science. Science depends on this too. For if things could not be known, then technology would be impossible. Skepticism in the absence of contradictory evidence is a waste of time.

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