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: 18191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God, as you are describing, defining, him, giving him an identity, that idea of god is being considered even though that identitiy does not exist. That identity should not even be considered.

Identity is not well defined by you, so confusion ultimately comes from that lack of definition, understanding.

I have consistently defined Identity as a definition, but now I will confuse the matter because someone told me that my definition of "definition" is ridiculous. I will post it here:


A "definition" [Identity arrived at without evidence]...


Identity is an idea, a description, a definition that is correct when evidence is found that it exists, and only possible or impossible if evidence has not yet been found for it. Wrong = impossible in my book. In science, you are either wrong or right. Could you say that the wrong conclusion is impossible? Maybe, but I don't think it matters much unless you are trying to determine which question has the best possibility of being right.


I would like to amend my words. Sure you can consider it, but not integrate it without contradiction, because it has no identity that is possible.

Without identity, an idea cannot be integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction. One can certainly try. But if one is intellectually honest, they will recognize and acknowledge that the idea of god, which can have no concrete identity, cannot exist. Sure I am giving the concept of god an identity of omniscience and magic, but those are not compatible with reality, they are not concrete or real identities.

Identity is simply a thing's essential characteristics that make it what it is.

If a thing exists, it has a concrete valid identity. To prove a thing exists, we must have evidence of its identity. But if something, by definition, has only contradictory characteristics for its identity, we do not need evidence of any kind (other than that necessary to build a knowledge base from the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity) to know that it doesn't exist. How could it? How could this .0001% chance that god exists possibly manifest itself? It would negate and destroy the very processes of cognition and science, if it did exist. And since we are cognizant and can do science, there is a zero chance for god, or something that cannot validly or concretely defined, to actually be. You cannot use cognition to demonstrate that the rules of the universe that are necessary for cognition to work are not valid, for this is what skeptics are actually suggesting. Our cognitive process of knowledge acquisition is valid. That's how come we can type complex groups of inter-related concepts on our computers and send them wirelessly across the planet in seconds.

Without essential characteristics, a thing cannot be. You need to have a valid identity to be real. A person does not need to see this essential aspect for it to be possible or real, it only need be reasonable to be possible. To be known, perceptions or conceptions must be integrated without contradiction contextually and hierarchically. God cannot be integrated without contradiction because it does not have an identity that is possible. To positively know something that is possible, we need evidence. To know that the impossible can't happen, we don't.

There were zero definitions 1 billion years ago, but there was plenty of identity. As I tried to explain before, identity is necessary for existence. Definition is done only by intelligent beings (humans are the only beings that I know in this category, maybe some chimps or dolphins too). Existence, or having identity, is done by, or part of, everything in the universe.


As far as the wrong conclusion being possible, I'm not sure. I would say that it is possible for someone to come a to a wrong conclusion, as you are with your certainty of the impossibility of certainty, but if your conclusion is actually wrong, which I know it is, it cannot be. Something is true or false as it compares to the one reality. If I show you that 11+10 is 21, we can know that it is not 35. 35 is the wrong description of 11+10 and cannot exist as the sum of it. If something is wrong, then it does not accurately represent reality. So, if proven to be wrong, then yes, it cannot exist in the way that it is wrong. Showing you that 10+11 is 21 is proof that it is not 35 just like showing you how we form concepts and integrate them in a noncontradictory way to form knowledge is proof that the impossible cannot happen.

You write things that may sound nice to you, but you know what you mean. If you wish people to understand exactly, then you have to look closer at your thoughts, I think. Maybe you meant something else, but what you wrote is that ego applies to everything. If we define ego objectively, there is no ego in a rock. Ego is an attribute of the mind, which is a phenomenon of a brain. Only brains have ego. It is not universal. If you meant that every person has ego, that ego is an attribute of the mind, great, but why would you write that? We are all singular egoistic machines, duh. Or by ego, do you mean that 'selfish' people are mean, but we can't escape it? Being mean is not an essential aspect of selfishness (although 99% of people think so). Definitions of concepts need to include only the essential characteristics. If we are to talk about what really is and what we really know, then we must be literal. We can't use Webster to define words for us. We must define concepts without contradiction, entailing only essential characteristics. Statements like 'the most intelligent are the most open-minded' are silly. Open? This is a terrible metaphor. My mind is not, and your mind should not be, 'open to' or consider with any merit, the possibility that there could be a giant invisible pink unicorn in Abraham Lincoln's underwear right now. You may wish to waste time setting up a scientific experiment to prove that or not, while people with a right, instead of 'open' or 'closed', mind will accept it as impossible for something magical or both invisible and pink to exist. These aren't scientific questions, but we can know they are impossible. If fact they are not scientific questions because we know they are impossible.

Impossible things are definitely untestable.


However, I think it would be possible to have something that is both possible and untestable. Say, the total mass of the earth, circa 1 AD was W.xyz kilograms.


I am not referring to a particular Feynman video. As I suggested before, you can certainly find one yourself.

Sure, if you wish to qualify your thoughts into a valid idea with a proper essential characteristic, i.e., hubris, arrogance, fine, but still don't see any relevant link between me being certain that the impossible cannot happen, you thinking that I am arrogant and that this has something to do with God and faith, when I hail objectivity, reason, causality and noncontradiction. I will amend my philosophical commitment to causality and noncontradiction when another idea changes my entire philosophy as to make more sense as a whole. The way I see it, an objective universe where causality and noncontradiction are universal makes the most sense overall. I believe nothing without it being consistent with natural, not supernatural, law. There is no room for faith in my life. And you calling me arrogant and telling me I have a god complex is quite ad hominem and a demonstration of your weakness, no? Is my ego not actually and appropriately big enough to wax philosophical? Have I not done the requisite reading and consideration? What if I had an advanced degree or two in mathematics and/or physics? Why don't we stick to the material and not the person?

August, Fullerenes have always been logically possible. They were considered physically impossible by many people, perhaps, owing to the seeming difficulty in creating them, but there was obviously no logical reason they couldn't exist, since, in fact, they always have. That particular arrangement of carbon atoms in no way violates the principles of chemical bonding. This example is moot.


Wave-particle duality is a better example, but since wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior are not exhibited simultaneously, this doesn't constitute a logical contradiction. This is like saying flying cars are logically impossible because sometimes they drive and sometimes they fly.


Logic is not dependent on perspective. What a thing looks like is dependent on perspective.

Oh, and you say, "Any hypothesis can be tested with the scientific method." How about this one: Red light and blue light use exactly the same wavelength. Is that testable with the scientific method, or is it just nonsense? (Hint: It's just nonsense.)
I disagree that it is nonsense because it is testable. We can test to see the difference in Blue and Red light.

It is nonsense by definition, because red != blue. Testing is not required, because testing can't possibly produce any other outcome than that red != blue, because they are not equal by definition. You guys are working waaaaaaay too hard if this is how you want to approach things. There is a vast class of things that we need not bother with, because we know for sure up front that we don't need to.


This is different from the case of things being considered extremely unlikely until found. Science is full of surprises. It is not full of contradictions and impossibilities.

I forgot to mention again that in science you can be right or wrong, in logic your idea can be possible, existent, or impossible.
Logically, it was true in the years around 1900 that the universe was static, always been there, and always will be there. Logically possible, but entirely wrong.
Not entirely. The universe, while not static, has always been here and always will. A state of nothingness is not compatible with reason. For 0+0=0 and something cannot come from nothing. Also, a static universe is not logical, unless you mean something else, but the universe is in a continual state of change. Despite what someone might have thought, it has never been logical to have an unchanging universe.




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