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

I generally agree with you, except for god being science fiction. God is definitely fantasy, but I would say that things that are science fiction are possible, theoretically. Teleportation, for instance, might be possible in the future. But, invisible pink unicorns or magic are not. An omniscient, omnipotent, acausal, prime moving creator is impossible and not even in the realm of science fiction.
Fair enough. You have convinced me to change my stance, please replace science fiction with fantasy, in the case of God. Sorry for any confusion.
I think I agree. I like to explain it as such; science, logic and reason depend on epistemological concept formation which is a very real causal process, and dependent on identity, causality and noncontradiction. You cannot use the building block of cognition to discredit that which is necessary to think. Science cannot say whether there is a god or not. God is impossible, even before the scientific method comes into play. If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
If god existed, the scientific method wouldn't.
I never thought about it like that, but you are right. Because he could just make a planet appear from nothing, and make Venus habitable by just wishing it so, and he could walk on water etc.

Actually, that strikes me as a very succinct demolition of the idea of god. If miracles were possible, physical laws couldn't be, and vice versa.

Exactly. This whole thing is so damn simple. For something to exist it must have identity. It must be some things and not others, otherwise it would not stand out in reality. For something to be is to have identity. Specific identity. This comes way before science. Science depends on this. Epistemologically, god is impossible, as are contradictions. And some things can be known. This is also epistemological and comes before science. Science depends on this too. For if things could not be known, then technology would be impossible. Skepticism in the absence of contradictory evidence is a waste of time.
So, if physics of this world were different in such a way as to inhibit skepticism and technology, would there also be people who would be prevented from doing these things?
I don't see how physics could be different and I don't see how it could inhibit skepticism or technology. A mind capable of physics must be able to doubt and therefore able to doubt inappropriately, as in many of the skeptics on this thread.

TK may be on to something, but NTK drives along a dangerous path IMHO

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

IMO,

Knowledge can be contextually valid, that is fully integrated into a knowledge base without contradiction, and if it is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, can be certain knowledge. In fact, I think certain knowledge is somewhat redundant. For if it is found, in the future, to be false, then it wasn't knowledge. Example, the heliocentric model. The Earth centered model was not knowledge.

The phrase "idea of god", could that be used as an Identity in philosophy?

Take the statement noncontradiction of an identity makes it real. Do you agree with it?

If so, can I use these words instead to illustrate the meaning of that statement?

A "definition" [Identity arrived at without evidence] is only "true" [real] if it doesn't contradict what it means to exist [noncontradiction].

 

If you agree with my illustration, then you have to see that a definition is not an identity until you have evidence.

 

So using a definition to prove something is "not logical" (to borrow a phrase from Spock)

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