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: 17139

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Since by definition gods exist outside of physical reality, and evidence does not, by definition there can be no verifiable and substantiated evidence of one's existence or non-existence.

Gods have often been claimed to change physical reality in a supernatural way.  That's called a miracle.  A god is thought to be intervening in reality to give a message to a human being. 

However, miracles are thought to happen in a sporadic way, because they are caused by the will of a god. 

It would be difficult to scientifically study miracles because of this.  You couldn't do experiments in a lab to study miracles. 

But, perhaps there could be a truly verifiable miracle anyways. 

Would a verifiable miracle prove the existence of God to you?

Or would you just expand the definition of "natural" to include miracles?

A miracle, by definition, is a supernatural act that ignores, suspends or goes against natural processes. There would be no way to test the validity of a claimed miracle. The many appearances of the Virgin over the centuries would be a particularly cogent case in point. The evidence would be a photograph, but the Virgin seems particularly camera-shy. Most, if not all, reports of the miraculous are anecdotal at best, and, like the healing ministries of a Benny Hinn are outright frauds and lies. The faithful accept the miraculous without doubt, while the faithless give not one any credence. Supernaturalism, by its very definition, is above and beyond nature, and as such cannot be evidenced by anything within the natural world. To include miracles within the "natural" would destroy the very meaning of the word "natural." If a god "changes physical reality" through supernatural means, the change can be measured, and that would be "evidence". But, in order for that evidence to be accorded supportive, it must be verified and substantiated. A mere claim that is has occurred is insufficient to support it.

There would be no way to test the validity of a claimed miracle.

Why do you think that?

If a god "changes physical reality" through supernatural means, the change can be measured, and that would be "evidence". But, in order for that evidence to be accorded supportive, it must be verified and substantiated.

So do you agree that it's possible for a miracle claim to be verified and substantiated?  Can you imagine a miracle claim that could truly be substantiated? 

If such a miracle claim were substantiated, would that prove to you the existence of a supernatural being, or would your definition of "natural" have to expand beyond the physical world as it's currently conceived?

Anything is possible that is conceived by the human mind, but not all things are probable. The problem with a claimed miraculous occurrence is that it is an extraordinary event, and so requires extraordinary evidence, a tall order indeed. I for one am incapable of imagining a miracle that is or was supported by verified and substantiated evidence. Rationally, there exists only the physical, which operates according to the nature of matter and energy in process. The reality of the miraculous, being an occurrence at the agency of some entity above and beyond the human and physicality, would utterly destroy reason as the prime arbiter of reality. While I would submit that such is possible, I cannot conceive of the probability.

A photo would prove virginity? A photo of what? Certainly not that virginity.

Yeah, Paul, I'm spoofing. Sometimes I too explain things too hastily.

Which reminds me of the new girl in my eighth grade class. Her name was Virginia so we called her Virgin for short but not for long.

Luara.....How on earth can a Miracle  be verifiable.....By its  own definition nothing  can explain  a miracle ......One  just  has  to believe....Which  explains  why Non believers totally  disregard  so called  Miracles .   Any verifiable  miracle  wouldn't  actually be  a miracle   after all........

How on earth can a Miracle  be verifiable

Can you think of examples where a miracle might occur, that really was verifiable?  Believers claim miracles all the time, but the trouble is the stories never quite pan out.  Can you imagine a situation where the story would pan out? 

Any verifiable  miracle  wouldn't  actually be  a miracle   after all

How's that?

If a miracle  was  verifiable then  it would be reality and  why  would you call it a miracle?....To be verifiable  you need proof  that something happened  in nature...so therefore what ever  happened  was normal  and not a miracle......

I could never be 100% sure, there are so many things I don't know. But I am 100% that none of the Gods proposed by humans thus far are real. I would say I'm about 95% sure there is no God, simply by the fact that it has never had anything to do with humanity.

There is probably a cockroach.

yes Craig  there probably is  a cockroach...It is verifiable after all......

I deny the existence of gods, but I wonder why so many people here capitalize the g in the word.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service