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: 18612

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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??




   [om-nish-uhns]  Show IPA
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



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.



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

Abstract 1:


"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:


"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
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.

"On the other question - Currently, some professional scientist claim that the nanoscale strength of CNT's can be translated to macro scale engineering feats. It is a near religious belief in something that there is no current proof behind. That comment is related to a series of comments made on various pages on blind acceptance of scientific rigor. Science is often believed even though the evidence is contradictory."

What is blind acceptance of scientific rigour?? The fact that scientific method is rigorous is what makes it work. That's what peer review is all about, not just accepting anything but testing and checking independently to be sure.

When the evidence is contradictory continuing to push a hypothesis takes it out of the realm of science, and reality, into fantasy. If the evidence is contradictory then the science is not there, belief or faith won't change it and refusing to let go of something which has been proved wrong is a sign of insanity.

Proposing possible applications based on knowledge we currently have is nothing like a religious belief. A religious belief has no foundation in fact, it produces nothing of use and does not operate in the material world nor is it affected by logic, reason or new evidence. Proposing that a space elevator could be constructed from carbon nanotubes may be perfectly reasonable, I don't know since I am not up to speed with the research in that arena, but I'm confident enough in the scientific method to accept the possibility is real because it's proposed by people who are based on known properties of a substance which exists.

Science is not true today, wrong tomorrow. That's a false picture created by people who have no knowledge or interest in facts, selling newspapers or gaining followers tend to be high up the list of motivations for misrepresenting reality. Answering one question often raises others but if the science was there yesterday, it will be there tomorrow. Newton's laws of gravity still have value today; they aren't wrong as such, just not adequate to explain later observations. Building CNT elevators into space will be a viable theory up to the moment someone produces good reason why it can't work.

Trying to misrepresent a scientific hypothesis which is amenable to testing in the real world as essentially the same as a religious belief is simply wrong both morally and factually.

Man I dig science!  It is what basically allows all of us to rant and rave right now on the internet via a smart phone or laptop!  How cool is that?  


Oh, by the way... I am not actually 100 percent sure that god does not exist.  All that I can say is that there is a mountain of evidence that does not support his existence and there is no evidence to support his existence.  Cheers.

Thank you.

Debating the existence (or non-existence) of something for which there is not one particle of verifiable evidence is fun...for a while.  But eventually, it's as time-wasting as wearing out the knees saying the rosary or any other chant over and over and over.

I'm in the midst of re-reading The Grass Crown, a novel in a series about the fall of the Roman Republic.  I think it's pertinent to what's going on in the USA right now, so...see y'all later!


The only way to knowledge is by the formation and integration of concepts with the use of noncontradiction and causal law. That is it. If you think that there is another way, then that makes you a mystic, my friend.


The scientific method itself is dependent on causal law and noncontradiction. I'd rather not keep reading from you that science cannot prove things that, if possible, would make science impossible.


Whether something is true or not is as it compares to reality. We can test the truth of real representations, but not imaginary contradictory ones.


And your analogy is not valid. Using your hands and a shovel are two very reasonable ways to dig a whole. Knowledge can only be come by through the noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence. Tack on as many senses as you like, or take a few away, it will still be the same. Identity is inextricably linked to existence and therefore so is causality and noncontradiction. These concepts are fundamental to science. Science is nothing more than the rigorous application of reason and logic in a manner to be standardized so it may be shared, repeated and peer reviewed. Science uses reason and logic; it is incompatible with reason and logic to ask one to use science to evaluate something that, if existed, would falsify the process of verification. The existence of god would negate and invalidate existence itself, identity, reason, logic, noncontradiction, causality and, yes, science. It's just not possible for the impossible to be. That's how come we call that shit impossible.

Knowledge by your definition equates to belief in my definition. Knowledge is 2+2=4, but the belief that it is true is a belief. You can come to a belief of the fact that something exists or doesn't exist, but you cannot ever know with 100% certainty that something exists or does not exist. You deal in belief, I deal with data that tempers my belief.
We can have certain knowledge that 2+2=4, that is what that equation denotes, that it is, in fact, true that if you put two groups of 2 things each together, you get 4, barring any additional variables, every single time. This is knowledge. Belief is what you properly do when there isn't enough information yet. Like, I don't know that I will be alive next week, but I believe I will be. This is a valid belief. My belief rests upon my knowledge of the world and how it works. When one has belief based on emotion, it is likely not valid. And when it is  in direct contradiction to evidence of a causal reality, it is faith. You either have faith or an invalid belief that certainty is impossible, because to know, for sure, that certain knowledge is impossible is a blatant contradiction and cannot be. Really? Doubting that 2+2=4. Has it really come to this?

Would you agree that the statement "Belief is what you properly do when there isn't enough information yet." is the same as saying "Belief is what you properly do when there isn't enough evidence yet."

If you agree, then we are on the same page, if you do not agree, then I purpose that we are at a point where we just have to agree to disagree.


Belief (whether valid or not) is of the religious realm. What makes a belief valid is evidence. Next week, you will have evidence that you are still alive or not. It becomes valid next week, but it does not follow that it is valid now, because without evidence you cannot know whether something is valid or not. If I believe that there are tooth fairies in contrast to believing that you or I will be alive next week, the difference is only in the possibility of it becoming true at any given moment. One is not any more valid than the other, since we rely on previous evidences to apply reason to it, and applying reason, does not prove that something is true.


I know that 2+2=4 as close to certain as I can be. I believe that 2+2=4 with certainty, because belief requires no evidence. Anything not requiring evidence is in the realm of belief or disbelief, and that I contend is a religious endeavour.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service