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: 9689

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Quite right Jason, and well expressed.
Either the Universe is, or is going to be, 100% explicable by science, or it isn't--- in which case Carl's proffered level of 0.001% uncertainty corresponds to an element reserved for a species of non-scientific answer, i.e. to something implausibly supernatural and divine.
This amounts to an attempt to allow a creator god some tiny degree for manoeuvre in case there is one, but the idea gets booted out by failing to resolve the problem of infinite regression.
I am 100% sure the Abrahamic god(as in Judaism ,Christianity and Islam ) does not exist ,but for other gods like in deism as an example I will say 99.99% .
Fred, you're trying to pick up and move Spicer's whole argument and analogy, to a whole new tennis court.

That's the whole trouble with discussions that are allowed locus in both scientific, and philosophical / religious issues. It's kinda like, you have to pick a discipline and stick to it - shuffling back and forth between the two is a disingenuous method of confusing the issue.
That's basically right, D R. Plus, the religious argument is rooted in circular reasoning. Their conclusion that God exists is in their givens. Of course, they don't see that as a problem. But yes, the fact that believers make a leap of faith is no more than a logical mistake. They can do that, but it doesn't mean anything to the truth value of their statements. It in no way justifies their conclusions. They think it does, but that's just mistaken reasoning. Well, and an act of desperation; "I can't actually see a god anywhere, but I so desperately want it to be true that I'm going to believe it anyway."

And Fred, your 1.1 corollary is just another way believers weasel out of the scientific position by using metaphor rather than synonym, as deists do. If God is a metaphor for our highest value, then it has no real existence as an entity that created the universe. They are admitting that it's just an idea. In that sense, they are capitulating to the scientific position, but retaining a warm fuzzy about God by simply placing him into the realm of exalted ideas.
This discussion is getting silly. Those who say we can't be 100% sure of anything seem to be 100% sure that that's true. That is an article of faith, particularly in a time when we actually do know plenty of things with 100% certainty. It is one thing to say that scientific results are provisional. It is quite another to say that we can never be sure about anything.
>> we can't be 100% of anything' is just an intellectual game we like to play

Absolutely, its called epistemology or more specifically fallibilism / skepticism.
Logic and math can have absolutes.

Science does have absolutes but I'm not sure how to identify them. At the end I find it pragmatic to remain skeptical; identifying absolutes is one of the most effective ways of identifying bullshit.
Daniel, I am 100% sure that you are more interested in being an argumentative f*cktard - at least on this thread - rather than displaying any actual intellectual honesty in your answers. Sometimes bullshit just likes to hide behind a plethora of verbal smoke and mirrors - a case of "If you can't dazzle 'em with the details, baffle 'em with the bullshit."

After forcing themselves to pick through your many dissembling diatribes, I don't think you've managed to baffle anyone but yourself.

Just sayin'
I love talking about philosophy and find it apropos when discussing religion.

If you don't like philosophy and consider it bullshit that's your prerogative but its not a reason for an ad hominem much less something to be angry about it.
We have to (first) know all the different definitions of god/gods that people believe in. We have one that the deists and some fundies believe called the deistic god, one "who" claimed to have existed Pre-BigBang, setting up the constants in our universe and letting it loose randomly without this god performing any sort of intervention. I may consider the deistic god plausible since the universe as we know it is a series of random events obeying to certain laws/constants. But as I analyze this, the deistic god is completely bound to the nature of his/her own creation; can't really do anything to stars and stuffs in space hitting and colliding each other, or being devoured by huge wormholes! My definition of a god is something or "someone" that is powerful and perfect and just by looking at these huge mess, I therefore say that god/gods are gap-fillers made by religious people to questions that science haven't had answers yet,... and I am 100% sure there is no such thing as god, neither the intelligent designer-god or the theistic god, one who turned water into wine or had a man live inside a stomach of a big fish. Absolutely 100% sure there is no such god (described by theists) as we are absolutely 100% sure there are no fairies.
Saying that you are 100% sure of something does seem a bit of an exaggeration to me on epistemological grounds, even with lots of supporting evidence. At the same time, I think we can say, I'm pretty damn sure when it comes to lots of things, including "God does not exist."
Only Douglas Adams' Improbablity Machine could create God, but it's never been built, and Doug is dead now, with no reports of his tomb being empty (I even waited forty days) so...yeah, I'm 100% sure there's no god...or flowerpots appearing out of nowhere.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller replied to Joe's discussion Atheist TV Officially Launches; David Silverman Criticizes History Channel for Presenting Bible as History in the group Atheist News
9 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Here are the highlights of Justice Ginsburg’s fiery Hobby Lobby dissent
10 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Joan Denoo's discussion ‘There are no wild cows’: Neil deGrasse Tyson slams ‘fear factor’ over GMOs
12 minutes ago
Grinning Cat liked Joan Denoo's discussion The cost of masculine crime
33 minutes ago
Grinning Cat liked Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Eat vegetables, Be happy
33 minutes ago
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Methane, more scary than we thought in the group Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists
41 minutes ago
Patricia replied to Joe's discussion Atheist TV Officially Launches; David Silverman Criticizes History Channel for Presenting Bible as History in the group Atheist News
50 minutes ago
Patricia commented on Ivy's group Atheist Humor
1 hour ago
Patricia commented on Ivy's group Atheist Humor
1 hour ago
Joseph P replied to Joe's discussion S.E. Cupp: I’m a ‘Better’ Atheist than Bill Maher in the group Atheist News
1 hour ago
Ruth Anthony-Gardner replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Abnormal Arctic in the group Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Here are the highlights of Justice Ginsburg’s fiery Hobby Lobby dissent
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service