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: 16834

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To call something impossible is to prove a negative which is "impossible". :)
No. Saying something is impossible is not to prove anything. Something impossible is not subject to the proof process. It does not have the necessary qualities to exist and therefore cannot be subject to verification. Or your ridiculous non-verification.
It is impossible for god, any supernatural or divine power to exist; therefore, for 110% there exists no god.

@August: Note, it's easier to follow conversations if you hit the "reply" button directly beneath the comment you are responding to.

Regarding nanotubes:  why would you assume that the scientist hasn't done his homework and studied the forces at work in building such a hypothetical structure?  Even if he ultimately turns out to be wrong (and who knows, such a thing might not even be attempted for hundreds of years), the concept of space elevators is based on scientific method and analysis, not "faith".  The two are not comparable.

August, at least carbon nanotubes have the property of actually existing. It is at least plausible that something impressive could be built out of them. Comparing a nanotube space elevator to the concept of god is ridiculous. And there is a difference between "science" and particular scientific claims. Nobody here thinks that every scientific hypothesis will bear out; we know that science moves forward by correcting its mistakes, which means at the leading edge, science gets things wrong. That's why scientific findings are expressed tentatively.

 

The concept of god is in a different category--it is logically impossible. Thus, it should not be accorded any plausibility whatsoever. There should be no uncertainty about the nonexistence of the logically impossible.

 

And while the concept of god is inherently irrational, nobody here has made the claim that theists are 100% irrational or that atheists can't believe falsehoods. Humans compartmentalize; devout theists can be perfectly rational in nonreligious endeavors. Atheists are just as fallible as anybody else. But that doesn't mean we are wrong when we show the logical impossibility of god. It doesn't even mean that there must be a chance that we are wrong about this claim.

ok i live in japan. japan has many gods. most are rocks and trees.a few are living people, like yokozuna or champion sumo wrestlers. i never say that rocks and trees or yokozuna do not exist. 

of course i understand that you are talking about supernatural beings. supernatural means untestable and non scientific, or un-natural.

August,

Omniscience always means to know everything, as in all there is. It is not just what one person wants to know. And every time someone has knowledge, it is by a singular limited mind. It is always anthropomorphic. Only a singular brain can have knowledge and it can only be about a particular part of the universe. Omniscience, of course, implies sentience. All knowledge, if it is knowledge, comes from a sentient mind, else it is reflex or information, but not knowledge, until it is integrating by a mind via reason and logic. The nature of knowledge is such that it can only be incompletely had by a limited conscious brain.

My posts may sound cold, but that is on purpose. My goal is not to make people feel welcome or happy. It is to work through the concepts, removing contradiction. My goal is to view and challenge other viewpoints to further adapt and/or strengthen my own. I am on the internet for my own selfish reasons. For my own knowledge. And, I must admit, also partially for what I consider posterity. If someone else would like to cater to nice warm feelings over reason, and value tolerance over integrity, then they should do that. And if others can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I don't think it is as hot in the living room.

Calling someone's argument or statement ridiculous, I think, does have a place in debate. It is not as if I called someone's mom fat and then didn't explain why. By, ridiculous, I am stating that it is unreasonable, as in not logical. And as you have seen, I do try and communicate my ideas. I do not simply name call.

I call a spade a spade and I think one of the biggest problem in this world is that not enough people do. They are OK with using whichever definition of words they like and it leads to poor and inaccurate knowledge bases/ worldviews. I take that shit seriously and when I see, I am liable to point it out.

im aware that a negative cannot be proven. in a debate with a believer i do not state im 100% sure there is no god. call me dishonest, i dont care. however, here you are all atheists, so here i can state what i think.  there is no god.

is omniscience a word??  i've heard of omniscient, meaning having all knowledge, but omniscience??

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Omniscience

 

om·nis·cience

   [om-nish-uhns]  Show IPA
noun
1. the quality or state of being omniscient.
2. infinite knowledge.
3. initial capital letter God.
Bwahah. But even capital G-Man isn't omniscient in his own book. :P

 

ty

I like Dan Barker's essay that ends with the answer that a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent all that the same time is "omni-aqueous." ie: All-wet.

I'm not 100% sure that I exist, so I can't say I'm 100% sure of anything else.

COSMOLOGICAL REASONS FOR GODS NONEXISTENCE:

Abstract:

We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:

Quote:

"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:

Quote:

"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

  1. Boundless
  2. Uncontained
  3. Unlimited
  4. Omnipresent
  5. The containing and sustaining of all things
  6. Omniscient
  7. Immaterial

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?

2) If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?

3) If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..

4) If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?

5) If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

6) If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?

7) If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value.

----

So for you theists out there, I = all the information that gives I an identity. The funny part about this is that I is a pseudo conscious fallacy since there is no I in team here. Hence it takes a lot more than a single bit or piece of information to support a conscious state, or much less support the simple instinctual awareness level of a common cockroach. Hence, a
conscious state requires far more cause to exist that a simple house plant, or the rock in your back yard.

So as far as first Cause goes.. Well its not anything with a consciousness ;) It's simply impossible. A conscious entity can not design and create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist, function, think, or require to even know that itself exists.

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, and self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass possible. It's a Universal Set of all Sets that solves infinite regress.

 

Thus since energy and information are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. Energy is the carrier and capacity of information. And so a consciousness is like the image on your computer monitor, it's an emergent property due to the processing of information. If I turn the computer off, or should the computer break.., The image will simply cease to display. Same concept applies to when you die, or when your brain dies. The conscious state simply turns off, or ceases to display. It's that simple to understand in terms of information theory.

 

Hence, Know your ABC's!

This is unarguable:

Energy =/= information =/= cause

This is unarguable:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S:
Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

Atheists won the debate before theists could ever post their first words on the subject.

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