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: 9670

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree very much with your position. Therefore, I find it wrong to distinguish strictly between an atheist and an agnostic. I am an atheist, but not a know-all... so I will not claim total certainty that there is no intelligence out there behind it all, but nonetheless have an almost total conviction that there has never been, is not and never will be any evidence of any kind of God, Creator, disembodied Cosmic Spirit or Intelligence.

I have just posted an article on the discussion about "Does the Brain Create God" - mostly a critical analysis of the ideas of those more articulate defender of 'spirituality' and 'mysticism' who do believe in a cosmic spirit of some kind, and claim it to be experiencable.
Yes, I agree with you and I thought your article on Millar's piece was on the mark. Her finely honed piece is nothing more than colourful mumbo jumbo that would appeal only to those still looking desperately for a way to fit the notion of "God" or "spirit" into a cosmos that is increasingly being shown by science not to need these notions to explain it.

Having clutched briefly at Vedanta myself as a last port of call on my journey out of theism, I can say that its notions are as untenable as those of any religion. Millar's article (like the ideas of the Asklepia Foundation in general) appeal to those who, although perhaps intelligent and/or highly educated with money to spare, are feeling the gravitational pull of religion weaken and who clutch at straws for fear of flying off into the void but who cannot bring themselves to accept the firm footing offered by atheism. It has the same sort of appeal as Teillhad de Chadin's "phenomenon of Man" whose attraction I think is best explained by Peter Medawar who wrote of it:

“How have people come to be taken in by the Phenomenon of Man?
We must not underestimate the size of the market for works of this kind, for philosophy-fiction. Just as compulsory primary education created a market catered for by cheap dailies and weeklies, so the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”

Millar's article is basically, "nonsense, tricked out with a variety of metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others [s]he has taken great pains to deceive [her]self.”

There is far to much of this 'new age' and 'post modernist' crap about and I love seeing it exposed for what it is.
There is no god, only the Emperor. The Emperor Protects.
We talkin' Napoleon, Palpatine, or The Emperor of Ice Cream?
Oh, you mean that guy with the bow-tie fur who likes to dance? Or maybe Burgess Meredith?
THE EMPEROR WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS NONSENSE!
Proof, once again, that there is no Emperor - except in the minds of those who believe - else there would be Hell to pay, this very day!
No apologies necessary. Very cogent and insightful comments, Fred.
I try not to dwell too long on how sure I am that "There is no Gods", but if pressed on it I might say that I do indeed believe that there is no God. I wouldn't be comfortable attaching a certainty percentage to it though; but it definitely wouldn't be 100%. You can't be 100% sure certain.

It also depends on the definition of God though. If we're talking about a deist God, then I'd say the odds are very small but still far larger than the odds of, say, the Christian God.

Anyway, I don't even take that position ("I believe that there is no God") when I debate with theists. I don't need to argue that, in fact I have no interest in doing so. All I care to argue is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that there is one.
who would create this deist g%d, the creation of the creator goes on and on who creates this creator who creates that creator, the creator or natural deist type g?d is out of the question!!! this natural world always been here, this natural world only evolves to change from the big bang to now and always been here it only changes from evolving recycling proses, we ourselves are evolving to under stand that there is no superstition g0d or g0ds of the pass, and never will be!! there is no g0d that will lead & save us from life to death. we are a recycling organism that evolves, that came from mom and dad that created us, as part of the human race that are evolving to a hopefully higher intelligence, that will understand to protect are living earth, animals, and us. we are the evolving creator of are destiny...........
I don't know what would create a deist god. That doesn't matter, there's plenty of things about the cosmos we don't understand.
Nor am I saying that I believe in a deist God. But anyone who says that they know for sure that there couldn't have been one is pretending to know more than they actually do.
The concept of a deist god leads to an infinite logical regress, which renders it impossible.

The Abrahamic god is logically impossible due to multiple mutually exclusive attributes.

Any god less than either of these two proposals (such as a powerful alien that has created a computer simulation which we inhabit, or a demigod with limited powers) would not meet the definition of a god.

In any of these cases, there is no reason to ascribe any positive probability to the existence of an entity proposed without evidence (such as the fictional character in the Bible).

The correct answer is that there is precisely zero probability of the existence of a god. Another way to say that is that there is a 100% probability that there is no god. Assigning some miniscule probability above zero is an act of unwarranted tentativity. Assigning any higher probability is infantile wishful thinking.

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