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: 14633

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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




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)

Facepalm. Cane, logically possible and real are not equivalent. True and real are not equivalent. Your definition of "definition" is ridiculous on its face, considering that plenty of definitions are backed by or arrived at by evidence, but noncontradiction alone does not confer existence. Where are you getting this crap? You are either trolling or seriously muddled, and since you refuse to listen to people who try to unmuddle you, I'm inclined to think you're trolling.

I cannot get any philosopher to nail down what they are talking about. I ask for a definition, I get a novel. I am trying to make it simple, but that offended you. 

From your reply, I take it you do not agree with the statement "noncontradiction of an identity makes it real". What statement would reflect the idea of "making something real and that it exists in the logical world"?

I take it Identity is logically possible, but not real (does not exist). Or sometimes Identity exists and sometimes Identity doesn't exist, but is possible. Identity (when it exists) requires evidence, but when it is only possible (when logically arrived at) it doesn't exist.

So, "Identity arrived at without evidence" is ridiculous. Can it also be defined as possible or existing?

"noncontradiction alone does not confer existence"

Again I ask for a one or two sentence statement that conveys the entire idea of "making something real and that it exists in the logical world"?


No, Cane, you cannot accept the simple assertions that we are giving you. When we expand on them, you complain that we are writing novels. Here it is one last time, as brief as I can make it. I hope it squeezes thru the aperture available.


Logical contradiction proves impossibility of existence, no evidence required. Period. How could it possibly be otherwise in a comprehensible universe?


Logical noncontradiction is necessary, but not sufficient, to prove existence. Evidence is required to prove existence. Something that is logically consistent may or may not exist, but you have no reason to believe that it does until you find evidence.


As an example, fictional characters may be logically consistent, but they are not real.


As another example, extraterrestrials certainly could exist, and given the fact that we exist, they almost certainly do, but until we find evidence of them, the jury is out.


As a further example, logically inconsistent things like gods cannot exist. It isn't surprising that there isn't any evidence for them, since they are logically impossible. If you think you've found evidence for a god, you need to look for a better explanation, because it's not possible. Of course, it just so happens that we've always found a better explanation than gods throughout human history. Again, no surprise.


Stop confusing yourself by conflating real with true, and possible with extant. And stop insisting on further explanation for things that have already been explained. And look up the definition of things, rather than relying on your own home-brewed ones. Your definition of "belief" for example is at odds with Webster and common usage. And definitely look up the definition of "necessary" and "sufficient", since your misunderstandings seem to hinge primarily on a confusion regarding those two.

Are you sure that you cannot be certain?
I like that! Can I use it?
In the context under discussion surely you cannot be sure that you cannot be certain.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service