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: 14472

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God is a human concept. Do bugs or amoebas call us God.
Whoa , I was with you big A until you leaned the the negative about people like myself who abhor  the negative energy put into trying to unbelieve 100%  Give it up,  we make daily life decisons important ones on 51/49 evidence . Life and death decisions on 70/30,  Why do we need 100% on such foolish conjecture as a all,all,all. Man, GOD....bullshit. Why can't "we" who at least know better truck forward in life embracing positve energy, science.  For all the rest of those idiots they belive and don't want to know , they are not going to change until they go or get sent to "no find" thier GGGGOOOOODDDD. 
100% sure no doubt :)

I am 1000% positive that all this gods muck garbage is purely made up rubbish.

It was made up eons ago to keep people subordinate and has evolved into the slaughterous mess that has infected all of our otherwise fantastic planet.

I wish all the godgobbers would hurry up and finish murdering each other into extinction.

Especially the filthy godgobbers who use religion to sexually abuse kids.Which is another part of the gods muck and jehovah jiving jesus junk.

how much more g?d bull shit can our Earth and we take?

100%   their is no G$ds, or a g0d!!!!! 

I admit I have not been following the discussion entirely. I apologize if I'm beating the proverbial deceased equine.


Take the proposition "Black Swans do not exist". Until 1697 when cygnus atratus was discovered in the wilds of Australia on, of all placed, "The Swan River", this was taken to be fact as no Black Swans had ever been observed. In fact it was a proverb for that which was impossible. If you were to take yourself back to 1696 and ask, "Can you prove that Black Swans exist" The answer is no. You can only say "there is no evidence that Black Swans exist" or "I have not been presented with evidence for either the propostion that "all swans are white" or that "black swans do not exist".


You might say, "until I have evidence which I can examine for the existence of Black Swans and submit to the scientific process I will conclude with 100% certainly that no Black Swans exist". That is faulty reasoning and bad scientific method. The best you can conclude in the face of a claim that Black Swans do exist is to say there is no evidence and to ask for that evidence. In the face of a claim that "No Black Swans exist" you can only say there is not yet any evidence for the existence of Black Swans. You cannot conclude with 100% certainty simply because of the lack of evidence that Black Swans do not exist.


In the case of Black Swans, if you asserted with 100% certainty in 1696 that "Black Swans do not exist" you would be made a fool of in 1697.


Now take the proposition, "God does not exist". Unless you can argue that the proposition does not make sense, that there is no possible evidence that would be sufficient to prove the existence of God, you cannot with 100% certainly prove "God does not exist". You cannot with scientific principle and process of with reason prove a negative with 100% certainty.


Scientific method will observe, hypothesize, test and then prove of adjust the hypothesis. Such observation and testing must be available to anyone and results must be reproducible and is subject to review by your peers. Scientific method may also be used to evaluate claims about reality even if the claim is not subject to experimentation. The claim and it's evidence is subject to scrutiny, to the contriving of tests if possible and to review. All evidence must be accessible to your peers.


As a result, as I stated before, I do not think you can categorically with 100% certainly prove, not just claim, but prove God does not or cannot exist unless you can argue that no evidence is possible to prove the claim because of the nature of what you are claiming.


In this vein, as Karl Popper asserts, all claims must be falsifiable. For the theist and especially the Christian this is not the case. That in itself raises questions that the claim is a claim about reality.

As a result, as I stated before, I do not think you can categorically with 100% certainly prove, not just claim, but prove God does not or cannot exist unless you can argue that no evidence is possible to prove the claim because of the nature of what you are claiming.

I agree with Joel. Nicely done. This is exactly my point. Since God is an oxymoronic concept (see earlier posts), there is an impossibility that any evidence will be forthcoming to prove the existence of such an incoherent being and 100% certainty is proper.


I am glad you chose to reply and hope that, whether we find agreement or not, we can continue to get along. I meant my previous posts to be humorous and inciting, but not offensive. And I don't think you meant any malice or confusion in the "misquoting" of the other thread.

Certainly, it is possible for any individual to contrive a definition of God or any other word that would be coherent and existent. I can define God as an internet server or propose a hyper-intelligent alien from another planet with advanced technology.

But in order for words to be effective tools for communication, we have to have some degree of consistency. Consistently, what we mean when we use the word God falls into at least one of three basic assertions:

1. God is the creator of existence.
This is an oxymoronic assertion. If there were ever a time when there was no existence, there would be no God existent to create it. ie. 0 + 0 = 0.

