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: 18395

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

For me, statistically speaking, knowledge becomes valid/certain around the 97% certainty level. I place "mysterious godly forces" at around 1000 trillion to one probability. There are no gods.
  The word and belief of g?d is only a human concept, from dreams and superstitions!!! But we evolved from simple life forms, "but" as of a unknowen intelligent alien that would be evolved from simple forms to, that might have superstitions and dreams of a higher form, or forms of a deity as we have!!!!   I have a pure 100% that their is no g$d or g$ds!!!  it is only in the evolving mind for something better in lifes wishes!!!!as of the false hope of some kind of saver will come along!!!! as the religions use as a powerful tool of control$$$ 
I don't like to throw numbers out there like 99.99% or anything like that because that would just be a random guess and I haven't actually sat down and crunched the numbers.  So let's just say I'm pretty sure there is no "God" as people think of it.  Now you could always redefine God as simply the creator so in turn whatever created the universe would technically be God.  Then you could say the Big Bang is God.  I've heard this argument before and although technically it might make some sense I think intellectually it's being dishonest with yourself.  The implications would be that God does in fact exist when in actuality you are simply redefining the definition of God to make it exist.  So I'm not sure if I answered the question or not but I think that like most things in life, it seems like a simple question when in fact it can be quite complicated.  One thing I am sure of is that the gods of the major religions are nonexistent.
I'm not positive that there is no God, but I believe that there is no evidence worthy of even entertaining the possibility of there being a God. And say we found a "God"... we would probably avoid that term upon learning more about it because there would have to be a natural explanation for it. So I guess it depends on what you consider a "God" to be. If God HAS to be supernatural, then no, I am 100% certain there is no "God."

sorry for joining late...


I am 100% certain that no God or Gods as described by any major (or minor) religion has any existence at all. I am 99.9% certain that no supernatural higher power of any kind exists, but if there was something it is unlikely to be anything like any of the descriptions in world religion which almost exclusively (apart from Buddhism??) seem to give "god" certain human attributes (for obvious reasons!).


Physics and nature are more powerful than we are, which would make them higher powers ;-) Do I need to go to church to believe in nature? lol

I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no god, as there is no proof that he does not exist.  However, there is also no credible evidence that he does exist, so I can say with pretty much 99.99% certainty that there is no god.
I'm not 100%, there are points where I question, but all I can do is the best I can.



I suppose it depends on your definition of "God".  If you are talking about the all knowing, all caring, and all powerful super being who controls everything...  I can say I'm 100% sure there is no such being.  If you're just talking about a much more advanced being who started this whole existence off, I'd say there's a small...very, very small chance (don't want to put a number to it).


I always get baffled by the idea of a super being, which is all knowing and all powerful, but wants or need the worship and love of such small and insignificant things such as humans.  The ego on that being would be extremely scary!!


I just wanted to edit my reply....edit by adding to it, because I believe I showed poor skill in my argument.


I do not believe in God because I've never been shown any form of evidence what so ever and I no more believe in God than I do the tooth fairy, but I have about the same chance of disproving the tooth fairy as I do disproving God... The burden of proof isn’t on me.  My jump to "100% sure" I'm chalking up to an emotional response to arguments from the other side that ignore reason or outright lie, with and without malice, to try to prove that they are correct.

Hey Casey, how are things?

If I may, I'd like to make a small comment about the 'burden of proof' thing. I'm making it to clear my own thoughts about 'burden of proof', which has been prompted by your comment.



If somebody makes a claim about something to you, for example: an English Mastiff. How can you make judgement on the claim if you know nothing about dogs.


If I tell you the English Mastiff is only one foot long and six inches high upon reaching adulthood, that would make me a liar. But, what would it make you if you believed me.


If I show you a Chihuahua and say look, here is proof of an English Mastiff. If you have never done any research in regards to these two breeds of dog, how could you make any judgement about the dog, upon me showing you the fake English Mastiff.


Sure, there is a 'burden of proof' on me, to prove to you, I have an English Mastiff, but if you have done no research into the matter, the 'burden of proof' thing is meaningless.



Lately, I've been thinking it must be hard for American Atheists. For me Atheism has always been the norm, I was an Atheist before I even knew what the word meant. What about you?

Hey Leveni…

I’m good…and you?

I don’t have any of the horror stories that some American atheists have to tell. I’m not a convert I’ve never had a belief in God. I come from an open minded family who would rather I believed in God, but it’s never been an issue. I also come from a small town, where religion was a big part of most people’s lives, but don’t think my non-belief was ever held against me (not that I was all that vocal about it when I was younger).

I thought I was with you on your analogy, but to be honest you lost me. I have no idea where you’re going with that…

Maybe you were talking about studying religion. I do enjoy religion as a view on human society, culture or sometimes just a good laugh. A while back I was teasing a couple of believers about the levels of hell and they both astounded me by staring at me blankly and then asking what I was talking about. I realize Dante isn’t required reading for believers, but I thought the idea was at least well known. I’d say I know as much, if not more about religion than the average believer. Knowing more about it makes it easier to disbelieve…lol…

I'm fine.


The 'burden of proof' thing in relation to god, is a kind of problem for me. And every time somebody mentions it, I try and explain it in a different way.


In the example above I'm trying to show you, and myself, that knowledge is necessary on both sides in order for 'burden of proof' to work. For example:

I'm using this as an example because I don't understand it, and I'm hoping you don't understand it also.  

But this is proof that Kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the dot product of velocity of a body and the change of the bodies momentum at a point in time. 


My point in regards to 'burden of proof' is: unless the person explaining the above equations and the person listening to the explanation understand every line of each equation, 'burden of proof' is meaningless. Both sides have to have knowledge of the specific subject before 'burden of proof' can be used. 


Therefore when we say 'the burden of proof' lies with another person, this is true, but, in order for us to understand their explanation, we also need some prior knowledge of the subject at hand.


Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no god. No knowledge of god exists. So the 'burden of proof' thing can never be applied to god. And this is my problem.


But you kind of answered my question anyway. When you talked to the Christians about hell. Except the knowledge about hell should have been the other way around. Oh well. You gotta love them Merican Christians. 




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service