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: 11648

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Giving the paradox, regardless if seen complicated, it puts me in the 100% certainty there is no GOD. I cannot fix the paradox to where even .0001% would be able to squeeze in. :/  I don't mind doubt, but this paradox has literally removed any doubts.. This is only of course the reason I don't believe.. However this thread isn't a question about if you simply believe or don't, it's a question of whether or not I am 100% certain or not.  :)

I think a lot of us say 99% or 99.9% sure to avoid the 100% closed mind.  Asserting God as the cause of any natural phenomenon shuts off intellectual curiosity, and so does a bald statement that there is not God.  Given the wealth of the evidence for science with which I am familiar and the lack of evidence for God (plus the weakness of the fallacious arguments), I am as sure as I can be that there is no God.  I just leave the door cracked a tiny bit as a hedge against my human fallibility.  Besides, any new argument or evidence for God, when subjected to scientific examination, might spur new scientific discoveries that disprove them.

Craigart14,

I used to say 99 percent, and I am all for being open minded, however it is the consequence of the paradox that has brought me that one .01% further. At some point you reach a logical conclusion, an absolute due to consequence or due to problem of definition..This is the point where you can't take the concept any further intellectually, conceptually, philosophically, or scientifically.. And that is the consequence of the paradox.. Hence I can't fix that no matter how open minded I am as it literally is the furthest the goal posts can be moved on either end of the field. 

Yes!

I'm sure there is no God to the same degree I am sure there is no tooth-fairy. So I am 100% sure.

Comparing it to being sure there is no tooth-fairy is a good way to express it.

The expression that I like most is that I'm sure there is no God to the same degree I am sure my refrigerator does not fly around my kitchen at night while I'm asleep.

Brilliant. Now I'm going to have buy a nanny cam to make sure my fridge isn't cavorting around my apartment while I sleep.

I am 100% sure. Better yet, I know that if I'm wrong, and there is some truth to some kind of omnipresent intelligence, I am 100% certain that it won't give two shits about whether I believed or didn't believe that it exists. It makes zero effort to demonstrate it exists, in fact all indications are that it couldn't possibly exist. It's impossible that it cares at all what humans think about it. There simply is no negative personal consequence to not believing in a god concept.

Very well put Future.  I've not heard it expressed that way before, and I agree with you.

Technically omnipresent intelligence is impossible.. Especially when not everything in existence has "intelligence". It's self-refuting, and would effectively be calling existence itself "GOD" by consequence. That would make us all GOD. O.o

This makes good sense:

I used to say 99 percent, and I am all for being open minded, however it is the consequence of the paradox that has brought me that one .01% further. At some point you reach a logical conclusion, an absolute due to consequence or due to problem of definition..This is the point where you can't take the concept any further intellectually, conceptually, philosophically, or scientifically.. And that is the consequence of the paradox.. Hence I can't fix that no matter how open minded I am as it literally is the furthest the goal posts can be moved on either end of the field.

How can we account for the transformation?

Open minded instead of right minded and next metaphor?

 

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