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: 18056

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do you include the many non-Abrahamic gods?

  • yes

Does uncertainty exist?

  • Sure, I'm uncertain when I will die but I'm certain that I will.

Is there empirical evidence for either certainty or uncertainty?

  • Well, I'm certain there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any gods. So if you agree that it is a fact that there is a complete lack of empirical evidence for the existence of any gods, than in this case the profound lack of empirical evidence to support the claim of the existence of a god(s) is empirical evidence for the non-existence of said god(s). Really, in the history of mankind, if the best evidence anyone has for the existence of all powerful gods are books written about them by humans, I'll just say that I'm confident in my 100% certainty that there are no gods.

sansdeity, are you channeling MCT?

lol oh you know how to push my buttons! ;)

Is there something wrong with my answers?

I'll parse that paragraph and let you know.

lol alright point taken. I'll try to clarify.

Is there empirical evidence for either certainty or uncertainty?

I would say yes. The statement, "I am certain I will die." is based on empirical evidence. Everyone that has ever lived has died which is a good data sample to base this certainty on.

The statement, "I am uncertain when I will die." is also based on empirical evidence. It posits that I aleady know I will die but am not sure when that will be. Since humans cannot see the future, this is a rational statement.

If we speak in context of the certainty/uncertainty of a god(s):

  • I'm certain there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any gods. This could also be abbreviated to: "There is no empirical evidence for the existence of any gods."
  • The fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any gods is itself empirical evidence for the non-existence of gods.  

It all goes back to burden of proof. The burden of proof for the existence of gods are on the people claiming that they exist. And since the beginning of humanity, the only non-subjective proof provided has been books written by humans about these creatures. And as we all can affirm, books are not empirical evidence of the existence of supernatural beings.

Was going to alter/expound more but I have to head home. Will check back later tonigt. Cheers!

Sansdiety, my mischief making may have splashed stuff on me. While I too am certain I will die and uncertain when, my attempts to design an experiment that will prove the existence of certainty or uncertainty have so far failed.

- - -

In your second point ("The fact that...."), you fell into a trap the supporters of Intelligent Design creationism fall into when they are in court. They try to prove their case by saying the lack of evidence [of an event in evolution] is evidence of a lack [of that event]. The attorneys for evolution take them apart.

- - -

I regularly tell believers they have an awesome burden of proof, and that books written centuries ago by people who knew less than today's grade school children are not proof.

btw, I like your screen name.

Books that argue for the existence of gods are definitely subjective.

The most sensible answer is by Sansdeity.

99.99% there is no god, and the other 0.1% is highly skeptical 

Neill Pash

I always fail to undrestand why anybody retains that 0.001% doubt? Why that small doubt can not be answered? I think that those who come so close to total atheism should make a litttle more mental effort and brcome 100% atheiets.

It's because some atheists are so married to logic that they almost treat it as a religion itself in that it becomes very dogmatic.

Using strict rules of logic, it says no one can be 100% certain of anything. So going by this, some atheists who extoll the virtues of logic, maintain their 99.9% position. For the sole purpose of adhering to the laws of logic.

Where their marriage to logic shows it's cracks is that such a stance creates a slippery slope. If one lives their life in that 99.9% on the basis of not being able to know anything 100%, then they also have to maintain a 99.9% stance to everything: unicorns, leprechauns, cyclops, mermaids, fairies, pixies, zombies, vampires, etc.

However, ask one of these folks if they are 100% sure that unicorns do not exist and they will most likely agree. So how can they maintain 100% certainty for the non-existence of unicorns but not for the existence of gods? The same amount of evidence exists for both: books written about them.

And what's interesting is that this position usually comes up as a result of being asked by a theist. So these atheists will claim a 99.9% stance yet the theists asking these questions often hold a 100% certainty stance about the non-existence of every other god but their own. In an effort to be in such accordance with the rules of logic, the theists certainity goes unchallenged.

Sansdeity

Your answers are always admirable for their logic. This one is no exception. I wish that those who are willing to do away with their uncertainity should take your advise and end it once and for all.

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