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: 11986

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>>science is absolutely certain that the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen. I think it's just weird to insist there's a vanishingly small, yet actual probability that it isn't

How much hydrogen does it contain? How much Helium? ...? You can generalize that the sun is made of hydrogen but then you are doing it a disservice. Explicit is better than implicit. I think concluding 100% has pragmatic merits but it just seems like your rounding up. Your correct but the information your conveying is less precise. I think this question represents a spectrum of questions and answers and you think it represents 1. That's fine.

Another nagging thing that I'm a little fuzzy on:

If something is possible (given the laws of physics) and it is not so unlikely that it will only occur less than 1 time in the entire age of the universe then reasonably you can conclude such an event *may* happen. I could sit here and make up very crazy unlikely ideas that could be so weird that they will practically never happen, but technically they could.
Whether a god exists is not the sort of question that's answerable with a margin of error, like how many ounces of hydrogen are in the sun. But it is a question like whether the sun is primarily composed of hydrogen. We know the sun is made of hydrogen, because we can measure it, and for this not to be true, the entirety of human knowledge would have to be thrown out as useless. Similarly, we know there is no god, because a) it's fictional, and b) we looked.

The universe may be large enough to contain many wondrous things, but it does not magically conjure things up just because people imagine them. And saying that a god could exist somewhere in the remotest reaches of the multiverse means that one does not exist everywhere in the multiverse, which contradicts the definition of a god. If the deist god existed, it would have turned up by now. If the Abrahamic god existed, it would be blindingly obvious. Literally so, if the Old Testament is to be admitted into evidence. If the term god is merely another name for the universe, then it's just a synonym, and therefore simply redundant and valueless. The only kind of god that could possibly have escaped scientific notice is much too puny to qualify as a god.

So these are the choices:

1. God is so insignificant that nobody would call it a god.
2. Science simply doesn't work, and all knowledge is a mirage.
3. There definitely is no god, to 100% certainty.

The first choice eliminates god by stripping it of its godhood. The second choice is clearly incorrect because science does, in fact, produce reliable, verifiable, repeatable results. That leaves us with door number three, Monty.
Spicer, That's one of the best, most concise wrap-ups of the whole argument yet.

The fact that it comes on the heels of repeated attempts to get Daniel to 'see the light,' leaves me to conclude we're not dealing with a 'fairly' rational individual here. But, rather, someone with a truculent need to be right.

I'm giving Daniel's Repeated and Rambling Rebuttholes, a big Thumbs Down - and I am soooo out of here.
Well thanks, D R, but I think you're being a bit harsh to Daniel. I have yet to meet anybody who doesn't have a deep-seated need to be right, and there are certainly a number of oddities at the margins of this debate. I don't think those introduce any uncertainty to the question posed, but Daniel does.

The bottom line for me is this: If the concept of god had never arisen in world history until now, and somebody came up to you with all the usual theist arguments, would you a) seriously entertain the notion that there is an undetectable supreme being who created and guides every jot and tittle of the cosmos moment-to-moment, or b) laugh at them and inquire whether they're off their meds.

I submit that the only reason atheists seriously consider the question of whether they are wrong about the existence of God is that people have been taking the idea of God seriously for millennia. It is hard to believe that so many people could be so seriously mistaken, yet that is what the evidence clearly shows. We should not give any deference to obvious delusion. Not even 0.00000001% deference. If stage magicians have taught us anything, it is that 1,000 people in a room can be convinced of what one person in the room knows for certain to be untrue. There is not, in fact, a 0.00000001% chance that the stage magician is performing tricks in violation of the laws of nature.
Yes, Bill, "professional" wrestling is 0.0000001% real. Minimum.*




*Contents packaged by weight, not volume. Some settling may occur during shipping.
"The scientific method is limited to natural phenomenon"

Are there any other sorts of phenomena?
The newest theory is that there never was a time when time did not exist. Bang, bang and band over and other again. Also they are talking about flat membranes that are very close together. Many universes some so close we can see them
"The newest theory is that there never was a time when time did not exist."

I must have missed some recent development then. M-theory is pretty interesting and has been receiving a lot of attention, for brane collisions can explain the origin of the universe, be fused with established cosmological theories yet still do without the tricky singularity lying at the core of the standard Big Bang model itself. However, being no expert, I'm not sure how M-theory deals with the subject of the origin of time. My guess is that in the theorised higher-dimensional bulk of M-theory, time and causality are not quite what we're used to. They might very well behave as weirdly as they do in quantum physics.
As far as I know, even in the multiverse theory different universes may be on adjacent branes and extremely close to each other but still separate from each other and impossible to see. The only force able to travel between branes according to modern string theory might be gravity.
Fred what was the name of the documentary you watched? It also sounds interesting.
I don't know if I buy that answer, it only shifts the burden of the infinite regress issue onto the answer. It seems like your just saying "42".

This goes back to my original question "What limits does science have if any?"

Can science answer the origin question while also resolving the infinite regress issue? I don't view the infinite regression issue to be limited to mysticism, it needs to also be handled by science.
99% sure. The rest knows we were sneezed from a turtle.

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