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: 17841

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Drake,

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).

Well, I guess the properties of the logical-exclusion I know and the properties of the logical-exclusion you know are different. The 1 and 0 don't have to be a one and a zero. They can be any two choices. Eg: in relation to cars. You ask somebody if they want a Toyota or a Ford. There are four logical answers they can give. They might answer by saying neither car, a Toyota car, a Ford car or both cars. Four options. But in the world of logical-exclusion, they would only be permitted two options. A Toyota car or a Ford car. They would not be allowed to have both cars, nor would they be allowed to have neither car. Logical exclusion demands they make a choice between the two cars only.


Also, identities may only contain positive properties. However, networks mayexpress (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.

Drake, we are talking about logical-exclusion. But if you would like to put the above statement into a logical-exclusion expression, I like to see it.


with 'electron gap', do you mean electron-hole?


"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.

I'm not arguing whether or not science uses its own axioms. I'm asking you to apply the logic you use, for stating why science can not be used to prove its own axioms, to your own statements. When you tried to prove a negative, you have come up with your own properties, your own Identities, and your own relationship in order to prove your own axiom.


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.

We are talking about logical-exclusion. What you are trying to do is change the way logical-exclusion works. You are trying to prove a negative, that's fine. But, you are trying to force logical-exclusion to prove that negative. But this is not what logical exclusion is about. Logical-exclusion is about forcing a choice between one of two choices. But proving a negative has nothing to do with choice.

"You ask somebody if they want a Toyota or a Ford. There are four logical answers they can give. They might answer by saying neither car, a Toyota car, a Ford car or both cars."


That question is mischaracterized. A better question would be, "Is this car a Toyota?" Only one property is considered here and it has a strict value. The answers are {Toyota, Not Toyota, No Markings}. Your "both" would be "Toyota but Not Toyota at the same time", a natural paradox.


The problem with your original question is that it misleadingly presented a plural question as a singular statement. What we're really looking at there is an array of logical binaries, one for each positive property under consideration. So your question was actually based on {[Ford, Not Ford, No Brand],[Toyota, Not Toyota, No Brand]} which allowed your output of neither/Ford/Toyota/both from {-P,-P}/{P,-P}/{-P,P}/{P,P} but you still missed the option {Null,Null} (or just {Null}) which indicates that a brand determination is inapplicable to those conditions ("I don't care about brands").


Logical exclusion is an easily reached concept when you apply a XOR criteria to a set of positive properties where the result of one logical binary ("This is a Toyota car") can be used to exclude other positive properties ("This is a Not Ford car"). In this case the undifferentiated Null value (both properties are brands) allows for a direct solution, but more generally {A} implies {Null, -B} when {A} XOR {B}.


Errata: Electron hole was the right term, yes. It was demonstrating a property of identities (that an electron hole can only 'exist' within a network), so it's not a direct component of the exclusion arguments. 


"I'm asking you to apply the logic you use, for stating why science can not be used to prove its own axioms, to your own statements."


"Proving a negative" is not an axiom here, but rather a logical demonstration. None of the components used in the process require the assumption that negatives are provable. I'm not attempting circularity here so there's no issue with it.


"What you are trying to do is change the way logical-exclusion works."


Nope. My point of argument (Null) has no effect on the viability of this logical demonstration. It's only effect is in single-property analysis where a refutation of {P} implies {Null, -P} inconclusively, thus providing no new information by exclusion. In the case of multiple-property analysis, the entire demonstration would still stand without the inclusion of {Null} values. 


So what exactly in the demonstration of proving a negative do you find so incompatible with your prior thinking? It's a basic proof combining logical binaries with a XOR constraint, neither of which are novel or fuzzy concepts. Is the issue here the cultural myth of "You can't prove a negative!" which arises from confusion about single-property and multiple-property analyses? Or is it something else?  

I absolutely don't care. Goddess or god or not, it has nothing to do with my life. Sorry you all have to think about it! I don't.

