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: 9636

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

If one can't see the flaws in his analogies, one is not even ready to have this conversation.

 

Defined in what way? Beings that cannot be defined or have supernatural qualities do not have the necessary character to be subject to proof and therefore cannot exist. A being defined in such a way as to not lend itself to proof by reduction to perceptual evidence via logic cannot exist. It is proof enough to say that the impossible is impossible. I think that should be self evident and leaving any room for this epistemologically or metaphysically is irrational.

Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god.  Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.

I totally believe in intelligence.
I totally believe in consciousness.
I totally believe in forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear).
I totally believe in energy.

Wow! I'm very excited!

Just one thing... these things are not deities. They don't actually qualify for the job description. I think you need a little more work on your proposal. What else ya got?
Yeah, what VW said. If it cannot be defined, or if it is defined with supernatural abilities or omniscience or omnipotence, or as the creator of all things or based on a metaphor or anything else impossible, it is impossible. For sure. If it subject to causal law, we can study it and demonstrate at least one of its concrete aspects of identity to talk about with knowledge. If you do not agree with this, then you are agnostic, not atheist. Even if you think there is a very very very small chance of God existing, it is greater than zero and you become a minitheist, or barelytheist or nanotheist or infinitesmotheist, but not a nontheist.

Thiest- One who believes in God.

Athiest- One who does not believe in God. I actually prefer 'one who knows there is no God'.

Theology- The study of the nature of God and religious truth (it's hard to even write).

Atheological- Well, you get the point.

 

In what universe does the impossible have even a small chance to exist?

Atheism is a statement about belief.

 

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.

 

They are related to each in much the same way as knowledge and belief are but knowledge is not belief, nor is vice versa.

An interesting and important semantic distinction. Thank you.

Of course, it is possible to at least claim belief without knowledge. And obviously possible to at least claim to reject belief, or even lack the capacity to process the knowledge that would warrant rational belief, even when it is present.

In some cases, even when data is available to afford 100% certainty, there are those who are so wed to not permitting/admitting 100% certainty in their minds that they are actually close-minded to the idea that it is possible to be 100% certain.

You can recognize such people when they say that they believe there is a possibility (small as it might be) that a self-contradictory concept can exist in reality... that there is a small possibility that 2+2 does not equal 4... or that it not only equals 4, but simultaneously does not equal 4.
Look people, the real point here is that the old "no evidence is not evidence against" is not entirely accurate.  Regardless of whether you're talking about pink unicorns or magic volcanoes, lack of evidence can be evidence against.  Consider it like this~ I have James Bond's invisible Aston Martin in my bed.  Can you not prove that I'm wrong? If it were the case, there certainly would be some signs that it was there~ imprints on the bed, a hard invisible object there, etc etc. The reason you can use this lack of expected consequence as evidence against is because of the parameters or definition of what's being posited~ the same applies in many cases for god~ the more defined the god is, the easier it is to disprove it through lack of evidence/consequence. When you get to the point that many "smarter" theists get to, where they define it to a point where its impossible to detect, it had might as well not exist anyways, or the term "god" is mostly superfluous.

Point is people, prove to me there isn't a volcano spewing lucky charms marsh-mellows in my kitchen. If you can't, then I guess your point zero zero zero one percent [or whatever asinine number you choose] of doubt is reasonable. If you think you CAN prove that I don't have that in my kitchen, then you SHOULD be 100% sure.

(btw, from something I read earlier, putting "..." in your percent of doubt is moronic. Infinity isn't a number, its a concept~ it has no place here. In fact, placing it in your "doubt" actually increases it to the smallest possible doubt not imaginable, or in reality, 100%~ boners)

This is another version of disproving a positive, not proving a negative.

 

You're simply mixing belief and knowledge.

 

You're mistaking the action or location of an object for the proof of the existence of the object, and they're not the same thing.

 

Volcanoes exist, lucky charms exist - they just don't exist in your hotel room or kitchen presently, they nevertheless exist.

 

Forget all your arguments about volcanoes spewing in hotel rooms or kitchens - just try something simple like proving the non-existence of something.

 

Simply try to describe the process for proving that talking, blue diamonds do not exist. - without saying there's no evidence of them.

No. Russell did not ask anyone to prove there are no teapots. He requested proof that there are no teapots orbiting the sun.

You can't have it both ways.

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