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: 12984

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How can you believe or not believe in something that has NO firm definition?

Whenever a believer is challenged with compelling facts or logic or philosophical reasoning etc etc, they will just change the definition of "God"

My Favorite is the "We will NEVER be able to understand the "awesomeness of god's reasoning" stance.

Me I knew it was hooey in 1st grade when I had to leave my favorite class (Art) to trek 6 blocks to listen to nuns tell me stories about their fave superhero,, but they took my Hulk comic book away from me!!

 

Sniff...

I am 99% sure that anyone who thinks they can prove something absolutely is deluding themselves. One certainly could feel sure about something, but one cannot prove anything (except their own existence, and that they can only prove to their self).

 

How could one possibly go about proving the non-existence of God. The very notion of God defies proof; is not even something that can be subjected to the scientific method, thereby rendering the word proof moot in discussions of God. Theology is all about faith, not proof. I suppose if you defined God as 'that which cannot exist,' then you could know for sure that God doesn't, but that's probably the only way.

John: You write "The very notion of God defies proof".

 

It follows that you would also say

"the very notion of the flying spaghetti monster defies proof".

 

Yet we indisputably know that the FSM is a fiction conjured up in the human brain.

What you overlook is that 'God' is simply another fiction conjured up in some palaeolithic brain tens of thousands of years ago and then copied as a virus from brain to brain until we reach the billions of gullible believers today. 

 

 

 

I am 100% certain there is no god or gods.  Just like I'm 100% sure there is no Santa or tooth fairy.  How can I be 100% certain?  Because the premise of magical, invisible people like Santa or Scientology Thetans or Hindu multi-armed creatures or water walking Jewish zombies or any of the rest of them is just plain stupid.

Karl; you have made exactly the right point.

I agree that we can go for 100% positivity with high confidence.

And that is because those people who are settling for less---the 99 percenters etc---are only leaving the way open for the possibility of supernaturalism.

There is no possibility of any supernaturalism, magic or woo-woo in our Universe which is already entirely explicable by the known laws of science---to which may yet be added any further laws that our scientific descendants may discover in the future. 

 

 

Kudos to you Drake for replying. 

 

Why do people seem to have so much trouble with the simple process of proving a negative? Is it cultural confusion relating to the issue that you can only demonstrate positive statements?
I have no problem with proving negatives. It's the particular proof/example you gave that doesn't make sense to me. 
For the sake of simplicity, I'll do the carbon 11 equations later.
 
It's not particularly hard to prove a negative using logical exclusion. There's a long thread on it in the Philosophy forum, but here's the short version: "All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges." The only significant difference is that positive statements allow single-property analysis while negative statements require at least two-property analysis.

In your later statements you mis-applied the process of logical exclusion. The constraint here is on the properties, not the subject, so recognizing that net values are positive XOR negative does not imply that electrons are similarly so. However, if you determine the net charge of an electron as negative, the possibility of the net value being positive is conclusively excluded. A "positive electron" is never considered in this line of logic.

 

Property (1): {Positive  Negative, Null}

Identity (A): {Negative, Null}

Relationship: (1) = (A)

1. {A|Negative} -> {1|Negative}

2. {1|Negative} excludes {1|Positive}

(only provides new info if (A) has multiple properties)

In the properties, It should be {Positive, negative, null, both(positive and Negative)}. According to Xor in computer programming. And therefore Logical exclusion also, I assume.
 
In computer programming, if you get the Xor function wrong, you will get a wrong result somewhere along the line. If you get the Xor function right, you never get a wrong result. And this is what makes me so sure I am correct in my interpretation of logical exclusion.
 
The identity? Surely, identity should include two properties that exist. Negative and positive. Null or both are not allowed to come into play, in the world of logical exclusion.
 
Scientific evidence is predicated on the assumption that what we perceive via the senses actually exists, so it cannot be used to prove its own axioms.
If this quote is your opinion, then your above example proves nothing. Because, you have set the axioms of identity yourself to prove your own opinion. 
 
I do not think Identity should be {Negative,Null} I think Identity here should be {Negative,positive}.
So you need to explain to the forum why you have put Identity as {Negative,Null}
 

"In the properties, It should be {Positive, negative, null, both}"

 

I would explicitly reject the conception of "Both" because it represents a non-exclusive value (which cannot produce unique solutions) into an exclusive logical schema (which presumes a unique fundamental solution, though it may not be attainable). If you are suggesting "Both" because of the quantum phenomena of super-posed states (where quantum computers can take a "fuzzy" {1 and 0} as a value), I would instead describe that as a physical manifestation of an indeterminate {Null} value, which is supported by the instability of this state (interaction causes it to collapse by 'evaluating' the value). 

 

Also, identities may only contain positive properties. However, networks may express (rather than contain) positive, negative, or null states. For example, current may flow either as electrons moving (positive) or electron gaps moving (negative), though charge is a positive property with +/- directionality.

 

"Scientific evidence is predicated on the assumption that what we perceive via the senses actually exists, so it cannot be used to prove its own axioms."

 

This is not opinion, it is simple fact as stated in the very basics of the scientific principles. The pursuit of science is based on (among others) the assumption that the universe exists as an objective reality which is governed by immutable behavioral laws. This is combined with the basic principle of argumentative logic that circular thinking is fallacious to produce the above statement.

 

And my argument was towards {Null} as a state. That would make the array {Positive, Null, Negative}, so the line you picked was showing the possible states given the refutation of the Positive in the previous step of acquiring negative proof. Honestly, the argument of Null isn't central to that line of argument, but it's inclusion is educating and useful for explaining why single-property analysis can only produce indeterminate answers for negative statements.

