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: 17839

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's good Aaron; you and I really agree that there is 0% chance of some god having set the Universe in motion.
I view the whole world, i.e the Universe, as being wholly natural and devoid of any supernatural influences, and that this is the natural state of things.  
Those others on our Earthbound world who, in their simplicity, want to invent gods are the ones introducing fictions, and therefore they are the ones required to be the bearers of any proof for supernaturalism.  
seems racist and hijacking thing called 'god' is on the minds of many; shux the USA just sent support to Africa against the 'lords army' or some crazed thing... rapists etc.


We don't have to have any awareness of an entity for it to exist otherwise it's existence would be dependent on our thoughts. How many people know that I exist? Does their knowledge or lack of knowledge affect my existence? If someone's knowledge affects my existence, then that means I exist/ed. Or am I thinking about this all wrong?


Philosophy can get really tangled up, backwards, etc. My ideas don't make things true or false. Maybe I made up something in my mind. Maybe the universe IS god. I don't think that would be a meaningful understanding to have personally. If something IS everything, then saying that god is the universe is the same as saying something like this: everything is everything. It doesn't explain anything.


Here's a wonderful Sagan quote: In many cultures, the customary answer is that a God or Gods created the Universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question, where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed?

it's impossible to be 100% sure of anything in our crazy mixed up world, but I can say that i'm at least 99% sure

How can you believe or not believe in something that has NO firm definition?

Whenever a believer is challenged with compelling facts or logic or philosophical reasoning etc etc, they will just change the definition of "God"

My Favorite is the "We will NEVER be able to understand the "awesomeness of god's reasoning" stance.

Me I knew it was hooey in 1st grade when I had to leave my favorite class (Art) to trek 6 blocks to listen to nuns tell me stories about their fave superhero,, but they took my Hulk comic book away from me!!



I am 99% sure that anyone who thinks they can prove something absolutely is deluding themselves. One certainly could feel sure about something, but one cannot prove anything (except their own existence, and that they can only prove to their self).


How could one possibly go about proving the non-existence of God. The very notion of God defies proof; is not even something that can be subjected to the scientific method, thereby rendering the word proof moot in discussions of God. Theology is all about faith, not proof. I suppose if you defined God as 'that which cannot exist,' then you could know for sure that God doesn't, but that's probably the only way.

John: You write "The very notion of God defies proof".


It follows that you would also say

"the very notion of the flying spaghetti monster defies proof".


Yet we indisputably know that the FSM is a fiction conjured up in the human brain.

What you overlook is that 'God' is simply another fiction conjured up in some palaeolithic brain tens of thousands of years ago and then copied as a virus from brain to brain until we reach the billions of gullible believers today. 




I am 100% certain there is no god or gods.  Just like I'm 100% sure there is no Santa or tooth fairy.  How can I be 100% certain?  Because the premise of magical, invisible people like Santa or Scientology Thetans or Hindu multi-armed creatures or water walking Jewish zombies or any of the rest of them is just plain stupid.

Karl; you have made exactly the right point.

I agree that we can go for 100% positivity with high confidence.

And that is because those people who are settling for less---the 99 percenters etc---are only leaving the way open for the possibility of supernaturalism.

There is no possibility of any supernaturalism, magic or woo-woo in our Universe which is already entirely explicable by the known laws of science---to which may yet be added any further laws that our scientific descendants may discover in the future. 



Kudos to you Drake for replying. 


Why do people seem to have so much trouble with the simple process of proving a negative? Is it cultural confusion relating to the issue that you can only demonstrate positive statements?
I have no problem with proving negatives. It's the particular proof/example you gave that doesn't make sense to me. 
For the sake of simplicity, I'll do the carbon 11 equations later.
It's not particularly hard to prove a negative using logical exclusion. There's a long thread on it in the Philosophy forum, but here's the short version: "All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges." The only significant difference is that positive statements allow single-property analysis while negative statements require at least two-property analysis.

In your later statements you mis-applied the process of logical exclusion. The constraint here is on the properties, not the subject, so recognizing that net values are positive XOR negative does not imply that electrons are similarly so. However, if you determine the net charge of an electron as negative, the possibility of the net value being positive is conclusively excluded. A "positive electron" is never considered in this line of logic.


Property (1): {Positive  Negative, Null}

Identity (A): {Negative, Null}

Relationship: (1) = (A)

1. {A|Negative} -> {1|Negative}

2. {1|Negative} excludes {1|Positive}

(only provides new info if (A) has multiple properties)

In the properties, It should be {Positive, negative, null, both(positive and Negative)}. According to Xor in computer programming. And therefore Logical exclusion also, I assume.
In computer programming, if you get the Xor function wrong, you will get a wrong result somewhere along the line. If you get the Xor function right, you never get a wrong result. And this is what makes me so sure I am correct in my interpretation of logical exclusion.
The identity? Surely, identity should include two properties that exist. Negative and positive. Null or both are not allowed to come into play, in the world of logical exclusion.
Scientific evidence is predicated on the assumption that what we perceive via the senses actually exists, so it cannot be used to prove its own axioms.
If this quote is your opinion, then your above example proves nothing. Because, you have set the axioms of identity yourself to prove your own opinion. 
I do not think Identity should be {Negative,Null} I think Identity here should be {Negative,positive}.
So you need to explain to the forum why you have put Identity as {Negative,Null}

"In the properties, It should be {Positive, negative, null, both}"


I would explicitly reject the conception of "Both" because it represents a non-exclusive value (which cannot produce unique solutions) into an exclusive logical schema (which presumes a unique fundamental solution, though it may not be attainable). If you are suggesting "Both" because of the quantum phenomena of super-posed states (where quantum computers can take a "fuzzy" {1 and 0} as a value), I would instead describe that as a physical manifestation of an indeterminate {Null} value, which is supported by the instability of this state (interaction causes it to collapse by 'evaluating' the value). 


Also, identities may only contain positive properties. However, networks may express (rather than contain) positive, negative, or null states. For example, current may flow either as electrons moving (positive) or electron gaps moving (negative), though charge is a positive property with +/- directionality.


"Scientific evidence is predicated on the assumption that what we perceive via the senses actually exists, so it cannot be used to prove its own axioms."


This is not opinion, it is simple fact as stated in the very basics of the scientific principles. The pursuit of science is based on (among others) the assumption that the universe exists as an objective reality which is governed by immutable behavioral laws. This is combined with the basic principle of argumentative logic that circular thinking is fallacious to produce the above statement.


And my argument was towards {Null} as a state. That would make the array {Positive, Null, Negative}, so the line you picked was showing the possible states given the refutation of the Positive in the previous step of acquiring negative proof. Honestly, the argument of Null isn't central to that line of argument, but it's inclusion is educating and useful for explaining why single-property analysis can only produce indeterminate answers for negative statements.



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