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: 18034

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

You said: "Concept formation occurs only in the presence of identity."

I say, you cannot have identity without evidence of the identity.

You say: "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."

I say, you cannot accomplish this without evidence of an identity.

We keep going round and round. Neither one can convince the other. We keep repeating the same things, but not getting through.

I think your ideas are valid as far as belief goes, but other than that, I do not see that your ideas can be supported without evidence and the scientific method. Reaching conclusions without science is only belief, no matter how close it comes to reality. To be able to determine one thing causes another is very important, but it cannot prove anything. That something is acausal, by definition is not real,  leads us to the concept that it cannot be tested by science. Therefore those types of concepts are beyond the reach of science for the time being. Those concepts and definitions cannot prove that something acausal is anything. You just define something acausal as being impossible. If it doesn't belong to our reality, science cannot for now give us evidence of it. If you define impossible as not compatible with our current reality, then maybe I agree.


I think you are saying that if something is contrary to what it means to exist, then it is impossible. It cannot exist. 

I say that you cannot prove something doesn't exist, because you can never get evidence of its identity to prove that something like it doesn't exist. You can form a belief from the lack of evidence, but that is all.

I am sorry. I quit for the day. Maybe tomorrow I will have it in me to argue further, if you feel that we can make headway. I keep repeating myself and you keep repeating your self and neither hears the other.
You must think I am closed minded about your teachings. On the contrary, I am open to any proof you have of the validity of the conclusions you come to using philosophy. I have not seen anything that can be called proof. I have the belief that if there is no proof, then I should be sceptical. All you have offered so far is rules and definitions. Those are not proof to me, and from your posts, I gather that you believe that no proof is necessary. I must disagree vehemently.

I have given plenty of proof. You simply misunderstand the concept. Proof necessitates a causal chain. God reportedly doesn't. The two are mutually exclusive. The first is a part of reality we use for surviving and the second is a fairy tale. 2+2=4, for sure. Without adding something else in there, there is nothing else 2+2 could be, ever, even on another planet far far away.


And one does not prove that the basics of proof are valid through science, it is an epistemological concept. If reason and logic weren't first epistemologically valid, science wouldn't work. And you want me to prove that the process of validation is valid, otherwise you are going to stick to science, which depends on this process.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" someone once said.
So, he was talking about miracles. Not the obvious impossibility of god.
Carl Sagan.
To call something impossible is to prove a negative which is "impossible". :)
No. Saying something is impossible is not to prove anything. Something impossible is not subject to the proof process. It does not have the necessary qualities to exist and therefore cannot be subject to verification. Or your ridiculous non-verification.
It is impossible for god, any supernatural or divine power to exist; therefore, for 110% there exists no god.



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