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: 18034

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@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.

How do you test whether something is impossible? By definition? Here is what I have to say about definition:

I tried explaining this to you earlier. Our brains are pattern recognition machines that group perceptions into concepts based on the laws of causality and noncontradiction. Integrating these concepts by reason and logic is the only path to knowledge, which is both contextually and hierarchically valid (if it is knowledge). Things do only what is in their nature to do based on their structure and momentum. There is no way around this. Your favorite thing in the world, science, is dependent on this. So, when asked to test if a concept is possible, I would attempt to integrate it into my knowledge base. But even before I can come up with an hypothesis to test empirically, I come across the very simple idea that the concept of god does not integrate without contradiction. In fact, it very plainly and obviously does not. You cannot test empirically what has no empiric nature. Any possible definition of god includes supernatural acausal contradictory qualities. For something to be perceived, conceived and integrated or told about and reduced to perceptual evidence, it would have to be causal, have particular limited qualities, for one, and two, it cannot have logically contradictory qualities, since I know that the causal nature of reality is necessary for concept formation from identity to begin with.


A definition is simply the phoneme we give to denote a particular concept. Valid concepts are ones with concrete plausible characteristics. Invalid concepts, which cannot exist, are ones without. A proper definition includes only essentials.

I appreciate your effort to educate me, but here is what my feeble understanding of your words comes out to be. It is an analogy. We humans have hands and the only way to truly dig is to use our hands, but using a tool like a shovel now that's good and all, but it is not the essence of digging.

Do you understand my analogy? Your study of how people perceive and how they form concepts should be and is a scientific endeavour. This tool we call science has something to say about everything in existence, including how us animals form concepts.


Our five senses are our only way of interacting with the world. What our senses deliver to our brains is used by our brains to form ideas, concepts, and feelings about those ideas and concepts. 


Can our 5 senses be augmented for better perception? If we end up with better perception, would not that mean our concepts are better formed? Does the formation of those concepts depend on "laws" (rules imposed by humans without the improved perceptions)? 


I agree that the laws and rules of logic and philosophy are useful, but I do not believe that they by themselves can prove or disprove anything. I think that they can only affect the belief of whether something is true or not. And the belief of something is a religious endeavour.


mohammad???? what are you doin there??
I'm 100,000 % sure and I'm 99.9 % sure you'll learn from this:
Thank you sir (or mam). I learned a great deal. The worst thing I learned is that people can erase what happened in the past at will thereby not having to learn from the past.
hmm... she was raised secular and "found god" in her early teens. Makes me wonder.
thanks, it was very interesting
I am absolutely positive that the ridiculous, morally-challenged God depicted in the bible does not exist, for the same reason that I am sure that Santa Claus and Cthulhu are not real. God, Thor, Zeus, Allah, etc.,...all made-up by self-important humans with the preposterous idea that our tiny little planet on the outskirts of a run-of-the-mill galaxy of among billions of others is somehow the reason for it all.
I agree



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