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: 12038

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"I am having trouble with conceptualization and the noncontradiction law."

 

I'll say.

I appreciate the modicum effort you put forth. I would like to say that my admitting I do not grasp what you are saying may not be my fault and that you need to better express yourself. Just a supposition.
Sure.
Science and religion have actually been inseparable for a millennia and a half. All educational and research institutions through these long centuries were at their core religious. This entanglement is generally the cause for most of the crap science (what gets called "true-then-false"). Had science not been entangled with religious motivations, our understanding of the natural world today would be much better than it is.  It is only in the very last century that science and religion have been parting ways. But it still has a long long way to go. Religious and political motivations have huge effects on what results get published or not. I look forward to the day (probably not in my living) where that changes.
The power religion has over the poor and uneducated is the reason science has not triumphed yet, but it will. In that I have faith. What is religion? Compare it to Philosophy. Both argue that certain things are true. Both use the same tools to win their arguments. And I for one do not trust the philosophers or the religious. As much as they say they control their emotions, it is not true. They ridicule the ones supposedly less educated than they are. They talk about inflated egos, but they do not admit that their egos are the ones inflated. IMHO, they are floating in deep water. Instead of helping one up to their level, they knock them down to a lower level in order to seem superior.
at least they make a modicum of an effort to think about concepts, unlike at 80% of the activities (pro sports watchers and players) and employment (factories) which occupy our citizenry. I'll take a philosopher and a scientist over a the aforementioned any day.

I agree wholeheartedly. I did not say that philosophers, nor religious people, are stupid, though some might actually be, but I take offense when I am trying to understand something I have learned and am passing on and someone ridicules me. My ego is as big as I contend philosophers have.

 

Just because I have not studied philosophy, does not mean I cannot understand it.

@Cane Kostovski:  For a millennia and a half or more, philosophy was the only tool against religion. Then science came. I contend that science is a much better tool than philosophy against religion.

 

Science has on an underlying philosophy, without which it would not exist.  Arguably science is a philosophy.

 

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Sorry George, I'm with Richard Feynman.

What do you mean?

 

Here is a quote from the page your link sent me:

Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” according to physicist Richard Feynman.

The fact that Feynman said it doesn't make it so.

It's pretty ironic actually that he would say that.  Having watched some of his talks, I'd say he's actually very good at the philosophy of science.  

I assume that what he's objecting to is philosophers from outside the scientific field making comments.  But without specifics it's impossible to know, and a quote out of context is of limited value.

 

Furthermore: criticizing philosophy in general tends to be self refuting.  “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds” is itself a philosophical statement.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service