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: 11439

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Michael Tricoci:  Testable proof of god is oxymoronic.

That depends on how you define god?  Many people simply define god as being untestable by usual verifiable means.

You contradict yourself George. If it is defined as untestable (by reason and logic, for there is no other valid process of testing), then it cannot exist. God, by any and all definitions/descriptions, is either not able to be defined or magic/supernatural, neither of which can be tested, proved or witnessed. If you invoke the concept of god, you are saying that it isn't real; it isn't testable; it lacks concrete identity; it is supernatural, spiritual, impossible, imaginary, contradictory. One essential aspect of god's identity is that there isn't one. Let me make it as simple as it can get: God is oxymoronic, and by definition, cannot exist.

I don't see any contradiction in what I said.  Some people define it as untestable, others do not.

If someone comes up with a test for god, fine, bring it on; obviously I doubt anything will result of it, but I don't see how god is untestable by all definitions.

God has as its most essential characteristic contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist and therefore cannot be verified. Something with a non-verifiable identity cannot exist. You may ask again and again what if someone defines it differently, but you will come up short every time. If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god. If you have some additional characteristic you would like to put forth, then do it and if it is concrete, then it may be real and I bet we already have a term for it. God is already defined as impossible. Mystics and skeptics alike seem to be blind to this.

"If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god."

You just defined god using a specific set of attributes...

Yep. And they are all invalid, not at all compatible with existence. God is not able to be defined by real concrete attributes that could be testable, knowable, perceivable, reasonable, true, real, concrete. God can have no real identity.

I understand now that when you say identity, you mean a definition without logical contradiction. In that light, I agree there cannot be anything supernatural.

But your "test" of identity is not up to the capabilities of science. You may say that science needs philosophy to function, but so far you have not proven it to me.

@Michael: Where you and I disagree is when you say concrete identity, you do not agree that for you to have that concrete identity, you need evidence toward that "idea".
If there is evidence toward a thing with a concrete identity, that's great, it will allow me to describe it better or learn more about it and things that interact with it. You are still hung up on science. Whether or not there is a god has nothing to do with science. A thing with a concrete plausible identity can be subject to science and proof and observation. A thing that is not possible because, among other reasons, it has no concrete identity or characteristics, only contradictory ones, cannot and is not subject to scientific inquiry or proof, for if it was, it would become part of this world, able to be studied and would no longer be magic/imaginary/supernatural/ridiculous. An all-knowing being cannot even get into the game with science, it doesn't have the necessary qualities. Think about it. Do you really think that science has something to say about whether or not the impossible can happen? We so not need science for this. This is a huge problem in today's culture, people thinking that science can ignore the rules of epistemology that it is built of. Being a fan of science does not give one a proper perspective on the ontological aqcuisition of knowledge. Science describes only the nature of metaphysics. Is it that you do not understand why omniscience is impossible? Or why god is no less than necessarily contradictory? That there is no evidence for or against the impossible existing is not a reason to doubt its impossibility. Proof always entails interaction with the causal chain.

How do you test whether something is impossible? By definition? Here is what I have to say about definition:

I tried explaining this to you earlier. Our brains are pattern recognition machines that group perceptions into concepts based on the laws of causality and noncontradiction. Integrating these concepts by reason and logic is the only path to knowledge, which is both contextually and hierarchically valid (if it is knowledge). Things do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure and momentum. There is no way around this. Your favorite thing in the world, science, is dependent on this. So, when asked to test if a concept is possible, I would attempt to integrate it into my knowledge base. But even before I can come up with an hypothesis to test empirically, I come across the very simple idea that the concept of god does not integrate without contradiction. In fact, it very plainly and obviously does not. You cannot test empirically what has no empiric nature. Any possible definition of god includes supernatural acausal contradictory qualities. For something to be perceived, conceived and integrated or told about and reduced to perceptual evidence, it would have to be causal, have particular limited qualities, for one, and two, it cannot have logically contradictory qualities, since I know that the causal nature of reality is necessary for concept formation from identity to begin with.

 

A definition is simply the phoneme we give to denote a particular concept. Valid concepts are ones with concrete plausible characteristics. Invalid concepts, which cannot exist, are ones without. A proper definition includes only essentials.

I appreciate your effort to educate me, but here is what my feeble understanding of your words comes out to be. It is an analogy. We humans have hands and the only way to truly dig is to use our hands, but using a tool like a shovel now that's good and all, but it is not the essence of digging.

Do you understand my analogy? Your study of how people perceive and how they form concepts should be and is a scientific endeavour. This tool we call science has something to say about everything in existence, including how us animals form concepts.

 

Our five senses are our only way of interacting with the world. What our senses deliver to our brains is used by our brains to form ideas, concepts, and feelings about those ideas and concepts. 

 

Can our 5 senses be augmented for better perception? If we end up with better perception, would not that mean our concepts are better formed? Does the formation of those concepts depend on "laws" (rules imposed by humans without the improved perceptions)? 

 

I agree that the laws and rules of logic and philosophy are useful, but I do not believe that they by themselves can prove or disprove anything. I think that they can only affect the belief of whether something is true or not. And the belief of something is a religious endeavour.

 

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