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: 18021

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you were truely interested in conversation you'd have not accused me of not answering the question.

If you were truly interested in conversation, you wouldn't throw childish tantrums when your assertions are illustrated to be nonsense. You'd behave like an adult and soldier on.

I only pointed out that you didn't answer the question because you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Here's another question you did not answer:

"For those of you who say you can never be certain of anything, I'll take a cheap emotional shot:

If your child comes up to you and says, "Mommy/Daddy, are you absolutely certain that you love me?" Do you have to lie to them?"

Joel Potter,

 

I had arguments with both religious and non-religious who are like this - they so desperately want you to agree. They can only work with absolutes.

 

For example, I came back here after being away two years and added my two cents worth - and in less than 24 hours, Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense.

 

It's almost religious Atheism.

 

In my professional life I've been involved in literally of 1000s of ventures, and in none of them, was I ever 100% sure of anything.

 

In some situations I've been pretty confident and in others I've been sure enough to risk my own life, but never, ever was I 100% sure - simply because I always acknowledged I didn't know everything.

 

So maybe Vince and all the other 100 percenters are really smart guys - and they know far better that the rest of us - but I 'm a 50 blond woman so I'll stick to the 99.999% sure there is no god crew - cause I don't know for sure and I'm obviously not so smart.

"...Vince Watkins launches in with this "99.999 % is cowardly agnostic" nonsense."

Willa, it is very tacky of you to put a remark like that in quotes when I never said it. Between Joel quoting me out of context and failing to attribute it to me and you attributing to me what I never said, I can imagine that the two of you might get along splendidly.

You can most certainly believe in a deity without having your thoughts on the subject sufficiently organized or studied as to comprise a theology. Theology is the study or system of study of deity, not the belief in it. Most children believe in God because their parents told them there was a God. "Mama said" is hardly a theology.

 

As for certainty in mathematics, are you absolutely certain that 2+2=4? Do you reserve any iota of doubt?

 

There seems to be a lack of understanding on this thread of logic... that is, of non-contradictory thinking. When an assertion contradicts itself, it is not true and cannot actually exist in reality. For example: is it possible that there exists a pink unicorn that is simultaneously not a pink unicorn?

Your math analogy is nowhere near as convincing or on point as you think it is.  I put two stones in a pile. I add two more; there are four. it is proven that two plus two equals four

 

Not at all comparable to the existence of a being/entity/force defined in such a way that does not lend itself to that kind of proof.

All you need do is put two pink unicorns that are simultaneously not pink unicorns in a pile. Then add two more. Now count them.

Seriously, if one can't propose a coherent assertion, one is not even ready to think about science or math.

Can A = nonA?

Then can a thing exist that is a pink unicorn that is simultaneously not a pink unicorn?

This really isn't that hard, folks.
Jonathan,

Mocking me doesn't make me wrong.

And if you look at the question posed by the title of the thread and the title and nature of this site and the assertion you made to even join this site, I think it obviously has a lot to do with the "over arch" of the discussion and of the point of the entire forum.

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation? Or are you going to spew more ad hominems?

Joel,

I think you're just upset because you can't talk down to me, though you've tried.

DF,

By all means, sir... please point out the flaws. It is insufficient to assert that there exists a flaw without identifying it. Please be so kind as to demonstrate.

If one can't see the flaws in his analogies, one is not even ready to have this conversation.

 

Defined in what way? Beings that cannot be defined or have supernatural qualities do not have the necessary character to be subject to proof and therefore cannot exist. A being defined in such a way as to not lend itself to proof by reduction to perceptual evidence via logic cannot exist. It is proof enough to say that the impossible is impossible. I think that should be self evident and leaving any room for this epistemologically or metaphysically is irrational.

Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god.  Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.

I totally believe in intelligence.
I totally believe in consciousness.
I totally believe in forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear).
I totally believe in energy.

Wow! I'm very excited!

Just one thing... these things are not deities. They don't actually qualify for the job description. I think you need a little more work on your proposal. What else ya got?
Yeah, what VW said. If it cannot be defined, or if it is defined with supernatural abilities or omniscience or omnipotence, or as the creator of all things or based on a metaphor or anything else impossible, it is impossible. For sure. If it subject to causal law, we can study it and demonstrate at least one of its concrete aspects of identity to talk about with knowledge. If you do not agree with this, then you are agnostic, not atheist. Even if you think there is a very very very small chance of God existing, it is greater than zero and you become a minitheist, or barelytheist or nanotheist or infinitesmotheist, but not a nontheist.

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