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: 10835

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In a sense this is true when it comes to the perception of reality vs the quantum fluctuations that underly it. As if your hard drive relied on much smaller logical blocks then the probability of them changing value increases....So in a sense reality does equal might make right. It is why most people perceive the macro world as nothing to do with the subatomic world....sheer statistical probability that the atom is stable......

Me too.

lol

I can say with certainty that the currently defined gods do not exist... their definitions do not fit reality.

However, I cannot say if there is or is not a being or entity out there with the ability to create matter and energy, which would make it a god in my opinion.

But all currently defined gods? Nope, not even by a long shot... not a chance the god from the bible, qur'an, (or any of the other religions) exists.

One simple rule : If you define your god ; it will be proven false.

I intentionally omit the sun-worshipers, wiccans, and Buddhists, because they worship people and objects... not technically gods as I understand them.

Johnsky

"However, I cannot say if there is or is not a being or entity out there with the ability to create matter and energy, which would make it a god in my opinion."

I too have sometimes thought that the ultimate truth of the universe would be either a matter or a source of enegy or the two of them, but there can not be a "being" with the ability to create a matter or energy. Whatever it may be, it would be, in my opinion, a scintific entity only. 

If it is to be a being, it would be an all knowing, all powerful creator being, beyond the laws of nature, since it would be the creator of the entire nature itself, so being capable of performing miracles. Is this what you mean by a "being with the ability to create matter and energy?"? Or, do you mean to say that there may be a creator god but not a personal god?

MADHUKAR KULKARNI? 

Oh, Johnsky, I am not talking about "currently defined gods" either.  They are just nonsense.  Silly, even.  I don't understand how people capable of critical thinking can believe the foolishness of Jesus being the son of god, Athena being born out of the head of Zeus or whoever it was, that woman was made from the rib of man, and all the mysticism that surrounds Buddha.  That stuff just makes me irritated.  

What I am talking about is the possibility that there are other dimensions of which we are not yet aware.  I'm not expecting a savior to pop up at the last minute and save us from our ignorance and greed.  

Given I don't believe in god, and that I am not expecting him/her/it to come out of the sky, and given that I don't know how to repair my furnace, or clock, or refrigerator, how can I possibly know astrophysics or any of the other sciences? 

Therefore, I can let the question of 100% behind and look forward to learning a whole lot of new things becoming known.  My father and I had terrible rows about tectonic plates.  He just did not believe it and I could not not believe it.  

YES!

Jason,

Feelings is all I'm getting from you.

I don't go from atheism to capitalism. I get to atheism and capitalism and egoism by use of reason after looking at and describe what actually is, instead of what it feels like or seems like or what I would want it to be. You continually refuse to define your concepts objectively. You throw extra meanings that are not essential and omit ones that are. Libertarians are not the same thing as anarchists. Anarchy is no government. Libertarians might, as I do, think that the appropriate government is a small existent government that does, in fact uphold laws that would stop individuals and groups of individuals, like corporations or needy socialists from gaining favor with the government or from hurting each other. Cops, military and law courts as well as more laws and government on local levels. Under this system, which again includes laws and a government, making it different from and not anarchy, would retaliate with force against anybody violating the individual rights of another person. This does not however include one person's perceived right to another person's money.

Separation of church and state and separation of economy and state is the only moral use of a government. Asking the organization that specializes in the monopolization of retaliatory force to redistribute wealth, teach our children and take care of our sick is asking for disaster. This is your dystopia, not mine.

You say taxes are not theft, but again fail to define theft and taxes objectively. Taxes are the confiscation of personal property, in my case, against my will at the threat of violence from the mob empowered government. They are not voluntary. The taking of my earned money against my will is theft/robbery. That is the meaning of the words. The only social contract we have is that I will pay what you vote away from me, so I can stay out of jail, because the majority want it that way. There is no unspoken contract. I do not agree that I have a social responsibility to take care of anybody. As I said, I have plenty of compassion and enjoy helping people and giving to charities of my choosing, but throwing money at the government to satisfy some perceived unfairness by varying groups of people is not compassionate. It's wasteful. In fact, giving money to people without discrimination is more damaging than simply throwing it down the drain. All you are purchasing is poverty.

