The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?

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.

10 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MCT on September 30, 2011 at 4:17am

If I drop a brick directly above my foot, I will move my foot because I have certain knowledge that gravity will act on it, or influence its motion, in a manner to bring it towards my foot with an increase in momentum. And I will also move it because I believe that there is not a sniper hidden in the nearby woods to destroy it on its way down.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cane Kostovski on October 7, 2011 at 4:25am

Could I reword your definition of Faith?

Faith is the belief you reached without evidence.

If you don't mind, I will continue to use belief.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on September 28, 2011 at 8:46am

elink: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05/#feature

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cane Kostovski on September 28, 2011 at 8:55am

The Dr. pasted that article above. It is the same one. Should I assume that you do not agree with me that you cannot prove a negative?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Sogge on September 28, 2011 at 3:30pm

Just providing the source in case anybody wanted to easily pass it on.

I think the discussion is mostly about how important it is to carefully unpack what seem to be 'simple statements.' I find the thesis a generally useful heuristic and, like most rules of them, there will be situations in which it does not apply. Emerson's quote about 'a foolish consistency' comes to mind.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on September 28, 2011 at 3:34pm

There is one (correct) answer. Every single time you flip a coin, barring additional variables, it is 50%. If you ask what are the odds, from the beginning, of the coin coming up tails twice in a row, that is different (25%), but each time, the odds are 50%. What the previous coin toss resulted in cannot possible affect what the next one will be, unless the toss isn't randomized by something like a person throwing it up high and spinning.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on September 28, 2011 at 9:18pm

ego is faith, I like that. The ability to see only I, versus reality! good one :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on September 28, 2011 at 10:04pm

Terrible.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on September 28, 2011 at 10:06pm

It's actually an interesting thought! Only a tremendous ego could possibly think that our perception of being spoken to by some god is "reality". I see it as quite amusing really.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on September 28, 2011 at 10:27pm

Only a tremendous self could think god is reality? I believe you are erroneously attaching arbitrary and negative attributes the concept of self. It is the grouping of cells in our heads, locally, that allows for logic and reason to exist and you are saying that the denial of reality is centered around the thing that makes reason and logic possible.

Unless you are talking about some Freudian shit, or a improperly inflated sense of self.

I see my ability to 'run' my causal mental machinery, as an ego, is what makes me strong and human. And that faith, or willful ignorance, has more to do with surrendering one's reasoning mind to emotion, through god, or turning it away from reality.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on September 28, 2011 at 10:44pm

Inflated egos are a very common feature of modern Homo sapiens. You may indeed disagree with my opinion, but I think inflated egos goes a very long way in explaining religious dogma. It's not something I had previously considered, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on September 29, 2011 at 3:11pm

I will concede that all people, at one time or another, have a limited sense of self-awareness, some more than others, whether over or under inflated, that can lead to error and hubris. This is very far removed from the irrational statement that ego equals faith. Ego is good. Faith is bad. Over or under-inflation of one's sense of self are both bad, but thinking from a distinct identity's point of view is implicit in humanity and the only way one can think. And while our viewpoints are subjective, we can, in fact have contextually valid objective concepts about things and ideas in the world. This is how we form knowledge, by integrating groups of things with similar essential characteristics, while omitting their measurements (concept formation) without contradiction.

When a singular brain opens its eyes, it sees the world, not itself, unless it is looking into a mirror and even then it is picture of that brain's partial self and other parts of reality. It is impossible to see only one's self. In fact, our senses tell us about the world and how we interact with it. It is only after putting lots of things together mentally do we come up with our identity. What are you guys trying to get at? That the ego is mystical. Or selfishness leads to faith? I guess you believe that selfishness is bad?