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: 12072

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

100% is close enough for me. Why allow any credence to stories made up by ancient peoples trying to explain natural phenomena? "Well, science doesn't know everything." Okay, but it certainly gets closer to reality than "just-so" stories. Science at least checks out its explanations. And the fairytale fall-back position doesn't appeal to me in the least.

Here's the closest I come to the idea that a God of some sort might exist:

The "mathematical universe" idea is that our universe is composed of mathematics.  That is, our universe is a piece of mathematics.  The cosmologist Max Tegmark wrote about this idea in Our Mathematical Universe.

In this theory, we are conscious mathematical subsystems of the universe.  The universe is "real" because it's a complicated enough piece of mathematics to have conscious subsystems. 

According to this theory, any mathematics that fulfills some conditions is real.  It's a kind of Platonism. 

So there would be an infinite mathematical reality, of which our universe is a sub-theory.  Our universe is the working out of some mathematical assumptions, which include the laws of physics.  It's like a long derivation, or plotting values given for a differential equation, or running a computer program.

Now, does our universe require something to "run" it?  Does there have to be Something to "think" all that mathematics?

I don't say that Something must be conscious.  Nor do I know if a Something is required to "run" the universe.

It's a deep question.  But perhaps, a question for which there is a genuine non handwaving answer. 

What is the difference between writing down the laws of physics and initial conditions for our universe, and our universe?

Well  If  you can't  see god,smell god or  hear  god or touch  god...Then one  is to assume there is no god...Pretty  simple  eh?

To me, it's just plain obvious!

I don't believe you can prove a negative, which keeps me from saying !00%, but I'll say that I don't have the patience to hold down the 9 button if I typed this 99.999...% in a complete form.

Laura,

Mathematical Universe.... Hmm... You are either 1 over 0, or you don't exist. Hence if you don't exist there isn't any of you, and you are then at best a figment of the imagination, a non-entity. You can't escape the mathematical Universe or exist outside it. The argument of such is like saying my god exists outside of existence and is not in existence... It's incoherent self-refutation. Also you are, I think, conflating Observable Universe with the term Universe. These have entirely different meanings. The Universe according to the Oxford dictionary is defined as "Everything that exists". It is synonymous with the term "Existence", or "Reality".. These are all terms for the same thing in which is a Universal Set of all Sets. The Observable, whether it's a simulation, an illusion, or as is, is a subset of Existence. It's relevancy depends on the context.. As in is it just a figment of the imagination, or real? 


 Now Ted, you say you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove it if it's a self-refuting concept.. Self-refutations are 100% certain, and so I need not argue for needing a 99% statement. 

Lastly, as I pointed out earlier regarding the existential paradox, or when you move the god goal post as far as you can, it's either all or nothing..  As in it is entirely moot at best due to calling Existence itself as GOD would mean that everything and everyone is GOD while the latter statement would make everything everyone not.. Logically at the furthest extremes, it is either all or nothing.. Hence take your pick.

Say What???????

Please elaborate so we can understand which part you are confused about.. Perhaps then we can elaborate as well :)

You make  it  so complicated  with  a mathematical  thesis  et al......Why can't  anyone just  say  they either  believe  god  exists  or  god  does not exist.....Everyone  makes it so complicated.......We slam the theists  for  going on and on about how god is real and that we  should  just have faith.......Well  if we can simply disregard  all that and become  Atheists....Are we not  telling the world  that we  do not Believe.......  just saying

Stating it's all or nothing really isn't complicated at all.. Which part of that was complicated? All you need to know is the definition of existence, and what the implications are when you do or don't call Existence god. Logically that is the furthest you can move the goal post, and I did it to demonstrate the point of why it really is either all or nothing at the end of the day.. 

Yes we can simply say we believe or not, but that doesn't establish anything in regards to the question vs when you take it and move the goal posts to the furthest extremes to where you can see the entire playing field.. That's Atheism to Pantheism, as in the two furthest extremes regarding the concept of GOD. 

And I think it's agreeable that once you state that Existence itself is GOD, it becomes entirely moot as that by definition makes everyone and everything god.  I would also think it would be agreeable that once you say Existence is not, there is no god or gods by definition.. This is an existential paradox and the consequences by definition literally make it all or nothing. How is that complicated?

This paradox is the very reason I question and refute the concept of GOD entirely. 

To simplify...  You have a soccer field with two goals on the furthest possible ends of the field. This being (No GOD - Atheism), and Existence itself as GOD (Pantheism) where everything and everyone is god by definition.  Here everyone else is just people kicking the ball around aiming for their own imaginary goal posts somewhere on the field while ignoring the two farthest goal posts on the ends of the field (Atheism / Pantheism).  

Literally, it's all or nothing where there is no god or gods, or that everything and everyone is god, a god, or gods. Quite literally this subject is entirely moot.  The concept of god is meaningless at the end of the day.

I remember asking a Christian when I was a Pantheist:

What is GOD without Existence?

And that is when I realized the concept of GOD is entirely meaningless. That is when I realized the paradox in which effectively makes it all or nothing.. Atheism is thus the most logical stance to take.

You are right, there is no sense in making it so complicated. But (I might have written this earlier), at least I am one-hundred-and-ten-percent sure that there is no god. Why in the universe would anybody allow the slightest bit of doubt or say they are only 99.999...% sure there is no god?????

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