Feudalism is a description of medieval life revolving around lords and fiefs. It is inaccurate and annoying to repeatedly call it that. At least, for posterity on this thread, for your own sake, admit that you use metaphor as a basis for conviction. Feudalism of hundreds of years ago might be like other forms of government, but is not the same as any, lest it too would be called feudalism. A libertarian society would not allow rule by the few or land-owners. Every single individual would have the same rights under a libertarian society. The person with 150 acres in southern California has the same rights as a person renting a shack in the ghetto. And in this society, people would be paid a dollar for every dollar they earn, they would get to keep that dollar and pay for services that they use, like roads, healthcare, education, citizenship, charity, whatever, as long as it didn't directly involve violating another's individual rights. 

Egoistic morality and individual rights do not imply that people are alone or that they can make a million dollars without the fair trade and voluntary cooperation of other people, but it does not require exploitation, coercion and force. People, in a free society, could buy what they want and producers use that money, that was traded for a good, to make profit. The producer does not then need to pay other people in addition for being alive and in the same society, unless of course you value sacrifice and need over liberty and production. All the help a person gets is either paid for or given voluntarily. We do not owe each other anything for being alive. I do not owe you anything, but respect for your autonomous and sentient nature. I do not owe you because you may have less than I or 'need' more than I. If you want more, you should either earn it or ask for it, but not demand it by force. And if you vote so that the government comes and threatens me with jail time or taxes, then there is our social contract. Coercion.

Libertarianism, or a political structure, organizing how civilized people interact in society cannot be found in the wild, because, one, it would cease to be the wild with a civilization on top of it, but simply because people have not been able to be intellectually honest enough to face rationality. Your concern is like asking, around 500BC why, if democracy is so great, why hasn't it been seen. Well, because people are emotional animals and are only now waking up to reason. It is a slow process.

Hi MCT,

How are things?

I always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree with the premise of libertarianism.

But

how is the libertarian government/state to be funded if it isn't funded through a coercive tax. If the libertarian system is self funded and self regulated then fine. But if the libertarian system wants protection from the state, how is this state protection to be funded?

Hey, thanks. Things? Well, I'm happy and successful despite being a slave to the "99%".

Paid citizenship, fee for service and voluntary taxation seem very reasonable to me. Private enterprise, charity and philanthropy, I think, can do the rest. And who's to say the government can't make money otherwise, say providing additional related services like construction, man-power, tech, security? At any rate, the socialists should be trying to figure new ways to fund the causes they deem important rather than insisting that the cumbersome inefficient war machine that is the government take it from the producers and disburse it haphazardly and indiscriminately, perpetuating and growing the welfare state. There is no need for coercion of any kind for humans to be moral and happy. Only monopolization of retaliatory force. The funding is there. We smart humans can figure out how to get without coercion. If we trust our honest intellect over our feelings, that is.

Hehe.

 

I like both Socialism and Libertarianism.

 

Socialism for our first phase of life, until we reach adulthood. The reason for this is that we should all be guaranteed an education, medical services, clean drinking water, during our initial phase of life.

  

After that, Libertarianism. Once we become adults, we should all be able to live life how we wish and make our own decisions and live by them. 

 

But we have moved right off topic here, we're supposed to be discussing gods no existence.

Why should we all be guaranteed anything? And shouldn't only the people that think things should be guaranteed pay for it? That first phase you are talking about should be guaranteed by the parents. People should not be having kids before they can provide for them. Shouldn't it be their responsibility? I did not ask for all of the millions of kids, and adults, I am forced to help take care of. And I don't want to take responsibility for them.

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