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: 11988

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not a bad point, imo. However, I think, one, that people who actually believe their sky daddy is real are nothing short of delusional, albeit a delusion accepted by billions over centuries sustained as a coping mechanism for ignorance and fear. This antiquated pseudophilosophy now just holds us back, partly by taking money off suckers and controlling them. And two, that rampant skepticism, postmodern relativism and mysticism of the non-religious sort also hold us back, by indirectly sanctioning religiosity and other forms of irrationality. Part of the identity of the square root of negative one is its imaginaryness. It is understood that it is a purely mathematical construct. People don't worship it. People, imo, should know that god is imaginary. We, as a society, will be better off if we individually recognize and encourage the recognition that the purely imaginary cannot really exist. The impossible cannot happen.
I don't think I'm 100% sure, because one always has to allow for the possibility of being wrong ... but I'm as close to certain as it's possible to be that there are no gods

Scientists had a similar argument about black holes, though now many scientists believe in black holes, though there is not one person who wholly understands them. Why then do we believe they exist? We have indirect evidence that they do exist. The gravity that they "exert" on other objects that we see is one sort of evidence. The lack of light prevents us from seeing the black hole directly which fits our current definition of black holes is another sort of evidence.

We have nothing that allows for direct or indirect evidence of god. But as long as we have no evidence, we can always say that the evidence has not yet been found. The definition you use to try to prove there is a god matters, but so far ALL definitions lack evidence.

Black holes do emit incredible amounts of xrays, due to their function, and that has been evidence of them that isn't circumstantial.

 

 

just saying.

Michael,

I agree with your takes on religion and on post-modern relativism and mysticism.

Nevertheless your absolute epistemological denial of "god" is aesthetic. And it is a trap to assert that the proponents of "god" must define her. Once having defined her attributes you claim impossibility. Aesthetically you are correct but how can we possibly be assured when dealing with the unknown.

 It also reminds me of the religious geocentric view when you assert how identity must be integrated with knowledge in a non contradictory way. You assume too much. We are talking about origins and of a universe which is and may remain a mystery for humans. What does it mean to integrate a concept into a base of knowledge which is infinitessimal?

Hi Glen how are things.

I know your response is for Michael, but I hope you don't mind me writing the following. Debating this and reading peoples responses to my thoughts and others thoughts, helps me define and redefine my thoughts.

 

It is a provable fact that there is no omnipresent and or omnipotent God.

 

You say.

What does it mean to integrate a concept into a base of knowledge which is infinitesimal?

What concept has Michael integrated into the infinitesimal knowledge base?

 

 

 


What attributes? Omniscience? Creator? Omnipotence? Miracle worker? Any quality gods are thought to have are impossible. If you have another quality you would like to suggest, let's hear it. And if it is not one of those things in the beginning of this paragraph, or some other nebulous non-identity, then it is probably something we already have a real word for or you would not be talking about a god. However you would like to try and twist words, redefine, avoid defining or obsess about some simple contradictory statement like "This sentence if false" or "You can't prove a negative", the fact remains, concrete noncontradictory identity is absolutely necessary for existence. You use this fact to think very simple statements and then build knowledge based on this fact to then try and tell me that it is, in fact, and you know it, possible for the impossible to exist and that things don't necessarily need identity to exist. A thing, to exist, must have certain qualities and not others. You even give god a sex by calling it her. Does she have a vagina? 2 x chromosomes? And you claim that it is me forcing clear concrete definition or identity for a thing to exist. It is the nature of existence. I do not assume too much to say that every single thing that exists does so because and in conjunction with the fact that it must have identity. Existence and identity are inseparable. Your skepticism is rampant. What sort of thing could possibly exist if it did not have identity? How could it be identified?

It is through a thing's identity that we are able to learn about it. Anything. The very first things we perceive in order to begin building concepts must have an identity in order to perceive them. When we perceive something, it is it's identity's affect that we perceive. A thing can and will do only what is in its nature to do, based on its structure, its identity. And in order to interact with reality a thing must do so in a particular way, based on its identity. A super-being that interacts with reality in arbitrary contradictory ways, cannot be. I do not need science to tell me that I cannot perceive something without a particular identity; I know that before science. I know it when I explicitly grasp, as we all implicitly grasp, that in order to think, reality must first exist, I must be conscious and I must be conscious of something in reality that has identity. If you can grasp that the laws of causality and noncontradiction stem from this and empower the scientific method, then you can see why you do not need science to prove what you already know and you cannot use science or its axiomatic fundamentals to demonstrate the existence or possibility of something that would negate them to begin with.

This universe is not so much a mystery that the impossible can happen. I do not need infinite or perfect knowledge for a concept to integrate contextually without contradiction. Infinitesimal? Super super small trending toward a singularity? I have no idea. I would not describe our knowledge base as infinitesimal. I would call it limited. Not infinite. As in, by nature, by reason, cannot be all-knowing, but can be particularly knowing.

