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: 8775

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree
There is an art. Take the words of another and add meaning to them, then twist that meaning into whatever you want, and behold you have refuted the original words. There are two names to this art: Philosophy and Religion
Yep. I'm sure you and Francis Bacon would have gotten along well, as you have pretty much summarized in your own words that which he also thought.
Thanks!

I have a feeling that was intended as an insult, but going beyond that, can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him? 

Can you refute my claim? Or is my claim bologna? 

After reading your above statement about twisting words around, I assumed you were against such games. I assumed you thought such games were a waste of time. 

 

I think Francis Bacon also thought such games were a waste of time.

 

I assumed the both of you thought such games were a waste of time and that such games amounted to nothing.

 

And this is why I wrote the above.

 

Can you refute my claim?

I asked you before to give me a real life example of 'a negative that can not be proven'. You have not provided me with one. If you provide me with one, we can go from there.

 

can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him?

In regards to science, Bacon never made any real scientific claims. Therefore there were no claims to refute. What he did was, collect information and use it to try and find the true nature of things. He tried to give an example of how to find the true nature of things by observing the real world, and not just relying on ones own thoughts and the thoughts of others in our collective past.

 

I have a feeling that was intended as an insult

Never did I ever have such an intention. Having now read all your posts, in your debate, mainly with Micheal Tricoci, it is my understanding that you have a philosophical mind set. I have no such mind set, I try to base everything I think on what I deem to exist in the real world. 

 

If you feel I have insulted you then maybe it comes from the difference between our mind sets. 

 

I am an atheist because there is no God. A provable fact. Albeit, an unscientific provable fact. 

What do you mean you don't have a philosophical mind set? It seems to me that you are are opining on the subject of epistemology when you say that atheism is a non-scientific provable fact, which I happen to agree with. I think philosophy gets a bad rap because so many people hold to principles arbitrarily (not in accordance with reality). I think philosophy is a critical study of thought, which very few people do with intellectual honesty, instead of a hodgepodge of mystical and skeptical derangements. I think basing everything you think on what you deem to exist in the real world is an ideal foundation for a proper philosophical mind.

Thanks for your cander. I apologize for accusing you of something that you didn't do.

 

Leveni said; "I asked you before to give me a real life example of 'a negative that can not be proven'. You have not provided me with one. If you provide me with one, we can go from there."

I suggest that you can never say that there is no extraterrestrials during the time there is the question of whether there are extraterrestrials.

 

Leveni said; "it is my understanding that you have a philosophical mindset."

I hate philosophy, so I find it hard to believe I have a philosophical mindset. But I could be wrong.

 

Leveni said; "I am an atheist because there is no God. A provable fact. Albeit, an unscientific provable fact."

 

I think we are in agreement. Have you read my post that says;"

If you ask me what I know about whether there is a God, I would have to say I can be 99.9999% sure. If you ask me if I believe there is a God, I would say I 100% believe there is no God. 

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.

But if you ask yourself whether you believe there is a God or not, you can reach 100% because believing requires no evidence."

 

I think all that mumbo jumbo I said above can be whittled down to "believing requires no evidence." And I think belief is a religious endeavour.

Thanks for your cander. I apologize for accusing you of something that you didn't do.

 

Leveni said; "I asked you before to give me a real life example of 'a negative that can not be proven'. You have not provided me with one. If you provide me with one, we can go from there."

I suggest that you can never say that there is no extraterrestrials during the time there is the question of whether there are extraterrestrials.

 

Leveni said; "it is my understanding that you have a philosophical mindset."

I hate philosophy, so I find it hard to believe I have a philosophical mindset. But I could be wrong.

 

Leveni said; "I am an atheist because there is no God. A provable fact. Albeit, an unscientific provable fact."

 

I think we are in agreement. Have you read my post that says;"

If you ask me what I know about whether there is a God, I would have to say I can be 99.9999% sure. If you ask me if I believe there is a God, I would say I 100% believe there is no God. 

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.

But if you ask yourself whether you believe there is a God or not, you can reach 100% because believing requires no evidence."

 

I think all that mumbo jumbo I said above can be whittled down to "believing requires no evidence." And I think belief is a religious endeavour.

I'm no more positive about there being no god than I am about there being no teapot circling the earth, but I'll believe in neither.

 

This thread has gotten WAY complicated. But here's my simple-minded take on it. I don't believe in unicorns, because I have never seen or heard any convincing evidence that they exist. Likewise, I don't believe in any of the gods that humanity has presented, because I don't see any convincing evidence otherwise. But if I DID see convincing evidence that James Randi and his staff couldn't prove was a fakery, then I might change my mind. It would probably take more than one event. And I notice that no one has ever claimed Randi's prize.

So while I'm 100% convinced that none of the gods posited by humanity exist on the basis of the stories told about them, I cannot say that I'm 100% convinced that there is nothing beyond my feeble ability to understand. It all depends on your definition!

This would be my dot ohh two.  I cannot be 100% sure that there is no god.  I actually think that we cannot be 100% sure of anything.  I can say with some certainty however that no evidence exists that points toward any cosmic creator.  There is one sort of shaky book that relies on itself over and over to implore that there is some omniscient god that directs all of this but that is one source and is not corroborated by anything else.  In most circles that is a problem but not for those of faith.  The real problem here is (IMHO) not with religion but with faith in general.  If people think that "having faith" empowers them then we have a difficult road ahead.  Faith, I believe is surrendering responsibility to a magic man about whom you can say "works in mysterious ways" when things don't go your way but when your "ship comes in" you can praise him...  I'm sorry what did you say?  It sounds eerily like you have no personal responsibility.  I mean if god mandates that I am to fail chemistry who am I to argue with him.... Where does it end?  It ends with you praising god for a potato when you could get a job and earn a steak.  It makes me sad to think that people somehow put religion above astrology or psychic readings.  They are all very much the same person wrapped in different clothes.

Cane,

Knowledge that god doesn't exist does not come from science. It comes from reason, which science depends on. You do not need science to know that 2+2=4 or that leaves cannot burn and freeze at the same time. But you need to know these things to do science. You do not require evidence that something impossible doesn't exist to know that it cannot exist.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service