Let's get rid of "probably doesn't exist" theory

[wadaye]

Surely this topic has been covered so many times. But there's no (plausible) theory for gods existence. Why then do atheists subscribe to the "Probably doesn't exist" theory, without any plausible thesis whatsoever? In fact all the evidence points to no God. Therefore as certainly as there is evolution, there is no God.

[the PC apeman]

Surely this topic has been covered so many times. But there's no (plausible) theory for gods existence. Why then do atheists subscribe to the "Probably doesn't exist" theory, without any plausible thesis whatsoever? In fact all the evidence points to no God. Therefore as certainly as there is evolution, there is no God.

Because many of us appreciate and adopt the scientific mindset which holds all conclusions to be provisional. The moment you declare something fully certain you are saying it cannot be questioned - that there cannot possibly be future evidence or discovery to challenge your answer. The moment you do that, you have established dogma.

[John_Geeshu]

+1

[hackenslash]

Bingo!

[tytalus]

Yep, what PC Apeman said. I will leave the assertions to the theists. From a practical standpoint, there is no real difference in how I live based on 'there probably is no god' vs. 'there is no god'. I operate as if there were no such thing, since no such concept has been shown to exist.

[Virphen]

The other beauty of it is that theists so often cannot get their head around the concept of an absence of belief, that merely describing the idea puts them totally off their stride.

[Grant_UK]

Surely this topic has been covered so many times. But there's no (plausible) theory for gods existence. Why then do atheists subscribe to the "Probably doesn't exist" theory, without any plausible thesis whatsoever? In fact all the evidence points to no God. Therefore as certainly as there is evolution, there is no God.

Because you cannot prove a negative and it's therefore intellectually honest to include 'probably' in your conclusion to reflect that fact. To state categorically that there is no god is as much of a faith claim as stating that there is one. Even though the current data set tends to support that hypothesis, we cannot justify such a claim because we cannot claim to know everything that there is to no, which would enable us to conclude that there is no god or gods.

Cheers - Grant

[Northpole]

Surely this topic has been covered so many times. But there's no (plausible) theory for gods existence. Why then do atheists subscribe to the "Probably doesn't exist" theory, without any plausible thesis whatsoever? In fact all the evidence points to no God. Therefore as certainly as there is evolution, there is no God.

Because many of us appreciate and adopt the scientific mindset which holds all conclusions to be provisional. The moment you declare something fully certain you are saying it cannot be questioned - that there cannot possibly be future evidence or discovery to challenge your answer. The moment you do that, you have established dogma.

Pretty much this.

It doesn't make it any less frustrating when the defenders of religion think that scientists unwillingness to apply 100% confidence to their theories places science at the same level as religion. Argueable many religious people will place their ideas above those of science because they are 100% confident in their beliefs regardless of a lack of evidence.

[cursuswalker]

Surely this topic has been covered so many times. But there's no (plausible) theory for gods existence. Why then do atheists subscribe to the "Probably doesn't exist" theory, without any plausible thesis whatsoever? In fact all the evidence points to no God. Therefore as certainly as there is evolution, there is no God.

Because many of us appreciate and adopt the scientific mindset which holds all conclusions to be provisional. The moment you declare something fully certain you are saying it cannot be questioned - that there cannot possibly be future evidence or discovery to challenge your answer. The moment you do that, you have established dogma.

^^^
This

[Tokamak]

EVERYTHING in science is probable or improbable to some extend.The problem with this is that, just like the word 'theory', 'probable' means something completely different in the common usage of the word. If you take the scientifically correctness out of it you just get 'god does not exist'.

And next to 'god probably doesn't exist' we can also say 'it's probably impossible that god can exist' which is more powerful.