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: 8777

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Whoever espouses the idea or wherever they get it from, skepticism as a foundation of epistemology or metaphysics fails at the outset. Certain knowledge of reality is possible and God is not. Skepticism as doubt of a thing without ample evidence is proper. Skepticism as doubt of already contextually valid knowledge is irrational.

Since you offer them in lieu of answering a direct question, you are not only committing the fallacy, but point it out even as you deny it. Odd.

 

But, yes, we know that you did not invent skepticism yesterday. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

 

There are people I could quote as well in an appeal to authority? Really? So why waste all this time thinking for myself?

Jonothan... No, atheist does not mean "without theology." It means "one who believes there is no deity." (Webster)

Believe, in this context, means to hold as true or to have an opinion.

Joel, thanks for the quotes. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into sharing those with us.

However, I don't think Feynman or Sagan or Mill or the others would have any problem attesting their certainty that 2+2=4 and not 17.

When someone says they cannot be certain that a god without properties exists, this is nonsense. If it exists, it already has the property of existence. And if so, must, by definition, have other properties. When we are confronted by oxymoron, a proposal that actually contradicts itself, we can be certain that it does not exist in reality.

As any definition of God, wherein he actually fits the minimum job description of at least being able to, at will, transcend the laws of nature (ie. he must be supernatural, otherwise, he's just a dude who is smart enough to work with the laws of nature sufficiently to impress). Of course, a being able to transcend the laws of nature is an oxymoron. The concept of a creator god is doubly oxymoronic because such a being would have created the laws of nature to his own will. Transcending them would never be necessary and actually doing so would be to act against one's own will... hardly fitting of a deity.

So disbelief in God is really as simple as disbelief in 2+2=17.

Is there anyone here who would afford .000000...0001% doubt that 2+2=17?

Joel, you have a tendency to avoid such direct questions (while demanding that your own are answered repeatedly). So let me ask you directly:

Joel, are you absolutely certain that 2+2 does not = 17?

I am curious as to why it is you cannot directly answer a question, but have to wander off onto an unrelated tangent, talking down to people as if you were the first person to get an education.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with Zeno's paradoxes, but they are only mind exercises, not true paradoxes (which, of course, don't actually exist).

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not 2+2 is equal to 17.

 

You do not obfuscate well.

 

And I don't think you have yet answered the question as to whether or not you were certain that the entire Chinese army is not currently residing in your ass.

 

As I said, I wanted to make it as easy as possible for you. Certainly, if there were even one soldier of any ethnicity, let alone an entire army complete with equipment and armaments, you'd feel the worse for wear and would, no doubt, notice the intrusion.

How childish. I think you are finding your position increasingly indefensible. Probably something to do with the lack of a military presence in your nether regions.

 

So pick up your toys and go home if you can't win.

If you were truely interested in conversation you'd have not accused me of not answering the question.

If you were truly interested in conversation, you wouldn't throw childish tantrums when your assertions are illustrated to be nonsense. You'd behave like an adult and soldier on.

I only pointed out that you didn't answer the question because you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Here's another question you did not answer:

"For those of you who say you can never be certain of anything, I'll take a cheap emotional shot:

If your child comes up to you and says, "Mommy/Daddy, are you absolutely certain that you love me?" Do you have to lie to them?"

Joel Potter,

 

I had arguments with both religious and non-religious who are like this - they so desperately want you to agree. They can only work with absolutes.

 

For example, I came back here after being away two years and added my two cents worth - and in less than 24 hours, Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense.

 

It's almost religious Atheism.

 

In my professional life I've been involved in literally of 1000s of ventures, and in none of them, was I ever 100% sure of anything.

 

In some situations I've been pretty confident and in others I've been sure enough to risk my own life, but never, ever was I 100% sure - simply because I always acknowledged I didn't know everything.

 

So maybe Vince and all the other 100 percenters are really smart guys - and they know far better that the rest of us - but I 'm a 50 blond woman so I'll stick to the 99.999% sure there is no god crew - cause I don't know for sure and I'm obviously not so smart.

"...Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense."

Willa, it is very tacky of you to put a remark like that in quotes when I never said it. Between Joel quoting me out of context and failing to attribute it to me and you attributing to me what I never said, I can imagine that the two of you might get along splendidly.

You can most certainly believe in a deity without having your thoughts on the subject sufficiently organized or studied as to comprise a theology. Theology is the study or system of study of deity, not the belief in it. Most children believe in God because their parents told them there was a God. "Mama said" is hardly a theology.

 

As for certainty in mathematics, are you absolutely certain that 2+2=4? Do you reserve any iota of doubt?

 

There seems to be a lack of understanding on this thread of logic... that is, of non-contradictory thinking. When an assertion contradicts itself, it is not true and cannot actually exist in reality. For example: is it possible that there exists a pink unicorn that is simultaneously not a pink unicorn?

Your math analogy is nowhere near as convincing or on point as you think it is.  I put two stones in a pile. I add two more; there are four. it is proven that two plus two equals four

 

Not at all comparable to the existence of a being/entity/force defined in such a way that does not lend itself to that kind of proof.

All you need do is put two pink unicorns that are simultaneously not pink unicorns in a pile. Then add two more. Now count them.

Seriously, if one can't propose a coherent assertion, one is not even ready to think about science or math.

Can A = nonA?

Then can a thing exist that is a pink unicorn that is simultaneously not a pink unicorn?

This really isn't that hard, folks.
Jonathan,

Mocking me doesn't make me wrong.

And if you look at the question posed by the title of the thread and the title and nature of this site and the assertion you made to even join this site, I think it obviously has a lot to do with the "over arch" of the discussion and of the point of the entire forum.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation? Or are you going to spew more ad hominems?

Joel,

I think you're just upset because you can't talk down to me, though you've tried.

DF,

By all means, sir... please point out the flaws. It is insufficient to assert that there exists a flaw without identifying it. Please be so kind as to demonstrate.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

Joan Denoo replied to roland707's discussion Thoughts on Buddhism?
45 minutes ago
Pat replied to James M. Martin's discussion World Wrestling's Steve Austin on Why Same Sex Couples Should be Allowed to Marry
1 hour ago
Warren Jappe commented on Steve Shives's video
1 hour ago
Warren Jappe posted a video

It's good to be anti-Islam

...but not anti-Muslim. Christians burned alive, beheaded, crucified and tortured to death http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/christians-are-being-bur...
1 hour ago
Pat replied to Raj's discussion Bible: all laws must be obeyed
1 hour ago
Pat replied to Polaroidxxx's discussion Atheist Confetti
1 hour ago
John Jubinsky added a discussion to the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
2 hours ago
sk8eycat replied to Steph S.'s discussion Noah movie religious controversy
2 hours ago
Sentient Biped replied to Raj's discussion Bible: all laws must be obeyed
4 hours ago
Loren Miller replied to Polaroidxxx's discussion Atheist Confetti
4 hours ago
Steve Shives posted a video

Chapters Eleven and Twelve - An Atheist Reads Simply Christian

The examination of N.T. Wright's Simply Christian continues with a look at Chapter Eleven: Worship, and Chapter Twelve: Prayer.
4 hours ago
booklover replied to James M. Martin's discussion World Wrestling's Steve Austin on Why Same Sex Couples Should be Allowed to Marry
4 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service