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: 18436

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I donot see anything in this post that I disagree w at all. If we were disagreeing elsewhere, then I can easily imagine that it was not over anything substantial.

In another post you made an issue of weather or not we could trust our senses. I think that w/in limits we can and in fact have to as that (and reason) is all we have. A trickster god by definition tho, would be able to fool our sences.

And like I stated earlier, Christian mythology actually does make room for trickster god type actions like w my theist relative believeing dinosaur bones were put there by Satan.
"A logical impossibility for anyone to disprove a universal negative."

Bullshit. In spite of all the people littering the internet with such folky assertions that one cannot prove a negative, it just ain't so. Among professional logicians, please name one... just one... who believes this. Good luck.

I know, I know... you've been slippery enough to avoid the plain negative and properly quote "universal negative" as in proving that there are no gold shitting bears on Pluto or some such nonsense.

We're all supposed to pretend that the only way to prove this would be to send a team of thousands to Pluto and conduct a thorough survey of the planet. That being currently impossible, it should therefore be equally impossible to prove that there are no 24 karat bear turds on the Plutonian shore. We're supposed to pretend that some ursine breed might be able to metabolize whatever rocky ice one finds on Pluto into precious metal and survive in conditions that we know full well do not allow for bears whether or not they poop gold.

Save it for the 8 year olds.

Otherwise, posit a God. Define the word coherently.

You are serious about not understanding how to disprove a god hiding as a negative?


The abrahamists don't have a monopoly on god. There are other ideas of what god is. I don't believe in them, but I leave the possibility that i'm wrong open with anything.


99.9999% for me is more short for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


I just don't feel like typing all those 9's. besides, its 100% anyway.

@ Paul "however one can't be 100% sure of any assertion based on any observed bit of evidence, as it is always possible to be wrong on our evidence"?


Paul you are 100% correct here and this is the basis of science.


The the topic of conversation here is God. And it is impossible to mix science with God. And the reason is nobody has ever observed God. 


I know as a fact, that is 100% true, nobody here has ever observed God. And until such time, science, by definition, can never be used to prove or disprove God.

To be 100 percent sure of an unprovable concept would likely make me as dogmatic as those I criticize. So I'd have to say I'm as certain as I can be, considering what my faculties can provide. Maybe the deists have it right, and the creator is an absentee landlord, but it hardly matters in the practical sense.
As Christopher Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

However, note that serious scientists devote no time whatsoever to disproving the existence of a clone of Abraham Lincoln strumming a banjo on the dark side of the moon.

All this blather about scientific inquiry and leaving room for doubt about the existence of the Abrahamic God or Lincoln's lunar-living, banjo-strumming clone is to fail to understand science in the first place.

Check your premise.

If your premise is self-contradictory, insane, or otherwise does not warrant serious hyposthesis, let alone testing, experimentation, prediction, etc., and does not deserve to be given serious consideration, much less the stature of a theory with the rigors of scientific inquiry and a budget the size of NASA's expended upon it.

Again, if you can fathom a coherent God that you'd like to put forth as potentially real... go for it. Otherwise, that .01% of doubt is just you trying not to be an ass. For me, that's obviously not a good enough reason. :)
I concur that this is largely mastabatory hair splitting, and even that my fraction of a percent of doubt is maybe solopsistic. It is not however any attempt to hedge my bets. I have a fraction of a percent of doubt because doubt is t logical and reasonable default position until a convincing argument is made to remove doubt and I not only donot think that any argument has been presented that no god exists to 100% certainty, but I donot think that one can be made.

I can grant that it is reasonable to say that one can be 100% sure that Jehova, as he is described in his press release does not exist as he is described there. His bio is filled w numerous contradictions that one can be 100% sure cannot all be true. I imagine this can also be said about almost any particular god that has thus far been described in any detail.

And I totaly grant that our universe seems to operate as if there is no god. But for every bit of evidence that one can present showing that god isn't responsible or present or anything, there is always t counter argument that maybe gods wants it to appear that way. If there was a god who could do those things and had those desires, then how would we tell that world from this world.

I imagine this is extremely unlikely to t point of being mastabatory and solopsist. But I donot think that it is 100% imposible. There are plenty of definitions of "atheism" that donot require 100% certainty. And I really donot think that last fraction of a percent is that important.

What I think is important is that I live my life as if there is no god or afterlife, or miracles or any of that. And that I think it is actually wrong to do so; wrong both in that it is incorrect and wrong moraly. One of those things that theism does that, I think, is most wrong is that it teaches that faith is a virtue. Faith is claiming to know things that one doesn't and probably can't.

I think this brings me back to my start minus perhaps those bits about being mastabatory and solopsistic.
OK... so maybe Batman keeps his name out of the papers... but there really is a Batman right? Running around battling crime? And Superman? I mean you can't be 100% sure they aren't out there just hiding... operating on the down low... yeah, that's the ticket.

Y'know, science doesn't really demand you extend doubt to every whackadoo notion posited by nutjobs.
As I always say perfection is the absence of reality. So yeah being a good skeptic and atheistic science nerd, 99.9%sure.
That doesn't make you a good skeptic or a science nerd. Don't pin this on science. It's your inability to dismiss BS out of wanting to appear to be PC. Science doesn't demand we give .01% consideration to unsupported mythologies.
I would suggest that we need to first have a definition of a given god before suggesting it doesn't exist. Is there some living entity out there on some other planet that is superior in intelligence and physically superior? Some may call this a god, and its possible this being exists. Or is the god an omnipresent, all knowing, and all loving god? I think deductive reasoning leads to a 100% no on such a being.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service