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: 18056

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well thanks, D R, but I think you're being a bit harsh to Daniel. I have yet to meet anybody who doesn't have a deep-seated need to be right, and there are certainly a number of oddities at the margins of this debate. I don't think those introduce any uncertainty to the question posed, but Daniel does.

The bottom line for me is this: If the concept of god had never arisen in world history until now, and somebody came up to you with all the usual theist arguments, would you a) seriously entertain the notion that there is an undetectable supreme being who created and guides every jot and tittle of the cosmos moment-to-moment, or b) laugh at them and inquire whether they're off their meds.

I submit that the only reason atheists seriously consider the question of whether they are wrong about the existence of God is that people have been taking the idea of God seriously for millennia. It is hard to believe that so many people could be so seriously mistaken, yet that is what the evidence clearly shows. We should not give any deference to obvious delusion. Not even 0.00000001% deference. If stage magicians have taught us anything, it is that 1,000 people in a room can be convinced of what one person in the room knows for certain to be untrue. There is not, in fact, a 0.00000001% chance that the stage magician is performing tricks in violation of the laws of nature.
Yes, Bill, "professional" wrestling is 0.0000001% real. Minimum.*

*Contents packaged by weight, not volume. Some settling may occur during shipping.
"The scientific method is limited to natural phenomenon"

Are there any other sorts of phenomena?
The newest theory is that there never was a time when time did not exist. Bang, bang and band over and other again. Also they are talking about flat membranes that are very close together. Many universes some so close we can see them
"The newest theory is that there never was a time when time did not exist."

I must have missed some recent development then. M-theory is pretty interesting and has been receiving a lot of attention, for brane collisions can explain the origin of the universe, be fused with established cosmological theories yet still do without the tricky singularity lying at the core of the standard Big Bang model itself. However, being no expert, I'm not sure how M-theory deals with the subject of the origin of time. My guess is that in the theorised higher-dimensional bulk of M-theory, time and causality are not quite what we're used to. They might very well behave as weirdly as they do in quantum physics.
As far as I know, even in the multiverse theory different universes may be on adjacent branes and extremely close to each other but still separate from each other and impossible to see. The only force able to travel between branes according to modern string theory might be gravity.
Fred what was the name of the documentary you watched? It also sounds interesting.
I don't know if I buy that answer, it only shifts the burden of the infinite regress issue onto the answer. It seems like your just saying "42".

This goes back to my original question "What limits does science have if any?"

Can science answer the origin question while also resolving the infinite regress issue? I don't view the infinite regression issue to be limited to mysticism, it needs to also be handled by science.
99% sure. The rest knows we were sneezed from a turtle.
I forget, who was it that said "It's turtles . . . all the way down." ? :)
Supposedly a little old lady.

Try googling "Turtles all the way down meaning".
It is the infinite regression problem, as with a claimed belief that the Earth is flat and supported on the back of a turtle, back of a turtle, back of a turtle, . . . ∞



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service