You also do not need evidence for something to exist. Things existed billions of years ago, right? But there was no one to identify anything. That doesn't mean that things didn't have identity. Existence, which is inextricably linked to identity, comes/came before and has primacy over consciousness. Something must exist, with identity, first, to perceive it. Ontologically, cognitively, the first thing any and everyone can say is, "There is something I am aware of". This presupposes a thing existing, it having identity and a conscious mind to perceive it. These are preconditions to thought. They are the necessary axioms. The idea of the supernatural is an aasoult on everything we know about reality. It is a contradiction of every essential of a rational metaphysics. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy, or in the case of many people on this thread, a failure to grasp them.

I am 100% certain there is no god. To prove it I challenge god to strike me dead as I write this post.
I am waiting. Hmm nothing so far. Well, there you have it. An all-powerful omniscient god should strike me dead even as I contemplated this post.

Seriously, what is the point of conjecture on such nonsense? I don't mean that as an insult, but if you lack the courage to stand up to superstitious belief, then you probably are not an atheist.
I believe 100% there is no god. I know with as much certainty as I can, but not 100% that there is no god. I am fearful of religion and the power it has to dumb down the population. No religious person would ask me if I know there is no god. Every religious person would ask if I believe in god. I can honestly say I 100% believe there is no god.

Hi Leveni,

I readily concede that God as defined by theists is not possible. But God is is a construct, an invention which serves ignorance and projects human characteristics. Humans have no more ability to identify "god" than 18th century scientists had to identify special relativity or quantum mechanics.

I am saying that Michael is delving into an area which is outside the parameters of epistemology. The epistemological extension into the area of ultimate cause is a form of arrogance I liken to the medieval theologian's "we are the center of the universe". In other words the human pyramid of knowledge is insufficient as a basis of denial where ultimate cause is concerned.

It is not that he has or has not integrated some concept, it is that he fails to recognize the limits of epistemology. Epistemology is what we have to build on but it is not necessarily applicable to the mystery of ultimate cause. Then again I would not want a theist or mystic to use this argument to perpetuate their crap or to say nah nah nah you cant prove me wrong. So the tenor of his thinking is beneficial for humanity.

Hey Glen,

Humans have no more ability to identify "god" than 18th century scientists had to identify special relativity or quantum mechanics.

There is a slight difference between these two examples about things we can and can not understand. One of the things in your sentence has to do with magic the other the natural world.

When we talk about God and Gods abilities, we are not basing our opinions on anything that is verifiable. But with things like special relativity and quantum mechanics, and anything and everything else in the real world, we make the statement that they exist and we try to prove their existence by doing experiments to test their verifiability. For example: Special relativity tries to explain how light travels. Quantum mechanics tries to explain the connection between matter and energy. These examples are explainable and verifiable because we are talking about something that exists or we assume exists.

As for God, we have been explaining and identifying him for a long time. And every explanation about God and what God has done can be proven to be wrong. Or, it's not that we don't have the ability to identify God, we do have this ability, it's just that when we do identify him, the identity we give him is proven to be impossible.  

I am saying that Michael is delving into an area which is outside the parameters of epistemology. The epistemological extension into the area of ultimate cause is a form of arrogance I liken to the medieval theologian's "we are the center of the universe". In other words the human pyramid of knowledge is insufficient as a basis of denial where ultimate cause is concerned.

Sorry, but I can't agree. Basically what you are saying is: Things that are out side the realm of existence exist. Knowledge out side the realm of knowledge exists. For me, saying things like this is just playing with words.

But

you are correct in regards to our collective knowledge being insufficient to understand where the universe came from. But again, we can see the universe. We know it exists. We can prove it exists. We can make up theories about it and do experiments on it to prove and disprove those theories.

It is not that he has or has not integrated some concept, it is that he fails to recognize the limits of epistemology. Epistemology is what we have to build on but it is not necessarily applicable to the mystery of ultimate cause

Ok, so let's get back to your main point in this debate. Your main point is something along the lines of: Regardless of whether or not knowledge has a limit, we can never know everything in the universe. Although we have a lot of collective knowledge, there is still knowledge out side this collective knowledge that we don't know and will never know. Is this right?

 

Hey Leveni,

You seek to understand my position-the better to undermine it. No objection there.

I put god in quotes to signify my departure from any theological notion. I am getting at creation or lack (an incredible mystery tantamount to absurdity). Also a loose concept relating to nature of universe and or inner workings of universe. The epistemological denial of theological god is fine with me. I dont want to include anything supernatural as being beyond the analysis of the big E.

I am not saying that things outside the realm of existence exist. What I am saying to use the allegory of the cave is that humans are only seeing shadows. We lack the divining rod, the analytical tools to judge of "god". There is something, I can not recall title, by Twain where the characters are reduced to such small size that the bacteria they lived in was the ocean. They had no way to judge of what they were observing, which to them appeared to be a stormy and perilous sea.

 

 

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