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: 18023

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why bother with proof? If you have a 100% certainty that there are no god(s), then even the most amazing evidence wouldn't change your mind.

I agree.

I am 100% sure in my non-belief of God. He does not exist, never has, never will. And even if he comes to meet me tomorrow I will still not believe he is God.

If it is not supernatural, if it did not create everything, if it isn't everywhere or all powerful or acausal then what is it? Then why invoke the concept of god?

 

Yes, I think that's one of the problems. What is a god specifically? And why use that term?

When we talk about a god everyone needs to be on the same page about what the term means.

Ask ten people and you'll probably get almost as many answers.

 

I agree that the monotheist position is fundamentally flawed, indeed flat-out wrong. But Dawkins (and others - Hawking?) has also talked about the probability of superior intelligences in the universe that, to all intents and purposes, might be perceived by lesser life forms (such as ourselves) as 'gods'. But then why use the term 'god' because, back to Arthur C Clarke 'magic is only science that we don't yet understand'?

 

Would you agree that there may be superior lifeforms that may be perceived as 'gods' by us, but in fact are just new areas of as yet undiscovered science?

I really don't want get into an 'aliens thing' here at all. I'm just after the principle.

 

"The question should be, do you recognize the nature of reality honestly or not?"

 

Of course, you'd a) need to know how to observe and know that you were observing correctly b) have the ability to recognise the subject c) know what reality was and the nature of it etc etc

 

Sorry I'm not keeping up - I don't know much about some of these theories - they're new to me.

I agree that Buddhism doesn't always recognise the nature of reality correctly. Luckily, it is easy to reject those aspects without affecting the core of Buddhism (for example, you don't have to believe in reincarnation or karma to be a Buddhist - in my experience most don't)

It is not only the monotheistic god of Abraham that is impossible, but any and all gods, supernaturality, metaphor as existent, spirits, souls, miracles, angels, and all nondefinable, magical, mystical, contradictory notions. If it is not some derivation of these or similar ideas, then wtf are you talking about, 'god'? Yeah, sure, I will concede that I cannot know that some idea you have in your head, without knowing a single claimed piece of identity of it's nature, does not exist. I do not know that there are not 14 dogs sitting quietly outside my front door right now, but I do know that Superman is not hovering above my roof eating a golden banana right now. As soon as one attempts to ascribe identity to god, they have failed, for sure.

Ask 100 billion people about god and you'll get 100 billion different invalid accounts of reality. If you invoke god, you are talking about the nonexistent. It is not only the monotheistic god of Abraham that is impossible, but any and all gods, supernaturality, metaphor as existent, spirits, miracles, angels, and all nondefinable, magical, mystical, contradictory notions. An advanced alien species is certainly not irrational. I'm not saying that things cannot appear magical or random. I am saying that they cannot possibly be magical or random. Aaron R's argument, which seems to stem from, 'but what if it's something else?', just doesn't cut it. Holding on to the possibility of god for skepticism's sake.

We do not need to learn how to observe, our senses do that for us. Our brains objectify our subjective perceptions into concepts through logic, the art of noncontradictory identification and reason, the only path to knowledge. Adhering to rationality honestly results in certainty that the supernatural or anything at all representing what humans have referred to as god or mysticism (the idea that we can gain knowledge through additional means other than our ability to reason from our perceptions) is false. We all grasp the concept of identity and causality implicitly, the vast majority of humans however become brainwashed early and deny or cannot articulate their implicit philosophies explicitly. The same people that believe in god and those that keep a special little place in their brain open to the impossible both use the law of noncontradiction and causality to survive, daily.

"The same people that believe in god and those that keep a special little place in their brain open to the impossible both use the law of noncontradiction and causality to survive, daily."

 

I think the point is not that some people (incl atheists) keep a little part of their brain open to the impossible, but that they keep their brain open to the possible that we do not yet know about and not to the silly idea that the current and primitive expressions of 'higher intelligences' may eventually be proven.  I'm sure that being able to converse in the way we are doing now would have been considered impossible in, for example, Greek antiquity. In fact, it probably wouldn't have even been considered at all.

 

Again, it's do with the exact expression that is to be tested by the laws of logic.

 

I disagree. I think it is a blatant disregard for the law of identity and its true implications. You can be certain there is no god and still open to technological discovery and advances in cosmology and physics. We may even meet difficult to understand powerful interdimensional beings, but 2+2 will still be 4 and god will still be 100% impossible. I think what you are suggesting is nothing more than a chair may not be a chair because it depends what people call it. Or that 2+2 could be 5. Useless evasion. You explicitly deny the entire process from perception of identity to concept formation and definition. And of course possible things are possible. I have no problem with the recognition of this fact. It is when people say that there is a greater than zero chance that the impossible and identity-less exist. It shows a lack of understanding of the foundations of reality and fosters mysticism and new age phantasmagoria.

The question posed in the original post asks about certainty of god's non-existence. It does not ask, if we are certain that amazing things won't happen in the future. It specifically asks about god. If you cannot define it, other than giving it contradictory, supernatural qualities, then what do those 3 letters g-o-d represent and is language good for nothing then since it can mean anything at all.

I think what you are suggesting is nothing more than a chair may not be a chair because it depends what people call it. Or that 2+2 could be 5.

 

What about the defining of a mindstate such as 'feeling pride' or 'experiencing beauty' as opposed to a 'tangible object', such as something obvious like whether a chair is a chair? How do the laws of logic prove/deal with these mindstates?

I'm not trying to oppose, I'm just interested. I think it's probably an old theological argument, but I'm not sure how to answer.

 

"language good for nothing"

 

I'm actually in semi-agreement with that. Language is limiting. As William Burroughs proclaimed 'language is a virus'. ;)

And I think Dawkins said the same of cultural information.

Language being good for nothing is preposterous. Shame on you, after all humanity had achieved. If people were willing to define concepts objectively, containing only essential characteristics, we would not have this problem. And what the hell does the manner in which we define emotional states have to do with theology? Happiness is the emotion we feel when our perception of reality matches our wishes. Pride is the kind we feel when our stems from achieving our goals. Beauty is something pleasing to the senses. It's really not tough.

Of course there is a God, for the Bible tells me so!  LOL :)

Mystery? Doubt? Unknowable? Uncertain? Not knowing? Truth? Theories? Error? Question? These are invitations to wonder and not know and move on to new mystery, doubts, and questions, to live in the question, not in the answer.  

 

Feyman says it so much better than I. 

http://youtu.be/QkhBcLk_8f0

http://youtu.be/QeBkMzSLA8w

http://youtu.be/YltEym9H0x4 

http://youtu.be/iMDTcMD6pOw

 

There is no need of god.  Belief and faith in stories of the past, imagined or remembered and repeated generation after generation with accidental or deliberate changes, inspire killing and destroying in the name of god.  

Domination and oppression in the name of some ancient story provide no more evidence than the story remembered verbally or written that results in repetition of the past.  

Stories generate fear in people who have no access to alternatives; individuals self-emulate in the name of some untestable myth.

There are alternatives that offer options and hope and transformative thinking, such as internal wisdom, empowering one to think and act and observe if good or bad consequences occur as a result of realistic, testable, carefully thought out reason.  

Through critical thinking, one can move beyond the attitudes, beliefs, customs, traditions and values based on Bronze Age cultures and imagine a preferred future. Obedience to old ideas maintains and perpetuates the status quo. Imagination becomes a means for human evolution.  

Carl Sagan stated:

http://youtu.be/gXkCgHkbMIg

Forces we don't understand in the universe.......most likely?

Bearded bloke who created the world in a week.....100% certainly not!

:)

 

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