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: 18003

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It was a gratuitous comment. Sorry.
We can't be 100% sure there is no god - there will always be things outside of our ability to observe and measure (and anyway, it's impossible to prove a negative). But based on observations of the real world, where there is no evidence of any supernatural being's existence or interference with the real world, I think we can safely say that the chances of there being a god greatly approach zero - and can be taken as being equal to zero for all intents and purposes.
It's not particularly hard to prove a negative using logical exclusion. There's a long thread on it in the Philosophy forum, but here's the short version: "All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges." The only significant difference is that positive statements allow single-property analysis while negative statements require at least two-property analysis.

If you find an electron with a positive charge, you will re-classify it as a proton.  I have--you read it here first--discovered a new subatomic particle which I am tentatively calling a quarkerino because it has properties of both quarks and neutrinos.  Prove to me it doesn't exist.

 

The problem is not single-property or multiple-property analysis, but unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural and the miraculous.  Nearly everyone in the world (we atheists are a smallish bunch) believes in both.  Even many people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god believe in ghosts and fairies and such.  Prove they don't exist.  Then we can move on to Russell's tea pot.

 

Craig

It sounds like the real issue is what I'd call null statements of the form "X is conceptually possible but physically unsubstantiated." These kind of statements are a necessary stopgap between expectations and actualization, but they are relentlessly misunderstood by most arguers.

 

Null statements can be refuted by the simple recognition that they are empty claims, so they have no bearing on anything physical and they have no power over other ideas. They are nothing more than floated expectations until a positive or negative statement can be made. Intellectually, null statements are like prehensile tails or inactive DNA; it's just refuse that gets carried along in the wake of living things. 

 

Despite the obvious issue that your quarkerino can be refuted by logical contradiction, it has the same fundamental problem as ghosts and fairies and such: they don't have any noticeable impact whatsoever on the rest of the (non-believing) world, so they're simply irrelevant to everyone else. The ultimate demise of null statements is obscurity.

Which pretty much brings us back to my original assertion that you can't prove a negative - unless you change definitions or play silly word games. So, to say "there is no god" is a negative statement that can't be proven or disproven, unless you look everywhere in the universe (I'm limiting the applicable zone to reality). However, the statement "there is a god" is relatively easy to prove. Just show evidence of any god at work in the real world. Any evidence.

Hi Len,

It can be proven there is no Omnipresent God.

Just look in front of you, to the left of you and to the right of you, behind you, up and down. You will not see him. You can do this experiment at home or in the office, in America or Saudi Arabia. And at any time. You will never see the omnipresent God.

For me this is proof there is no Omnipresent God.

 

But he's invisible - and he's standing right next to that invisible pink unicorn there ;-)
hehe

There are many things that exist and are not detectable by the normal senses, like radio waves or neutrinos. (Neutrinos are pretty much omnipresent)

If a god existed, I wonder if there is any argument that a god-detector could be invented.

Someone, somewhere, in prehistory was the first to invent the baloney idea that purporting there was a god could explain a lot of things that were not otherwise understood.

Billions of people have accepted the baloney ever since. This does not make the baloney god any more believable than before. In fact no more believable than the many other fictional story inventions like pink unicorns and Russell's orbiting teapot.

That is why I cannot accept the baloney god idea, even to the level of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

The proof, apparently, is that we exist. If there was no god to create us, we would not exist. but then the kind of person who is ready to accept this as true is not the kind of person who will listen to logic, science or any other kind of truth that doesn't come from their bible. 

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service