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: 9328

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Which pretty much brings us back to my original assertion that you can't prove a negative - unless you change definitions or play silly word games. So, to say "there is no god" is a negative statement that can't be proven or disproven, unless you look everywhere in the universe (I'm limiting the applicable zone to reality). However, the statement "there is a god" is relatively easy to prove. Just show evidence of any god at work in the real world. Any evidence.

Hi Len,

It can be proven there is no Omnipresent God.

Just look in front of you, to the left of you and to the right of you, behind you, up and down. You will not see him. You can do this experiment at home or in the office, in America or Saudi Arabia. And at any time. You will never see the omnipresent God.

For me this is proof there is no Omnipresent God.

 

But he's invisible - and he's standing right next to that invisible pink unicorn there ;-)
hehe

There are many things that exist and are not detectable by the normal senses, like radio waves or neutrinos. (Neutrinos are pretty much omnipresent)

If a god existed, I wonder if there is any argument that a god-detector could be invented.

Someone, somewhere, in prehistory was the first to invent the baloney idea that purporting there was a god could explain a lot of things that were not otherwise understood.

Billions of people have accepted the baloney ever since. This does not make the baloney god any more believable than before. In fact no more believable than the many other fictional story inventions like pink unicorns and Russell's orbiting teapot.

That is why I cannot accept the baloney god idea, even to the level of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

The proof, apparently, is that we exist. If there was no god to create us, we would not exist. but then the kind of person who is ready to accept this as true is not the kind of person who will listen to logic, science or any other kind of truth that doesn't come from their bible. 

@ Drake

Electrons with a positive charge are called Positrons, kind of.

 

or are you redefining the meaning of words.

So there are electrons with positive charges?  Or there's another kind of particle?  In any case, the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.

 

Craig, Discoverer of the Quarkerino

Hi Craig,

I Google statements that I think are interesting here. And at least try to find out if there is an example of that statement in the real world.

To put it simply; electrons with a positive charge are called positrons. They exist. And experiments can be done with them.

the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.

To put this statement into layman terms: If one supernatural claim exists other supernatural claims can exist at the same time.

If the process of logical exclusion does work in the supernatural world, only one supernatural claim could exist and no other supernatural claims could exist at the same time. 

So, what do you mean exactly by your statement. 

Positrons are the anti-matter parallel to electrons, but they definitely are not interchangeable, so your simplified definition is highly misleading. While you could argue that anti-particles are a mirror image, the decay rates are asymmetric so there's no way to lump them together here.

Hi Drake,

I didn't read your initial statement, but have read it now. And I'm not trying to mislead you. You have made a statement and I intend to try and verify it in this public forum.

logical exclusion

In computer programming the logical exclusion function is a Boolean operator notated as Xor.

To use it with electrons and positrons the following would be true.

The 'e' particle can be either e-(electron) or e+(positron) but not both e- and e+ nor can it be e+ and e-, at the same time.

"All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges."

According to the Xor definition of logical exclusion, this statement is wrong. It's not that electrons can not have positive electrical charges, it can only have one or the other but not both. It can be either a positive charge or a negative charge but not both charges. And this makes sense because if it had both negative and positive charge it would annihilate itself. And this is exactly what happens.

 

so there's no way to lump them together here.

 Every single time an electron is produced a positron is also produced at exactly the same time. And visa versa. Why? Because before they are produced they are lumped together.

 

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