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

If the available evidence (let alone proof!) leaned 50-50 "either for, or against" as you say, you'd be deciding based on rationality. Problem is, up to date, everything (100%) of things ever studied have demonstrated natural cause and nothing (0%) all all things studied have shown supernatural cause... not exactly a 50-50 situation is it? If the question being asked was a completely new one that researchers had never before considered, and society was looking its very first studies, then we have reason to be "open minded" about it... but people have been "studying" this "controversy" for a over a thousand years... and the evidence fails to show up... that's a 100% fail.

100% positive if you round it to the nearest integer.


Exactly my feeling!!

Am I ever so arrogant as to say I know anything that hasn't been proven to be false but very unlikely, is 100%...nope.  I'm basing my opinion on the information at hand, and that information overwhelmingly tells me that there is no god.  If there were evidence discovered to the contrary, I would have to change my mind, but until then, I'm not loosing sleep over this question.  I don't deal in absolutes, and quite frankly, I'm not sure that's a good way to be.  I accept as fact, that, that has been proven via Science and Math, and I'm open to anything it may prove in the future.  I'm not willing to tell anyone I'm a 100% positive without that type of proof, only what I  believe based on the facts at hand.  Truth is relative I guess.  Not always rational for sure, but rationality is something I wish more people counted on.  To me it's highly more likely there is no god based on the information I've seen, and that is what I'm comfortable believing.  

I don't think it's a bad thing to be 100% sure, just as long as you admit your mistake if proven wrong.


I have an idea of the world that seems quite logical to me, and there's no room for divinity, ghosts, or green furry marshmallow men that walk around at night hiding my car keys.

So I am 100% sure they do not exist. (but this doesn't stop me from being open-minded)


If someone were to show me proof of one's existence, or a compelling reason to believe in one's existence. Then I'd be happy to turn around and modify my world-view so that nocturnal green car-key-hiding marshmallow men have a place in it...

though it would be quite awkward... me having no car keys...

You can never really prove a negative.  However, there are some concepts so ridiculous you really don't have to disprove them.  One of those silly concepts is magical, invisible people or creatures.  Most children as they mature shed their emotional need for imaginary friends, Santa Claus and the like.  Reason takes over.  Kids realize one person from the North Pole can't deliver gifts to all the children of the world in one night.  Some less rational individuals simple substitute one magical person for another, let's say Jesus.  In so doing they have substituted a belief that believing in one magical person will get you presents for a belief that believing in another magical person will get you ever lasting life at a destination resort in the sky.  Just like we don't have to 100 percent disprove Santa Clause we don't have to 100percent disprove Jesus or any other magical deity

Both Johan Fruh and Karl Fuchs have put the case simply and to the point. 

This is why, fundamentally, I have supported the !00% positive level so positively. 

I am 100% positive that a being, or set of beings, the way the Christians say god is (all-knowing, etc) cannot logically exist.  It's possible, in my opinion, that there are intelligent people "out there" that have higher technology than we do at the present time.  This does not make them gods, by any stretch.  Just smarter than we are.
I am 100% certain that every god that is currently worshipped on the face of the earth does not exist.  100% certain, not a shadow or sliver of any kind of doubt what so ever.  That said, I am not 100% certain that some kind of god does not exist somewhere but I have seen zero evidence to support such an entity and until I do I will politely decline to believe in such a thing.  So put me in the 99.999999....... category.

1. 100% certainty is a straw man argument generally used against atheists.  An atheist no more has to be 100% certain of god's nonexistence than a theist needs to be 100% certain.   There are very few things that a thinking person can be 100% certain about, and there is a degree of agnosticism in any endeavor.

2. Another problem with this question is the issue of Theological noncognitivism. The noun "god" doesn't have a single clear definition, and many of the definitions tend to be incoherent, contradictory or obviously made-up.  

3. Even if there were an entity somewhere that looks like what we think of as a god, the question still remains, why call it god?  What type of phenomenon would actually deserve that title, with all the ramifications?  (An interesting set of characters from the Star Trek series were the Q and the Q Collective.  These were aliens who, for all intents and purposes, could be labeled gods - but clearly were not.)

Hello George,

your point 1. got me thinking about something..

Isn't a person who isn't completely certain about god's existence, techincally an agnostic? Even if he is leaning towards the non-existent possiblity.


I always thought that atheism was affirming the non-existence of god. And you can't really affirm it, without being 100% sure.

The strawman, in my opinion, is the percentages that are very close to 100%, without quite being 100%. It's a way of reminding that we are only human and can be wrong about our certitudes. While virtuous and very atheistic (I've never met a religious person saying he is 99.99% sure god exists), being 100% certain doesn't stop you from admitting a possibility of error.


Certitude comes in absolutes. You cannot be partly certain of something.. that would be, by definition, uncertain. Only if you were uncertain, could you be leaning for an argument in percentages.

So the question is.... are you 0.1% uncertain of god's existence? ;) I know I'm not :).



"Isn't a person who isn't completely certain about god's existence, techincally an agnostic?"

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.  One can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.   I  like this diagram which illustrates the spectrum of theistic belief:


Not depicted in this diagram is the fact that the gnostic-agnostic axis is a scale which represents degrees of certainty in either direction.  Richard Dawkins placed himself at a 6 out of 7 on his own Scale of Theistic Probability, meaning "de facto atheist".  


"...being 100% certain doesn't stop you from admitting a possibility of error."

I'm pretty sure admitting the possibility of error indicates less than 100% certainty.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service