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: 17986

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You wrote:

I can demonstrate an experiment that is repeatable by anyone and everyone at any time and any place. This experiment proves there is no omnipresent God. Open you eyes and look to your right, your left, in front of you and behind you and up and down. Do this any where and everywhere you go. Never will you ever see God upon doing this. This proves that an omnipresent God does not exist. This experiment is repeatable with the same result every time it is done. And no matter who does it, the result will always be the same. There you go, proof that there is no omnipresent God.

But I can do the same thing and never see or sense radio waves, either. And in the current American atmosphere, I'm pretty sure radio waves are omnipresent!

I remain open to the idea that there are things that we don't yet know for sure exist. And the existence of God is really dependent on your definition of it. There are some things I can say I'm 100% sure of, for example, the non-existence of a God who will not allow a sparrow to fall. The non-existence of a God who uplifts the good and casts down the evil. The non-existence of a God who makes sure OUR football team wins!

I am honestly pessimistic that there will ever be any proof of a God, but I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about. I truly invite believers to try to convince me, but no one has passed the test yet, and I doubt they ever will.

Hi Natalie, how are things?

 

You can sense radio waves. As soon as you turn on your radio you can sense them. This is proof that they exist.

 

The argument I am making is in relation to science and God. Science is only applicable to that which we can sense/observe, by definition. Because nobody has ever sensed/observed God, God is not in the realm of science. He is outside science. He is in the realm of science fiction/fantasy.

 

I am also not so arrogant as to say there is nothing out there that we don't already know about

Again, science can explain everything that can be observed/sensed. If it can not be observed/sensed then it is not in the realm of science.

 

 

 

I generally agree with you, except for god being science fiction. God is definitely fantasy, but I would say that things that are science fiction are possible, theoretically. Teleportation, for instance, might be possible in the future. But, invisible pink unicorns or magic are not. An omniscient, omnipotent, acausal, prime moving creator is impossible and not even in the realm of science fiction.
Fair enough. You have convinced me to change my stance, please replace science fiction with fantasy, in the case of God. Sorry for any confusion.
I think I agree. I like to explain it as such; science, logic and reason depend on epistemological concept formation which is a very real causal process, and dependent on identity, causality and noncontradiction. You cannot use the building block of cognition to discredit that which is necessary to think. Science cannot say whether there is a god or not. God is impossible, even before the scientific method comes into play. If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
I never thought about it like that, but you are right. Because he could just make a planet appear from nothing, and make Venus habitable by just wishing it so, and he could walk on water etc.

Actually, that strikes me as a very succinct demolition of the idea of god. If miracles were possible, physical laws couldn't be, and vice versa.

Exactly. This whole thing is so damn simple. For something to exist it must have identity. It must be some things and not others, otherwise it would not stand out in reality. For something to be is to have identity. Specific identity. This comes way before science. Science depends on this. Epistemologically, god is impossible, as are contradictions. And some things can be known. This is also epistemological and comes before science. Science depends on this too. For if things could not be known, then technology would be impossible. Skepticism in the absence of contradictory evidence is a waste of time.
So, if physics of this world were different in such a way as to inhibit skepticism and technology, would there also be people who would be prevented from doing these things?
I don't see how physics could be different and I don't see how it could inhibit skepticism or technology. A mind capable of physics must be able to doubt and therefore able to doubt inappropriately, as in many of the skeptics on this thread.

TK may be on to something, but NTK drives along a dangerous path IMHO

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

IMO,

Knowledge can be contextually valid, that is fully integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction, and if it is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, can be certain knowledge. In fact, I think certain knowledge is somewhat redundant. For if it is found, in the future, to be false, then it wasn't knowledge. Example, the heliocentric model. The Earth centered model was not knowledge.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service