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: 18538

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am 100 percent sure I believe there is no god until they can give undeniable proof of the existence of a god I will continue looking to science and reason for my answers

EXACTLY!  I forget who said it, but ALL religions are about political power.  Period.

Well put Jimmy.

The form of the question seems to be asking about one's subjective probability that no god exists. In that case there is no right or wrong answer—the probability is simply whatever your opinion says.

The notion of subjective probability has never appealed to me because it's not mathematical at all—I'm a frequentist and frequentistic probability can have nothing to say on this question.

However, in this case there is another objection to putting the question this way: it assumes that the statement God exists is a clear statement about the state of things and as a non-cognitivist, I can't agree. It's like asking someone's subjective probability that a horse whose name begins with T will win a horse race within the continental United States in the next three weeks. In other words, it's unanswerable because it's so ill-defined.

As I understand what you are saying, probability has no meaning because it depends on one's opinion. Opinion is subjective and one person's god is another person's dog. 

Furthermore, in the statement "god exists" there is no specification of which god. Hundreds if not thousands of gods exist.


Not quite. There has always been a philosophical controversy over the meaning of probability. Subjective probability is defined as degree of belief rather than frequency of occurence. Frank Ramsey called it the logic of partial belief. It is connected with Bayesian probability, which has enjoyed a revival in recent years.

Ordinary objective probability is what you think of in coin tosses, dice throws, etc. and is what has proved most useful in science. Subjective probability is more useful in economics where knowledge is less certain to begin with and may change as you proceed and acquire new information. It is connected with the theory of games in the obvious way—in many games players are forced to make choices based on what they know at any given point and as the game progresses, they may acquire new information that shifts their subjective probabilities. Neither frequentist nor subjective probability make any sense to me in the discussion of the existence of God.

Alvin Plantinga has given an argument that he thinks defeats naturalism, based on probabilities that he cannot calculate, but estimates as high or low. He estimates that the probability of non-theistic evolution producting reliable cognitive faculties is very small and that consequently anyone who believes in naturalism and evolution must conclude that his belief is naturally unreliable. Hence evolution, to produce reliable cognition must be guided by God.

Plantinga thinks this argument is quite clever and has put it forth in all its glory in a book, Naturalism Defeated. Many philosophers have responded, criticizing the argument, resulting in another book, Naturalism Defeated? I don't think much of the argument myself—life, humanity, and intelligence may be judged to be improbable a priori, but improbable things happen: improbable does not mean impossible, and since these are conditional probabilities, further information may shift them.

Since other mammals, especially the great apes, have demonstrated cognitive and reasoning abilities (and the using AMESLAN as an acquired language as a means to express themselves), I don't see why any thinking person would doubt the natural evolution of intelligence.

IMO the fascinating experiments with Washoe and Koko, and many others, have demonstrated that they are NOT stupid, they just don't have the physical apparatus for speech.

I have also watched cats and dogs thinking things through, and solving whatever problem is facing them.  And they show a remarkable ability to understand human speech....and some even try to answer back.  (Several cats that I've lived with could say my name...the two I have now can't.  Or won't.  And a Weimaraner I used to baby-sit thought/hoped that if she could walk upright on her hind legs, she would also be able to speak.  She certainly tried!)

Then there was Alex, the African grey parrot who could identify objects and count...he was NOT just repeating what he had heard.

I haven't done justice to Plantinga's argument which is against the reliability of our cognitive faculties to decide questions such as the existence of the supernatural. He argues that evolution is aimed at survivability and reproduction, not at cognitive reliability. Reliability of our ability to think abstract thoughts offers no evolutionary advantage that he can see and hence the probability that it has evolved must be very small. To believe in both naturalism and evolution requires a low estimate of human cognitive faculties.

In other terms, he concludes that the probability P(R|N&E) of reliability R, given naturalism N and Evolution E is extremely low. His claim is that this is a "defeater" for naturalism, and what's more, a "defeater" that cannot be defeated itself by any other argument.

One good counter argument is that reliable cognitive faculties are indeed advantageous from an evolutionary viewpoint, that they enhance chances of individual survival and reproduction. Reliably knowing where predators lie in wait or what plants are poisonous seems a clear advantage.

There are other good arguments as well. Evolution has often produced faculties that serve its immediate purpose, but which may be successfully used for other purposes.

Plantinga's argument is found in the final chapter of his book, Warrant and Proper Function and the counter arguments of eleven philosophers with Plantinga's response are found in the book Naturalism Defeated? The articles vary in quality, but like much philosophical writing, the authors waste a lot of time trying to connect with their own special subfields.

(Plantinga's original article is a chapter in his book, not a book in itself as I previously stated.)

I am 100% sure there is no (Christian) God, since God possesses too many internal self-contradictions to logically exist. As for other gods, I think it's a moot question. I've yet to hear any rational arguments for gods in general and no specific definitions for these alleged gods.

No god exists or can exist for the same reason why the Christian god does not erxist. Joan is very right in asking her question.

Madhukar, It is very nice to see your posts. Thank you for your kind remark. 

I m 200% sure that is no god




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service