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: 10836

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And 99.999% of the theist's answers will be - yes. But then, you could possibly hit on that .001 % that will answer "Does what make sense?"
"I don't agree, I think the universe is the way it does is because it has to in order to exist. Is that because only one rule set for a universe can exist or did our universe just stumble upon a lottery of good constants."

If you accept the notion of a multiverse, then there are infinite universes with infinite physical constants. Most of them will be unstable and short-lived, others might last longer, a few might actually support life of other kinds. Still, a universe doesn't have volition. As a consequence, a universe doesn't have a choice either. Our universe exhibits the characteristics described by physical laws as a direct consequence of the way quantum fluctuation, phase transitions and inflation have shaped it.
All the rules of physics change in a black hole.
Some of the great thinker are beginning to think the Big Band just keeps on repeating itself and there was never a time when there was no time. Sting theory is also falling on hard times. Now it is membranes but they refer to it as brains.
It's "brane" - contraction of "membrane." M(embrane)-theory is an extension of string theory. It is a cyclic model, but only in the sense that different universes can be spawned cyclically by brane collisions.

The problem with the Big Crunch theory - by the way, it's not really a recent theory, it dates back to the 1930s - is that the current expansion flies right into the face of it. Not knowing exactly what is currently driving said expansion it might very well be that one day it'll reverse and lead to a crunch, but until then it's just speculation. Regardless, a Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle still involves a singularity phase, during which time does break down.
like the smaller molecules that we study in are universe, are universe mite be the molecules that are in a bigger universe as molecules....this mite be a good theory to think about,..it a whole lot better than a g&d made one...its all just matter, electricity, and gravity....that's evolving & recycling........100% positive no g0d..................joe
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one to find any validation :P
yes you are right, but its better that a the man made g$d.............joe
Ya, I'd like to think a quantum state of universes exist. Each one that could exist then does and it follows those rules, others could just annihilate themselves.

I have no reason to think I'm right but it is fun to imagine how the universe would have formed differently if say gravity was slightly stronger/weaker or the speed of light was faster/slower.
I almost with there was a god so I could tell him to GO FUCK YOURSELF.
You let joeseph off with that Men In Black reference? Your seriously slacking.
Fred, Maybe John is just 'string'ing you along ;)

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