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: 18214

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Omniscience is impossible. Not probably, certainly. And if you think that I cannot properly be certain of this, then that is evidence that you don't understand these issues. I know how reality and cognition work well enough to know that I can have knowledge, science helps with this, and that reason is the only path to knowledge. No reason to attack the concept of god? Ridiculous, considering all of the evil in this world perpetrated on behalf of and on the basis of mysticism and other forms of the denial of reality. By any measure, reason and logic have proven wrong what the ancients just made up. And by that same measure, we live our lives, learn more about the world and live or die by our understanding of our world with the knowledge we gain from this process. People who believe in god are willfully ignoring the same process that they would use to verify anything with validity. Everyone knows that feelings are not a sufficient criteria for knowledge. You must check what you think against reason. And the impossible just doesn't cut it. Reason and logic have never made this world worse, only when people don't use them or use them incorrectly does it have a negative effect. People are strong and happy, in the long run, because of their reason, despite their superstition and mysticism. And the scientific method is hardly made up to make someone feel better about their life and death, it is a rigorous method of repeated measurement and verification using reason and logic. How dare you compare it to just making shit up. If you think that plate tectonic isn't a good theory, then you must use reason and logic to show that it isn't. And if you have a problem with someone's opinion about nanotubes, then find out where there science is faulty. Don't blame people who know that god is impossible. Whichever claim is made, it is always reason and logic that must be used to verify it. What vitriol are you referring to? I call what is on this thread a debate about certainty. Sure there are ad hominems, but I don't see lots of mudslinging. Would you prefer everyone just be nice to each other and agree while blowing smoke up each others' asses?

"Humans make up things to explain what they don't understand. That is the same thing as the scientific method."


It is shocking that anybody on Atheist Nexus would make such a claim. August, if you think there's no difference between scientific explanations and religious explanations, what in the world are you doing here? If you don't understand that the attacks on plate tectonics were overcome with evidence and reason, then you don't understand the scientific method. Your comment just insults the intelligence of those who understand and value the scientific method.


Considering how much damage it has done to civilization and to the planet as a whole, there is every reason to attack the concept of god. Again, what in the world are you doing here if you think the concept of god is benign?


As far as I can tell, nobody on this thread is suggesting that science has discovered all there is to discover, or that anybody knows everything, or that theists should be treated disrespectfully. But ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. Ridicule is a perfectly valid and useful tool against the ridiculous. There is a huge difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person. Ideas are absolutely fair game (else debate is stifled), and if people are so emotionally invested in their ideas that they perceive attacks on their ideas as attacks on their person, then the delusion runs pretty damn deep. Even where that is the case, there is no reason to accord any deference whatsoever to ludicrous (or indeed, impossible) concepts. There is reason to have some sympathy for the afflicted, but respecting bad ideas to spare hurt feelings is a recipe for intellectual suicide.

Very well put and accurate.

Science is the best tool we have to give us true descriptions of reality. That tool is by far not infallible, but again it is the best we have. For evidence how good it is, compare the life of a person living in the 1800s and early 1900s to someone today.

You cannot reach the enlightenment we have today with just reason or logic, or should I say it would take many millennia because reason and logic did not prevent us from entering the Dark Ages.

I agree that improper use of anything can be detrimental and should be attacked, but there somethings that should be put in the correct light of science even if it means war. I think getting rid of religion is that important.

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge evidence contrary to his beliefs, is a religious person.


It is impossible to be 100% positive there is not God. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Really? Which hypothesis is that? That it is all-powerful? All-knowing? The creator of all things? Someone who can create miracles? All impossible, 100%. Incompatible with existence.
Science can only test what is real in our universe. It cannot say anything about anything outside our universe. As far as definitions go, if the definition states that something is outside our universe, does not make it contradictory or impossible, just currently out of reach of science. Definitions are usually come to by science. Those definitions come to without science are suspect and worthy of extreme scepticism.

Jesus Cane! Something existing outside existence? Really? Like what? And then wouldn't that also be part of existence?


Definitions are verbal representations of concepts, which are formed way before the scientific method, any way you look at it. Science is nothing more than a measurement and verification tool. It can only tell us about the metaphysical structure of existence. It does not tell us about its own epistemological foundation.

I really must find out more about this epistemology to have you so engrossed with it's beliefs. Belief is a religious endeavour.

Belief in the presence of contradictory evidence or the absence of evidence is religious. I do nothing religious. Nothing.


