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: 16754

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I concur. The moment properties are attributed to any proposal, the simpler it becomes to prove/disprove. God's greatest champions try to keep him as vague as possible often to the point of not defining him at all. The trick is to contrive a being which qualifies as a deity and is not incoherent/oxymoronic. Which is to contrive a being which has a quality while simultaneously not having it... which is further oxymoron.

 

Hey Scott,

Congratulations, nearly 70 pages and no end in sight ... normally you have to be a really cute girl with a provocative photo to get this much attention !!  ;-)

 

Let me float this suggestion : is it possible you have received so many responses becasue folks aren't as sure as they purport?  To paraphrase ol' Will Shakespeare: " methinks [they] doth protest too much

That is an interesting hunch. As many of us were reared in religion, there might logically be a bit of it still taped upon us. I for one always found the notion rather heinous. I didn't like the idea of an all knowing being watching me while I slept, or carried on the rest of my existence. I especially detested the idea that the master of the universe was a spectator to any private... exertions, shall we say.

 

But I think a lot of people find comfort rather than offense in the idea that there is a galactic gastapo and that it is somehow working in their favor. For my own part, my mother proposed reincarnation from a tender age as if it were a given. While I don't believe it for lack of evidence of both the process and a soul to endure the process, were we to vote, I would certainly choose for reincarnation to be real.

But reality is not a democracy.

 

:-)

 

I am reading a most refreshing book : The Atheist's Way - subtitled Living Well Without Gods by  Eric Maisel.It is a wonderfully empowering and inspiring read for anyone going through religion withdrawal and rebuilding their worldview. I'd recommend it highly to all

False Memory, I think you ought to consider changing your name to "False Premise." :)

It is as rationally possible to prove a negative as a positive.

Again, the circumstances people offer as proof are also circumstances where they cannot prove a positive. All they are really saying is that they can contrive such a thing so vague or so distant that there is not enough data available to prove it either way. Fine. But that is not the same thing as not being able to prove a negative.

But some things contradict themselves by ascribing properties that cannot exist simultaneously as you have done with dreadful Aunt Lucy who is simultaneously dead and nocturnally disposed to bestiality. We know that for a person to carry out any activity, they must be alive. We know that being dead prohibits such activity as a corpse is unable to take in and metabolize and use sustenance. Since dead cells do not take in glucose or cause muscle to be able to move, there is no possibility that any dead person spends their evenings fondling the nether regions of felines.

You may assert that you have some new definition of "dead" that allows for kitty-groping zombies, but I don't think the medical community or the fine folks at Websters (or me) will accept that the state of being dead doesn't actually require the corpse to actually be dead. Your premise will be rejected.

Not to mention the fact that I don't have an Aunt Lucy.

So, the negative of your assertion is rationally proven.

Cheers!
You are a bastion of reason, Vince.
God is a human concept. Do bugs or amoebas call us God.
Whoa , I was with you big A until you leaned the the negative about people like myself who abhor  the negative energy put into trying to unbelieve 100%  Give it up,  we make daily life decisons important ones on 51/49 evidence . Life and death decisions on 70/30,  Why do we need 100% on such foolish conjecture as a all,all,all. Man, GOD....bullshit. Why can't "we" who at least know better truck forward in life embracing positve energy, science.  For all the rest of those idiots they belive and don't want to know , they are not going to change until they go or get sent to "no find" thier GGGGOOOOODDDD. 
100% sure no doubt :)

I am 1000% positive that all this gods muck garbage is purely made up rubbish.

It was made up eons ago to keep people subordinate and has evolved into the slaughterous mess that has infected all of our otherwise fantastic planet.

I wish all the godgobbers would hurry up and finish murdering each other into extinction.

Especially the filthy godgobbers who use religion to sexually abuse kids.Which is another part of the gods muck and jehovah jiving jesus junk.

how much more g?d bull shit can our Earth and we take?

100%   their is no G$ds, or a g0d!!!!! 

I admit I have not been following the discussion entirely. I apologize if I'm beating the proverbial deceased equine.

 

Take the proposition "Black Swans do not exist". Until 1697 when cygnus atratus was discovered in the wilds of Australia on, of all placed, "The Swan River", this was taken to be fact as no Black Swans had ever been observed. In fact it was a proverb for that which was impossible. If you were to take yourself back to 1696 and ask, "Can you prove that Black Swans exist" The answer is no. You can only say "there is no evidence that Black Swans exist" or "I have not been presented with evidence for either the propostion that "all swans are white" or that "black swans do not exist".

 

You might say, "until I have evidence which I can examine for the existence of Black Swans and submit to the scientific process I will conclude with 100% certainly that no Black Swans exist". That is faulty reasoning and bad scientific method. The best you can conclude in the face of a claim that Black Swans do exist is to say there is no evidence and to ask for that evidence. In the face of a claim that "No Black Swans exist" you can only say there is not yet any evidence for the existence of Black Swans. You cannot conclude with 100% certainty simply because of the lack of evidence that Black Swans do not exist.

 

In the case of Black Swans, if you asserted with 100% certainty in 1696 that "Black Swans do not exist" you would be made a fool of in 1697.

 

Now take the proposition, "God does not exist". Unless you can argue that the proposition does not make sense, that there is no possible evidence that would be sufficient to prove the existence of God, you cannot with 100% certainly prove "God does not exist". You cannot with scientific principle and process of with reason prove a negative with 100% certainty.

 

Scientific method will observe, hypothesize, test and then prove of adjust the hypothesis. Such observation and testing must be available to anyone and results must be reproducible and is subject to review by your peers. Scientific method may also be used to evaluate claims about reality even if the claim is not subject to experimentation. The claim and it's evidence is subject to scrutiny, to the contriving of tests if possible and to review. All evidence must be accessible to your peers.

 

As a result, as I stated before, I do not think you can categorically with 100% certainly prove, not just claim, but prove God does not or cannot exist unless you can argue that no evidence is possible to prove the claim because of the nature of what you are claiming.

 

In this vein, as Karl Popper asserts, all claims must be falsifiable. For the theist and especially the Christian this is not the case. That in itself raises questions that the claim is a claim about reality.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service