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: 9685

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why do you assert that a negative cannot be proven? This old myth gets hauled out and makes the rounds as some sort of given, but it simply isn't true. You will often even find people who should no better harping this tired tune... people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins. Some even think it is a law of logic. However, name one single professional logician who believes this. You will not find one because it simply isn't so. One can prove a negative as simply as proving a positive.

Example: There are no live elephants in your ear.

I should think you can prove this either way in short order.

Proving that God doesn't exist is only a little more complex. You see, we have a coherent definition of "live elephant." When I write those letters, you know what I mean. But when you write the letters "GOD," I don't have any idea what you mean. It is just a mystical grunt rather than a word. So, in my effort to prove that God does not exist, I need not do any heavy lifting at all until you can provide a coherent definition for God.

Once that is done, disproving it is child's play.

Well, if you want to add things to 'there is no god', that's a whole different argument.  There is no god in my life/mind/heart/left ear is not the same as 'there is no god'.  And, perhaps I should take a philosophy class or two...

While most of us atheists have said "there is no god," the assertion is meaningless and requires no proof unless and until one defines "god."

Otherwise, you are simply saying, "there is no 'jittlebogger.'" Until I know what the hell a "jittlebogger" is, I have no work to do. The same with this "God" of which you speak.
One can certainly prove a negative; proving a universal negative is much more difficult and in some cases impossible. It's easy to show there is no cat in this box; impossible under normal circumstances to demonstrate that there are no cats in any boxes, ever, or ever will be.
I've seen cats in boxes, so would not actually take that position. However, even so-called universal negatives can often be disproven, sometimes with logic and semantics alone.
The idea that universal negatives cannot be proven is based on the lack of time and manpower to comb the infinite void. Those wishing to illustrate this point often position their argument in a distant, unreachable place in deep space where the hope is, since you cannot journey there and survey the area, you cannot offer observable evidence. This is seldom necessary.

I can prove non-existence doesn't exist literally and universally. It's because the definition states that itself can not exist. And thus I can prove a negative. It's no different than proving one cat to be impossible to be in a Box if the cat could never fit in the box. However, this doesn't mean there aren't higher beings that some fool might choose to bow to and worship as a god. :P

 

Under the definition of the Christian GOD or even Allah the cat could never fit in the box because the definition would be arguing that the Cat is the box, and is anything and everything in the box. :)

"Higher beings" and "a higher power." These are coherent words. I think anyone who has ever had a boss, a parent, or been pulled over for speeding will acknowledge a belief in a higher power.

And we can easily imagine that there might be a planet somewhere in the universe inhabited by intelligent beings who are technologically and biologically so advanced in comparison to us that they would certainly be higher beings.

It is even possible to fathom that they seeded a barren earth with life and gave us our origin... and that they may return and deem us a failure and destroy us. Would this make them deities any more than one of us would claim to be a deity to a bowl of sea monkeys?

Again... it is up to the asserter of said deity to coherently define "God."

They have defined it, but most Christians seem to have no freaking clue that it had been. It's why I pointed to Chapter 14 in the Fount Of Knowledge, as posted a few posts above. Sure it's a bit ambiguous, but it's their definition none-the-less.

 

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

It's pretty much the Cat is not just in the box, it's the box entirely. They made this description because they know that arguing these attributes separately (cherry picking), they could circumvent logic and reason.. Never will you see a theist (a smart one anyways), attempt to use all these together and actually attempt to address them together... It's also why they like to stick to just using "omnipotence", and "omniscience" while sweeping the rest under the carpet. It's so easy to prey on peoples vulnerabilities this way, or play a GOD of the Gaps mind game...

 

But when you slap them all together and then apply information theory to them, they all collapse entirely.

Will, that wasn't a definition. It was a run-on stream of bullshit.

Tacking together every word you connote as having to do with the subject and then calling it an abstract doesn't make it so and certainly doesn't make it the secretly agreed upon definition of every theist out there.

This is not what information theory is about.

Actually it is what information theory is about.Information theory however has advanced to include physical, and digitized information. And you will find that many fields consider energy =/= information. In fact if you have read my article on information theory you would have realized that this is true. And I did give the definition of that particular god.  And when I give an abstract, it's a quote from the source material.. I'm telling you this because I was christian and that is the definition used.. Especially in Orthodox Christianity.

Yes it remains ambiguous to a point, but that's essentially the definition of god. At least the most complete definition you will get in regards to the Christian GOD.

 

If you were looking for a definition that could be applied to all GODs, you won't find one.

Sheesh. I just go with Dawkins' definition.
It's not so much a logical issue as it is a natural issue. While I'm fairly certain you could prove to me you don't have a pig in your pocket, it's far more difficult to prove no one in the entire world has a pig in their pocket. Since I have a limited lifespan I could hardly check 7 billion pockets. Especially, during a debate or whilst writing a paper. Therefore, it is up to the person making a claim to prove it. Similarly, a Theist making a claim of a Deity should be required to produce the proof, not the Atheist to disprove it by checking for the Deity under every rock or nook or cranny. It's about logistics not logic.

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