Hi Drake,

I would explicitly reject the conception of "Both" because it represents a non-exclusive value (which cannot produce unique solutions) into an exclusive logical schema (which presumes a unique fundamental solution, though it may not be attainable). If you are suggesting "Both" because of the quantum phenomena of super-posed states (where quantum computers can take a "fuzzy" {1 and 0} as a value), I would instead describe that as a physical manifestation of an indeterminate {Null} value, which is supported by the instability of this state (interaction causes it to collapse by 'evaluating' the value).

Well, I guess the properties of the logical-exclusion I know and the properties of the logical-exclusion you know are different. The 1 and 0 don't have to be a one and a zero. They can be any two choices. Eg: in relation to cars. You ask somebody if they want a Toyota or a Ford. There are four logical answers they can give. They might answer by saying neither car, a Toyota car, a Ford car or both cars. Four options. But in the world of logical-exclusion, they would only be permitted two options. A Toyota car or a Ford car. They would not be allowed to have both cars, nor would they be allowed to have neither car. Logical exclusion demands they make a choice between the two cars only.

 

Also, identities may only contain positive properties. However, networks mayexpress (rather than contain) positive, negative, or null states. For example, current may flow either as electrons moving (positive) or electron gaps moving (negative), though charge is a positive property with +/- directionality.

Drake, we are talking about logical-exclusion. But if you would like to put the above statement into a logical-exclusion expression, I like to see it.

Also,

with 'electron gap', do you mean electron-hole?

 

"Scientific evidence is predicated on the assumption that what we perceive via the senses actually exists, so it cannot be used to prove its own axioms."

 

This is not opinion, it is simple fact as stated in the very basics of the scientific principles. The pursuit of science is based on (among others) the assumption that the universe exists as an objective reality which is governed by immutable behavioral laws. This is combined with the basic principle of argumentative logic that circular thinking is fallacious to produce the above statement.

I'm not arguing whether or not science uses its own axioms. I'm asking you to apply the logic you use, for stating why science can not be used to prove its own axioms, to your own statements. When you tried to prove a negative, you have come up with your own properties, your own Identities, and your own relationship in order to prove your own axiom.

 

And my argument was towards {Null} as a state. That would make the array {Positive, Null, Negative}, so the line you picked was showing the possible states given the refutation of the Positive in the previous step of acquiring negative proof. Honestly, the argument of Null isn't central to that line of argument, but it's inclusion is educating and useful for explaining why single-property analysis can only produce indeterminate answers for negative statements.

We are talking about logical-exclusion. What you are trying to do is change the way logical-exclusion works. You are trying to prove a negative, that's fine. But, you are trying to force logical-exclusion to prove that negative. But this is not what logical exclusion is about. Logical-exclusion is about forcing a choice between one of two choices. But proving a negative has nothing to do with choice.

"You ask somebody if they want a Toyota or a Ford. There are four logical answers they can give. They might answer by saying neither car, a Toyota car, a Ford car or both cars."

 

That question is mischaracterized. A better question would be, "Is this car a Toyota?" Only one property is considered here and it has a strict value. The answers are {Toyota, Not Toyota, No Markings}. Your "both" would be "Toyota but Not Toyota at the same time", a natural paradox.

 

The problem with your original question is that it misleadingly presented a plural question as a singular statement. What we're really looking at there is an array of logical binaries, one for each positive property under consideration. So your question was actually based on {[Ford, Not Ford, No Brand],[Toyota, Not Toyota, No Brand]} which allowed your output of neither/Ford/Toyota/both from {-P,-P}/{P,-P}/{-P,P}/{P,P} but you still missed the option {Null,Null} (or just {Null}) which indicates that a brand determination is inapplicable to those conditions ("I don't care about brands").

 

Logical exclusion is an easily reached concept when you apply a XOR criteria to a set of positive properties where the result of one logical binary ("This is a Toyota car") can be used to exclude other positive properties ("This is a Not Ford car"). In this case the undifferentiated Null value (both properties are brands) allows for a direct solution, but more generally {A} implies {Null, -B} when {A} XOR {B}.

 

Errata: Electron hole was the right term, yes. It was demonstrating a property of identities (that an electron hole can only 'exist' within a network), so it's not a direct component of the exclusion arguments. 

 

"I'm asking you to apply the logic you use, for stating why science can not be used to prove its own axioms, to your own statements."

 

"Proving a negative" is not an axiom here, but rather a logical demonstration. None of the components used in the process require the assumption that negatives are provable. I'm not attempting circularity here so there's no issue with it.

 

"What you are trying to do is change the way logical-exclusion works."

 

Nope. My point of argument (Null) has no effect on the viability of this logical demonstration. It's only effect is in single-property analysis where a refutation of {P} implies {Null, -P} inconclusively, thus providing no new information by exclusion. In the case of multiple-property analysis, the entire demonstration would still stand without the inclusion of {Null} values. 

 

So what exactly in the demonstration of proving a negative do you find so incompatible with your prior thinking? It's a basic proof combining logical binaries with a XOR constraint, neither of which are novel or fuzzy concepts. Is the issue here the cultural myth of "You can't prove a negative!" which arises from confusion about single-property and multiple-property analyses? Or is it something else?  

I absolutely don't care. Goddess or god or not, it has nothing to do with my life. Sorry you all have to think about it! I don't.

Further to my statement made 16 hours ago, I here rephrase it another way---keeping it short and sweet: 

Is the Universe explicable by science or not?

If yes, then we are saying that we are 100% sure there is no god. That is where I stand. No creator god or gods.

Those who hesitate (the 99 % doubters and all the other non-100 percenters) are admitting the possibility of some unknown supernatural cause. That is anti-scientific, anti-natural.

Yes, the Universe is entirely capable of being fully explained by the findings of physics and rules of mathematics that are known to us. 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service