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: 18186

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Vince: "Now, I think we would do well to continue this trend by not referring to multiple universes, but rather agreeing upon a name for this thing we have previously thought was the totality of the universe."


It is for this reason that I have used the new word "infiniverse". 

Let's call it Scooter!
I call everything that exists as simply put as Existence :)
The concept of God is invalid and contradictory. Contradictions cannot exist. So, yes, I am 100% sure that God does not actually exist.


I don't want to be presumptious, but do want to answer all comments addressed to my mine. Rosemary and ITP, were either of yours so intended?

Before any of you start reading this posted reply, I suggest all of you to read up on information Theory :) I wrote an article on it myself that helps explain it, and you can find it here:

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation.

Thus unfortunately for Christians, their GOD is literally impossible to exist. I can just simply crush the entire concept using just basic information theory. We can just take a moment to address the Fount of Knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

  1. Omniscient
  2. Boundless
  3. Unlimited
  4. Uncontained
  5. The containing and sustaining of all things
  6. Omnipresent

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essence of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1) A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me? If he is uncontained then what separates him from me? If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?.. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist? If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

2) The Christian GOD concept can only ever at best describe existence itself as a whole. You may as well be worshiping yourself.

3) Even solipsism will fail under information theory because consciousness can not exist without cause! Consciousness can not exist without first a base of inquiry that can support it. Thus consciousness requires information, with a system to which has feedback in order to achieve a function of observation.

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information

There are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings. So what are they?


These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value. They are two sides of the same coin! And their 3 fundamental properties/attributes/laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Mathematical equation
Piece of information
Electric Charge
Point of view
Or the relativity of anything above


The Christian GOD is literally Impossible. It can only at best be used as a metaphor for the entire sum total of existence itself! And here is an interesting video that does a very good job of expressing some of my points:


I agree. I didn't learn much science growing up, but I was fortunate enough to go to a Waldorf-style school where we learned about a huge number of polytheistic myths. I think that one needs to hear them all in order to have a well-balanced perspective on the myths of the current era.

I disagree, it depends on what GOD you are talking about. The GOD I addressed can not exist. And regardless, the concept of GOD is pure opinion should some entity actually exist anyways. I don't consider Cows GODS, or even Divine while some might. Burgers with ketchup in my view is no different than a GOD that can't do shit without existence, or information, much less exist at all.

In a world of opinions, an opinion is only relevant to those whom share, or have the opinion. Otherwise they are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a subject such as this.

Why do you assert that a negative cannot be proven? This old myth gets hauled out and makes the rounds as some sort of given, but it simply isn't true. You will often even find people who should no better harping this tired tune... people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins. Some even think it is a law of logic. However, name one single professional logician who believes this. You will not find one because it simply isn't so. One can prove a negative as simply as proving a positive.

Example: There are no live elephants in your ear.

I should think you can prove this either way in short order.

Proving that God doesn't exist is only a little more complex. You see, we have a coherent definition of "live elephant." When I write those letters, you know what I mean. But when you write the letters "GOD," I don't have any idea what you mean. It is just a mystical grunt rather than a word. So, in my effort to prove that God does not exist, I need not do any heavy lifting at all until you can provide a coherent definition for God.

Once that is done, disproving it is child's play.
While most of us atheists have said "there is no god," the assertion is meaningless and requires no proof unless and until one defines "god."

Otherwise, you are simply saying, "there is no 'jittlebogger.'" Until I know what the hell a "jittlebogger" is, I have no work to do. The same with this "God" of which you speak.
One can certainly prove a negative; proving a universal negative is much more difficult and in some cases impossible. It's easy to show there is no cat in this box; impossible under normal circumstances to demonstrate that there are no cats in any boxes, ever, or ever will be.
I've seen cats in boxes, so would not actually take that position. However, even so-called universal negatives can often be disproven, sometimes with logic and semantics alone.
The idea that universal negatives cannot be proven is based on the lack of time and manpower to comb the infinite void. Those wishing to illustrate this point often position their argument in a distant, unreachable place in deep space where the hope is, since you cannot journey there and survey the area, you cannot offer observable evidence. This is seldom necessary.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service