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: 18156

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And once again, you confuse logical possibility with widely held (and not-as-yet-informed) opinion. The Ptolemaic universe was never "true", apart from being a reasonable approximation given the data available. There's nothing inherently illogical about either a static or a dynamic universe. Your weird definition of logic is confusing the hell out of you, Cane. Logic does not simply mean "thought experiment" or "axiom" or "uninformed opinion arrived at solely by thinking".


Actually, Michael is correct. The "static universe" idea never made any sense, given the fact that we could always see things moving around. Why should they stay stuck on the same tracks forever?

Fullerenes were predicted before their discovery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#History.


C-C bonds in diamond do not strike me as planar, though I may not understand the structure properly.


The point is that there is nothing logically contradictory about Fullerenes and our pre-existing knowledge of chemistry. As very large and relatively geometrically simple molecular structures (unlike say, proteins), they would have been considered unlikely, but I fail to understand your assertion that they would have been considered logically impossible. I think you, like Cane, persist in confusing logical impossibility with extreme unlikelihood.


As you say, "simultaneously" is not a good word to use in the context of quantum mechanics (few words are, apparently). But the Copenhagen Interpretation at least seems to suggest that you can get quantum effects to behave like waves or like particles, but not at the same time. It may be entirely a semantic distinction, but I think we could also say that measuring (resolving) a quantum effect forces it to exhibit one or the other behaviors, but not both. Either way, I think my flying car analogy is reasonably apt. I see no logical contradiction in quantum effects, just multiple behaviors. Surprising and weird, but I don't see why they would logically preclude each other.


And logic requires causality. A person's perspective affects that person's understanding, but the logic exists externally to be discovered by anybody. I do not subscribe to the "person creates his own reality" idea.

If you are suggesting that something that has now been verified was actually once impossible, that is crazy!!


Things at the limit of our perception, like EMR, have a nature, they must, but to say that we understand it enough to report knowledge of its nature, other than that it appears to act like a wave when look at it one way and as a particle when we look at it another, is premature, at best.

Do you think Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time?

Hey, just because cognition entails the use of a singular limited mind, does not mean that it can't have objective knowledge. Subjective perceptions become objective when conceptualized. That's how this process of logic and abstraction works. It's the objectification of subjective perceptions into concept and then knowledge by use of reason. It matters not from which angle or perspective I see a chair. I can recognize it from a small piece and know what it is. I obtained objective knowledge of chairs' existence when I was very young, still forming basic 1st order concepts. I used logic to do that. The concept of a chair is the same in China.

Canes ideas start at about page 81. 


In the bottom right hand corner, just after the last posting, of this page there is a text box. Type 81 in the text box. Press Go. This will take you to page 81 of this sub-thread and the beginning of Canes thoughts. 


Please read Canes thoughts from page 81. You don't have to read the replies given to him, just read Canes posts. 


After reading Canes posts, please start anew with your posts in this particular sub-thread.


you could continue to ignore everything Canes has written previously.



When people start floating up into the air during a 'rapture', then I may start to believe. Or I see ghosts, whichever comes first.

If I see people start floating up into the air, I would think aliens are abducting people.


Just kidding!!!!! Just trying to be funny.

Hey, they may get the 'pearly gate' treatment. LOL

BTW, I am being funny, I hope. :P

LOL , you are being funny.
99.9% sure. Based on the evidence available that proves gods exists, of course.
99.9% sure. Based on the evidence available that proves gods exists, of course.
There is evidence that attempts to prove God exists?????
Could you share some of this evidence with me please?
OK, have to stop following now.  Cane you should probably coagulate everything and put it in one post so that I am not getting 15 emails in 3 hours from your replies.  Besides that you lost me about 15 or so pages ago and I just can't keep up.  Have to work...

Hey Michael,

You said; "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."


And I have to agree. But I must point out how I interpret your statements. Identity is concrete when there is evidence of its reality. A definition is concrete only when there is evidence of its reality.


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.


A definition is a description of the characteristics of the thing being defined. If the definition is contrary to what it means to exist in our world, it is merely a wrong description. As far as it being not able to exist, is a logical but unimportant distinction. Saying that an idea, definition, identity, description is impossible is just saying it is incorrect. You may believe something is impossible, but you must also admit it is wrong. To believe something is impossible is not the same thing as proving it is impossible. 


You invoke evidence to prove that an identity of say an apple is real and that the apple exists, but you say that evidence is not necessary to prove that an identity is impossible. I say that scientifically (which requires evidence) there is no way to prove that something is non-existent. No matter how much you search for that identity, nothing says that it couldn't be that if you continued the search a little longer, or in a different way, you would have found the evidence.

Because I required evidence of an idea, I have to concede that I cannot prove a negative. You can prove a negative because you do not require evidence to prove that something is impossible. To me that means the idea that is being considered is wrong, not that an identity is impossible. To have an identity that is real and exists, evidence of it is required. Otherwise it is just an idea. So can an idea be impossible? You can believe it, but you can never really prove it.

Also, are ideas, not proven by evidence, knowledge? I put to you that people thought time was the same throughout reality. That a clock here on Earth would run at the same rate as one placed on the moon. That was logically accepted as true until evidence showed that Einstein's ideas that time rates are variable were in fact real descriptions of the universe. With this story, I want to show that something logically true does not mean it is real. To find something as being real, you need evidence. The idea of time being the same throughout reality is impossible (I call it wrong) because we found the right answer (or maybe just a better description of reality for the time being).

What have we found that would negate the idea of god? We have found a great deal of evidence that does not require a god. That does not negate the idea of god. If we discovered that the universe was created due to a process not yet known, that might negate the idea of God, but so far such a discovery has not been made.

My beliefs are as follows: Knowledge requires evidence, but belief does not require evidence. You have proved to me that you agree with my beliefs, but you say that what I call belief, you call knowledge.








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