2. God is capable of suspending the natural order at his will. ie, miracles. In the case of a creator God, this is oxymoronic in that he would have necessarily created existence in accordance with his will and any suspension of the natural order would be against his will. A God who did not create existence, but can suspend the natural order at will, ie causing an effect that contradicts reality, is by definition, oxymoronic. Basically, when we break down the word "miracle" we see that it is an oxymoron. Anything that can happen is not a miracle. A miracle is to accomplish not merely the unlikely, but the impossible. Which is, obviously, impossible. Therefore such a God is prima facie impossible.

3. God is omnipotent and omnibenovolent. This God may or may not be oxymoronic based on point 1 but necessarily is based on point 2. Add to that the existence of suffering, and this God is disproven as well as being oxymoronic.

Asserting that someone may redefine God is not the point. As I have asserted, that doesn't actually posit a deity, but merely ascribes a coherent meaning to a word while taking away the properties that make it a deity in the first place.

Hence, there is no God.

Hi Denis Smith,

How are things?


I notice you have mentioned scientific method and God in the same dialogue. I therefore have a question for you, but before I ask you the question I hope you read the following.


Because you have used black swans in your example I will continue to use them in the following dialogue.


After using scientific method all swans would be classified using scientific classification. Scientific classification, like everything in science, is very flexible and can change according to knowledge. For example 300 years ago there were only 2 kingdoms, animal and plant, but today it can be argued there are 6 kingdoms in biological classification.


An integral part of scientific classification is that the it can incorporate anything new. Lets take swans as an example. It is a good example because swans exist in today's world. If you click on the link you will be able to see the scientific classification of swans. You will notice there are several different species of swan. Even though the Black Swan had not been heard of by many people in Europe until 1790, there was in fact room for the existence of the Black swan in Scientific Classification. If you look at swan fossils they can all be classified scientifically. And if a new swan fossil is discovered tomorrow, it will also be able to be classified scientifically. And if a new living species of swan is discovered tomorrow it too can be classified scientifically. The reason for this is because of the way the scientific community has created scientific classification. Every time a new species of swan comes along, it can be classified scientifically, using the scientific method. And this is the strength of scientific classification in conjunction with scientific method. 


To show you the great flexibility of scientific classification, we could even classify unicorns, even though we know they don't exist. My guess would be they belong to the family Equidae. Species Unicornus. We can theoretically classify them because we know what they are supposed to look like.  


I hope I have shown you the power, beauty and simplicity of scientific classification.


You mentioned Karl Popper and I would also like to add something else he said: 

"unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific". 


My question to you is: Are you making the claim that scientific method can be used in regards to God?

change the proposition to "there were no black swans in Europe in 1697."  That example is really only relevant because its an argument from ignorance, not because its trying to prove a negative.  It really only correlates on the surface to the real argument here~ if there is a possibility for the concept of god, there should be something that lends that concept credibility.  These modicums of doubt are taking reasonability to the extreme~ there is no reason that the god claim has any credibility~ every argument for it has been rebuked, it is logically inconsistent, and it therefore resides in the land with every other nonsense idea that never had a leg to stand on.  No doubt.
The issue is that the assertion that "there were no black swans in Europe in 1697" would be correct.  Saying that there were "no black swans at all" would be incorrect, as there were black swans, but they were not in Europe and not at that time.  Can we empirically prove that right now?  I would say yes~ because if through all of the research and excavation that could be done there was NO evidence of them being there, that would be grounds to confirm the claim.  This argument is actually found other places in the scientific community, especially in regards to certain creationist arguments.  Did dinosaurs and humans coexist?  No, they didn't~ all the evidence for both subjects is confined to other times~ but should we leave the answer open because we don't have evidence against the claim?
No, I would not consider that a correct analysis~ it seems to me that I might not be conveying my thoughts as well as I ought, but it also seems that you are deliberately avoiding the point that is being presented.  An idea is not lent any credibility just because there is no direct evidence against it~ it is only lent credibility when there is evidence for it.  Maybe I am misusing the black swan analogy, although it seems to make sense for me; but what I take from your subtle conclusions to my argument is that there certainly is the possibility for winged elephants, fire-breathing fish, and invisible birds~ after all, there are black swans, and we'd hate to be wrong about something else.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service