Yes, you need to learn about epistemology. And epistemology doesn't have beliefs. Proper epistemology is an objective description of the way knowledge is formed. It is not subject to whim or fancy. It is dictated by the nature of this one universe, its causally dependent noncontradictory nature. Maybe if you understood how this process works, you would see we use science to learn about what is here, not to attempt to negate itself by evaluating something that is impossible.


You keep leaving open for some possibility of magic. Why? Will you not at least agree that the impossible is impossible? Or no, because it can't be proven? You really are simply lost on a very simple concept and I'm guessing its because of some prior erroneously integrated concept that you do not recognize or are unwilling to part with. Likely, it stems from you thinking that the universe is not subject to human intelligibility and that underneath the quantum soup lies magic!


And my god, you keep demanding proof! That is showing just how much you don't get this. One more time: proof necessitates reduction by reason and logic to perceptual evidence. God has qualities that are acausal and therefore, one, cannot exist, and two, cannot be subject to proof. Something that, by its nature, cannot be subject to proof or is supernatural, does not exist, lest reason, logic and cognition would be invalid, which since they are the means of validation, makes no sense what-so-ever.

One more time: proof necessitates reduction by reason and logic to perceptual evidence.

I do not understand what that means. Your following explanation, is wanting too. 

Time provides cause and effect in that order. We have causal thinking due to the way the universe is. And saying something is not real because it is acausal due to the definition given it by you, does not mean that your interpretation of your perception is correct. If it takes reason and logic to have a perception, then I might agree with you. But I can have a perception and therefore create a concept without reason and logic. That might make the concept invalid or not, and it will not make the perception correct or incorrect.


I think you are saying that knowledge is what reason and logic caused your perception to become, and that what science tells us has to go through the machinery of reason and logic to form knowledge in our minds. 

Knowledge is outside of our minds. It is the accumulation of evidence. I do not agree with saying that knowledge is achieved by processing the evidence through our reason and logic. I agree with saying that a feeling and belief that something is true is reached when evidence is processed through our reason and logic.

You need concepts to use reason and logic. Concept formation occurs only in the presence of identity. Something must be somethings and not others in order for it to be realized or stand out from something else in reality to be identified. For if something does not have a concrete valid characteristic then it cannot enter the causal chain to be observed, tested or verified. It's not that god hasn't been observed, it's that it cannot be. Things that cannot be observed or reduced to perceptual evidence or that are supernatural are not and cannot be here and proof does not apply.


Perceptions may be mistaken individually, but that is why the process of concept formation and knowledge formation by reason and logic are so great. They minimize our subjectivity. It matters not from what angle I see a chair; I have learned the concept and can recognize it even by seeing a small part of one I have never seen before. So, even though a perception or two might be off here or there, I know very well what a chair is, what its essential characteristics are and what it can be used for. I know that it is a first order concept that is contextually related in a valid noncontradictory manner in respect to other similar first order concepts such as table, couch, bed and dresser and that these first order concepts are related to and integrate well hierarchically with the second order concept of furniture (a different group of first order concepts might be dishwasher, garbage disposal, refrigerator, subsumed under a second order concept of appliances{and then appliances and furniture can be contextually related as both subsumed hierarchically by a third order concept of houseware}). After birth, and for the first couple years of life we are learning how to form concepts and integrate them into a knowledge base as above. Our brains recognize patterns, not through magic or spirit, but through causal interactions of sense organs and the environment and these have an effect on our cortex which translates into reason and logic, evolved to better survive. We survive well because our cortex can most closely mirror the universe around us and, again, it does this by building knowledge from concepts which come from perceptions over time. It is a causal machine, the whole thing. When you look at this whole universe and realize that implicit in its structure contradictions cannot obtain, that leaves cannot freeze and burn at the same time, something cannot be all red and all blue, at the same time, that a balloon filled with helium, if let go, will go up, in this atmosphere, you should see that something that is not part of and inextricably linked to this chain, not only cannot properly be said to exist, but also cannot exist, period. For the definition of existence is to have identity and to have identity, you must be dependent on the causal chain in some way.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Patricia commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
39 minutes ago
Joan Denoo commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
42 minutes ago
Patricia commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Patricia commented on Loren Miller's group Quotations – Momentous, Memorable, Meaningful
1 hour ago
Idaho Spud posted a video

Tim Minchin | "The Good Book" | w/ Lyrics

"The Good Book" by Tim Minchin *All rights to Tim Minchin* Lyrics: Life is like an ocean voyage and our bodies are the ships And without a moral compass we w...
4 hours ago
Loam Gnome commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
4 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quotations – Momentous, Memorable, Meaningful
7 hours ago
Tom Sarbeck replied to Tom Sarbeck's discussion Science As A Personal Journey
13 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service