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: 18189

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree somewhat. There are people who contend that they have found a god, son of god, etc. Do we discount their belief? Or do we try to understand it? If we had a repeatable experiment to prove that the belief in a god comes from a certain chemical , electrical, and/or magnetic configuration of the brain, we can prove that their belief is a manifestation of that configuration. But that knowledge may not change their belief at which point becomes a delusion.
All thoughts are certain patterns of electroneurochemical transmission in the brain. How these patterns are stored during the construction of a knowledge base is what is responsible for a certain belief. It has a lot to do with identity and self-esteem, since, by our structure as humans, we have autonomic nervous systems which guarantee an emotional reaction of some sort with each thought. A completely rational person, obviously, would not believe in god. Our emotions have served us in the past to bring us where we are, but now we can learn to control our emotions and use only reason for knowledge, well those of us that haven't attached our self-esteem to invalid concepts.

In the Star Trek universe, that is similar to Vulcan Philosophy.


I think IMHO that emotions are (for all intents and purposes) "forever" with humans. To deny them is impossible and I will use your statement as support for this statement: "since, by our structure as humans, we have autonomic nervous systems which guarantee an emotional reaction of some sort with each thought."


But you say control, not deny. I think you mean, control our reactions to our own emotions since we cannot suppress them in any meaningful way. We will feel what our biology dictates what we will feel, but we can change what we do when we feel certain things. 


This leads me to what we do as scientists. In spite of our feelings, preconceptions, notions, and anything else that gets in the way, we search for a true understanding of the world around us. We do this search using an unforgiving, self-correcting method. 


Certain people us a different method which I do not trust.


Anyway, all this talk can be wittled down to my original post:

"If you ask me what I know about whether there is a God, I would have to say I can be 99.9999% sure. If you ask me if I believe there is a God, I would say I 100% believe there is no God. 

If you are honest with yourself, and you ask yourself whether you know, according to science you can never really know with 100% certainty because you require evidence and you cannot prove a negative.

But if you ask yourself whether you believe there is a God or not, you can reach 100% because believing requires no evidence."


@Cane: to boil it down even better... as Bill Maher would say, the rule for today is:

In the face of contradictory evidence, you 'know' not... so you 'believe' yeah or neah. When facing zero contradictory evidence, when the evidence is amassed as a Mt Everest on one side, there is nothing to warrant believing that which has no evidence... zero. Big fat zero :)

Cane, "you cannot prove a negative" is a self-negating proposition. It cannot be true without being false. You cannot base a logical position on such a premise.

"There are people who contend that they have found a god, son of god, etc. Do we discount their belief?"


Yes. Call it a delusion or a passionate mistake. Whatever you call it, these people are clearly incorrect, since apart from their internal conviction, their god has no influence on objective reality.


Of course, discounting somebody's delusion/mistake doesn't mean we have to ignore it. Acknowledging a mistake and understanding it are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they go together.

I agree
There is an art. Take the words of another and add meaning to them, then twist that meaning into whatever you want, and behold you have refuted the original words. There are two names to this art: Philosophy and Religion
Yep. I'm sure you and Francis Bacon would have gotten along well, as you have pretty much summarized in your own words that which he also thought.

I have a feeling that was intended as an insult, but going beyond that, can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him? 

Can you refute my claim? Or is my claim bologna? 

After reading your above statement about twisting words around, I assumed you were against such games. I assumed you thought such games were a waste of time. 


I think Francis Bacon also thought such games were a waste of time.


I assumed the both of you thought such games were a waste of time and that such games amounted to nothing.


And this is why I wrote the above.


Can you refute my claim?

I asked you before to give me a real life example of 'a negative that can not be proven'. You have not provided me with one. If you provide me with one, we can go from there.


can you provide the arguments that Bacon's contemporaries used to refute him?

In regards to science, Bacon never made any real scientific claims. Therefore there were no claims to refute. What he did was, collect information and use it to try and find the true nature of things. He tried to give an example of how to find the true nature of things by observing the real world, and not just relying on ones own thoughts and the thoughts of others in our collective past.


I have a feeling that was intended as an insult

Never did I ever have such an intention. Having now read all your posts, in your debate, mainly with Micheal Tricoci, it is my understanding that you have a philosophical mind set. I have no such mind set, I try to base everything I think on what I deem to exist in the real world. 


If you feel I have insulted you then maybe it comes from the difference between our mind sets. 


I am an atheist because there is no God. A provable fact. Albeit, an unscientific provable fact. 

What do you mean you don't have a philosophical mind set? It seems to me that you are are opining on the subject of epistemology when you say that atheism is a non-scientific provable fact, which I happen to agree with. I think philosophy gets a bad rap because so many people hold to principles arbitrarily (not in accordance with reality). I think philosophy is a critical study of thought, which very few people do with intellectual honesty, instead of a hodgepodge of mystical and skeptical derangements. I think basing everything you think on what you deem to exist in the real world is an ideal foundation for a proper philosophical mind.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service