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: 18058

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'll toast to that... might be indeed my new response to many godly conversations. I was already using oxymoronic for freedom of religion conversations, but it certainly applies even better here.
cant help you, im an oxymoron.  um atheist pastor....cant help it, its my RL name
god fearing people will constantly move the definition of god to ensure his non-un-provability, there will never be that kind of evidence, it is impossible by definition.

@Michael Tricoci:  Testable proof of god is oxymoronic.

That depends on how you define god?  Many people simply define god as being untestable by usual verifiable means.

You contradict yourself George. If it is defined as untestable (by reason and logic, for there is no other valid process of testing), then it cannot exist. God, by any and all definitions/descriptions, is either not able to be defined or magic/supernatural, neither of which can be tested, proved or witnessed. If you invoke the concept of god, you are saying that it isn't real; it isn't testable; it lacks concrete identity; it is supernatural, spiritual, impossible, imaginary, contradictory. One essential aspect of god's identity is that there isn't one. Let me make it as simple as it can get: God is oxymoronic, and by definition, cannot exist.

I don't see any contradiction in what I said.  Some people define it as untestable, others do not.

If someone comes up with a test for god, fine, bring it on; obviously I doubt anything will result of it, but I don't see how god is untestable by all definitions.

God has as its most essential characteristic contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist and therefore cannot be verified. Something with a non-verifiable identity cannot exist. You may ask again and again what if someone defines it differently, but you will come up short every time. If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god. If you have some additional characteristic you would like to put forth, then do it and if it is concrete, then it may be real and I bet we already have a term for it. God is already defined as impossible. Mystics and skeptics alike seem to be blind to this.

"If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god."

You just defined god using a specific set of attributes...

Yep. And they are all invalid, not at all compatible with existence. God is not able to be defined by real concrete attributes that could be testable, knowable, perceivable, reasonable, true, real, concrete. God can have no real identity.

I understand now that when you say identity, you mean a definition without logical contradiction. In that light, I agree there cannot be anything supernatural.

But your "test" of identity is not up to the capabilities of science. You may say that science needs philosophy to function, but so far you have not proven it to me.

@Michael: Where you and I disagree is when you say concrete identity, you do not agree that for you to have that concrete identity, you need evidence toward that "idea".
If there is evidence toward a thing with a concrete identity, that's great, it will allow me to describe it better or learn more about it and things that interact with it. You are still hung up on science. Whether or not there is a god has nothing to do with science. A thing with a concrete plausible identity can be subject to science and proof and observation. A thing that is not possible because, among other reasons, it has no concrete identity or characteristics, only contradictory ones, cannot and is not subject to scientific inquiry or proof, for if it was, it would become part of this world, able to be studied and would no longer be magic/imaginary/supernatural/ridiculous. An all-knowing being cannot even get into the game with science, it doesn't have the necessary qualities. Think about it. Do you really think that science has something to say about whether or not the impossible can happen? We so not need science for this. This is a huge problem in today's culture, people thinking that science can ignore the rules of epistemology that it is built of. Being a fan of science does not give one a proper perspective on the ontological aqcuisition of knowledge. Science describes only the nature of metaphysics. Is it that you do not understand why omniscience is impossible? Or why god is no less than necessarily contradictory? That there is no evidence for or against the impossible existing is not a reason to doubt its impossibility. Proof always entails interaction with the causal chain.

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