Further to my statement made 16 hours ago, I here rephrase it another way---keeping it short and sweet: 

Is the Universe explicable by science or not?

If yes, then we are saying that we are 100% sure there is no god. That is where I stand. No creator god or gods.

Those who hesitate (the 99 % doubters and all the other non-100 percenters) are admitting the possibility of some unknown supernatural cause. That is anti-scientific, anti-natural.

Yes, the Universe is entirely capable of being fully explained by the findings of physics and rules of mathematics that are known to us. 






I am 100% sure that sky fairies are fictitious....more or less ;-)  ...although a little more sure rather then less it has to be said!

Thing is if there is a god then even the 99% ers are in deep doo doo...so might as well be judged by a psychotic cretin for something I have done to the absolute rather then something not quite!


At least that has an integrity factor of sorts methinks

As the non-existence of a god cannot be proven, I cannot estimate a probability of the non-existence, not even with 99.9x, no matter, how many 9s are represented by the x.

But I can estimate the probability of the existence of a god at 0.0x1, where x is any high number of 0s.    Such a low probability allows me to relax and ignore that tiny 1 at the end of the number and behave as if the probability were simply 0.  

In my opinion, There is no god. However opinions vary, Some might say they  believe there is enough evidence to support, others may say there isn't a god at all. 

'Some might say they  believe there is enough evidence to support'


But most lie because they have to....the rest are functionally rationally mentally challenged ....just sayin'

is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?   -Epicurus

God is an unfalsifiable concept. If there is a god, he does a lousy job of revealing himself to the people he supposedly holds accountable for not believing. I believe that god most probably does not exist, and that belief in one relies on the confirmation bias, herd mentality, indoctrination, and/or labeling things god without being able to demonstrate that they are.

Atheists are supposed to have full trust in science. There were atheists when there was no science to support atheism and so their justification for their atheism was weak. Today, hardly any athiest will not take the support of science to justify his atheism. I arrived at atheism by a process of loggical thinking but my beiefs later on have so strongly supported by science that I now wholly take the support of science to support my atheism.

The age old religious philosophies are based only on two main concepts, viz. god and soul. If we believe that science has unravelled the mysteries of how life emerged on this planet and how the uniververse was formed, then the first question arises in my mind is, " If the so called god of supernatural powers is not the creater of the universe and of the life on earth, then what is he there for? What is he doing?" The most obvious answer is that he is not required. I understand that Stephen Hawking also has recently said that no god is required for creating the universe. So, Enistein, Hawking,Darwin and co. have already found the answer for the question for gods existance.

Another support for this comes from deliberating the old concept of 'soul'. There is enough proof to show that the idea of the soul was conceived by imaginative philosophers because they did not know the function of heart. If one goes in a little more details, one can easily ascertain this. This therefore demolishes not only the concept of the soul but also of rebirth, heaven, hell etc. So, a little knowledge of science and full belief in it is more than adequate to demolish th conceot of god and religion simultaneously.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I do have trouble with the phrase, "lack the belief in any gods."  I don't feel a lack, like when I lack water;  I see no evidence of any god even as I am filled with wonder when I look into another's eyes or see the sunrise, or look at stars and constellations and planets with and without a telescope.  Seeing Hubble photos of deep space with all that energy and infinity, I get goosebumps knowing I am created of the stuff of stars, that I have all my senses to experience life, that I exist to participate in life, that differences matter and are not to be avoided or discounted.  


Sometimes, when chaos seems to overwhelm me, I realize there is order to existence. When people preach or teach dogma, or "received" knowledge, or values that make no sense to me I have the right ... NO ... the obligation to speak up, not because I am right but because I perceive things differently.  Sure, I am open to hearing something new or explore different points of view.  But when I answer the doorbell to Mormons or Seven Day Adventists I never hear anything new or worthy of hearing again.  They are pests! Intruders! Kind of like dogs spreading their fecal matter all over the neighborhood, unwelcome, unwanted, and uninvited!



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