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: 12035

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You write things that may sound nice to you, but you know what you mean. If you wish people to understand exactly, then you have to look closer at your thoughts, I think. Maybe you meant something else, but what you wrote is that ego applies to everything. If we define ego objectively, there is no ego in a rock. Ego is an attribute of the mind, which is a phenomenon of a brain. Only brains have ego. It is not universal. If you meant that every person has ego, that ego is an attribute of the mind, great, but why would you write that? We are all singular egoistic machines, duh. Or by ego, do you mean that 'selfish' people are mean, but we can't escape it? Being mean is not an essential aspect of selfishness (although 99% of people think so). Definitions of concepts need to include only the essential characteristics. If we are to talk about what really is and what we really know, then we must be literal. We can't use Webster to define words for us. We must define concepts without contradiction, entailing only essential characteristics. Statements like 'the most intelligent are the most open-minded' are silly. Open? This is a terrible metaphor. My mind is not, and your mind should not be, 'open to' or consider with any merit, the possibility that there could be a giant invisible pink unicorn in Abraham Lincoln's underwear right now. You may wish to waste time setting up a scientific experiment to prove that or not, while people with a right, instead of 'open' or 'closed', mind will accept it as impossible for something magical or both invisible and pink to exist. These aren't scientific questions, but we can know they are impossible. If fact they are not scientific questions because we know they are impossible.

Impossible things are definitely untestable.


However, I think it would be possible to have something that is both possible and untestable. Say, the total mass of the earth, circa 1 AD was W.xyz kilograms.


I am not referring to a particular Feynman video. As I suggested before, you can certainly find one yourself.

Sure, if you wish to qualify your thoughts into a valid idea with a proper essential characteristic, i.e., hubris, arrogance, fine, but still don't see any relevant link between me being certain that the impossible cannot happen, you thinking that I am arrogant and that this has something to do with God and faith, when I hail objectivity, reason, causality and noncontradiction. I will amend my philosophical commitment to causality and noncontradiction when another idea changes my entire philosophy as to make more sense as a whole. The way I see it, an objective universe where causality and noncontradiction are universal makes the most sense overall. I believe nothing without it being consistent with natural, not supernatural, law. There is no room for faith in my life. And you calling me arrogant and telling me I have a god complex is quite ad hominem and a demonstration of your weakness, no? Is my ego not actually and appropriately big enough to wax philosophical? Have I not done the requisite reading and consideration? What if I had an advanced degree or two in mathematics and/or physics? Why don't we stick to the material and not the person?

August, Fullerenes have always been logically possible. They were considered physically impossible by many people, perhaps, owing to the seeming difficulty in creating them, but there was obviously no logical reason they couldn't exist, since, in fact, they always have. That particular arrangement of carbon atoms in no way violates the principles of chemical bonding. This example is moot.


Wave-particle duality is a better example, but since wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior are not exhibited simultaneously, this doesn't constitute a logical contradiction. This is like saying flying cars are logically impossible because sometimes they drive and sometimes they fly.


Logic is not dependent on perspective. What a thing looks like is dependent on perspective.

Oh, and you say, "Any hypothesis can be tested with the scientific method." How about this one: Red light and blue light use exactly the same wavelength. Is that testable with the scientific method, or is it just nonsense? (Hint: It's just nonsense.)
I disagree that it is nonsense because it is testable. We can test to see the difference in Blue and Red light.

It is nonsense by definition, because red != blue. Testing is not required, because testing can't possibly produce any other outcome than that red != blue, because they are not equal by definition. You guys are working waaaaaaay too hard if this is how you want to approach things. There is a vast class of things that we need not bother with, because we know for sure up front that we don't need to.


This is different from the case of things being considered extremely unlikely until found. Science is full of surprises. It is not full of contradictions and impossibilities.

I forgot to mention again that in science you can be right or wrong, in logic your idea can be possible, existent, or impossible.
Logically, it was true in the years around 1900 that the universe was static, always been there, and always will be there. Logically possible, but entirely wrong.
Not entirely. The universe, while not static, has always been here and always will. A state of nothingness is not compatible with reason. For 0+0=0 and something cannot come from nothing. Also, a static universe is not logical, unless you mean something else, but the universe is in a continual state of change. Despite what someone might have thought, it has never been logical to have an unchanging universe.

And once again, you confuse logical possibility with widely held (and not-as-yet-informed) opinion. The Ptolemaic universe was never "true", apart from being a reasonable approximation given the data available. There's nothing inherently illogical about either a static or a dynamic universe. Your weird definition of logic is confusing the hell out of you, Cane. Logic does not simply mean "thought experiment" or "axiom" or "uninformed opinion arrived at solely by thinking".


Actually, Michael is correct. The "static universe" idea never made any sense, given the fact that we could always see things moving around. Why should they stay stuck on the same tracks forever?

Fullerenes were predicted before their discovery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#History.


C-C bonds in diamond do not strike me as planar, though I may not understand the structure properly.


The point is that there is nothing logically contradictory about Fullerenes and our pre-existing knowledge of chemistry. As very large and relatively geometrically simple molecular structures (unlike say, proteins), they would have been considered unlikely, but I fail to understand your assertion that they would have been considered logically impossible. I think you, like Cane, persist in confusing logical impossibility with extreme unlikelihood.


As you say, "simultaneously" is not a good word to use in the context of quantum mechanics (few words are, apparently). But the Copenhagen Interpretation at least seems to suggest that you can get quantum effects to behave like waves or like particles, but not at the same time. It may be entirely a semantic distinction, but I think we could also say that measuring (resolving) a quantum effect forces it to exhibit one or the other behaviors, but not both. Either way, I think my flying car analogy is reasonably apt. I see no logical contradiction in quantum effects, just multiple behaviors. Surprising and weird, but I don't see why they would logically preclude each other.


And logic requires causality. A person's perspective affects that person's understanding, but the logic exists externally to be discovered by anybody. I do not subscribe to the "person creates his own reality" idea.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service