marmalade

I don't think God can be figured out through probabilities. Precisely what data could be used to figure out the statistical probability? Using probability to refer to God is meaningless or else it translates into a subjective value judgment.

In reality, you don't need to advance any hypothesis, but obviously it is helpful to advance a hypothesis on occasion. So, when would it be helpful to advance the hypothesis of God? My answer is when you've had a non-rational experience that can't be explained in any other manner. This doesn't prove the hypothesis, but it might cause you to take the hypothesis more seriously. However, if you've never had a visionary or spiritual experience, then the hypothesis of God is nothing other than a meaningless conjecture.

Unless I observed a dwarf or God in my car engine, I wouldn't randomly advance this as a hypothesis. If I did observe something that fit the description of a dwarf or of a specific god, then I would advance several hypotheses and explore the matter further. It might turn out that there is a dwarf in my engine, but he is only there because he was trying to fix my engine. It would certainly be rude of me not to believe in him when he was trying to help me out.

Absolutely. But I have read a lot of postigs here stating that atheism is some kind of religion. I think it's because of misunderstanding of what atheism really is.
The absence of God is a necessary premise for rationality, not a belief. [/quote]

Which postings here have referred to atheism as a religion?

Could you rationally explain why the absence of God is a necessary premise for rationality?

(I was talking to God the other day, and he said watching us humans makes him have severe doubts about rationality all together.)

romansh

Hi renderator
take a look at the following link
I thought it was interesting to see different points of view regarding definitions ... until it got derailed a bit

spakoini notch ..... or words to that effect

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

renderator

Atheism is not believing in any deity. The assumption that there is nothing except matter in the Universe.

If I don't smoke cigarettes, it does not mean that I smoke the absence of cigarettes.
The same way - If I don't believe in God, it does not mean that I believe that God does not exist.

The absence of God is just a necessity to be rational. One cannot prove anything without having taken this premise. Because if God exists, any miricle is possible and you can be sure in absolutely nothing, you even cannot be sure that Newton's Law works right now as ever, because you cannot garantee, that God has not changed the law right in this moment.

Atheism is just a necessity to be rational, that's why science has to be atheistic. But science is not religion. The same way atheism is not also.

Yes, I know it. But what does it mean? Can I find an agnostic Christian, for example?

So what's the difference between God and leprechauns? Why is God better to exist than leprechauns? I can see no difference between them. Both are the product of imagination.
By the way Santa Claus is a Christian saint, so he is as real as God for Christians.

Vinterland

Then please from making future false generalisations.
Renderator has madea good observation by pointing out one of the assumptions that everything is based on. In all thought processes, atheist and theist, one finds that there is at some point at where illogic prevails. It is what both faith and science are based on.

No science is not atheistic, nor should it be. Any conclusions drawn from observations do not lend credence to any particular belief or lack of. Science consists of explaining natural phenomena, and God is something science as of now, can not explain.

Perhaps you can, but'm sure they're an obscure bunch.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to substantiate your claim that God is a product of the imagination. You must have something solid other than your opinion. Honestly, there isn't much of a difference between God and a Leprechaun.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

marmalade

I suppose that might be a common assumption amongst those claiming the title of atheist, but this is an agnostic forum. The assumptions of those attracted towards agnosticism are probably more varied. The common meaning of agnosticism is simply the willingness to question what a person thinks they know. For most people, terms such as atheism and agnosticism are more mental attitudes than clearly defined philosophies.

Apparently, that is your definition of a theistic God, but that isn't the only possible definition. Besides absolute constraint of deism, there are varying degrees of constraint to God's power that even many monotheists will agree to.

I can't see why an agnostic has to be either a theist or an atheist. This is an overly simplistic binary choice that hardly covers the many possible philosophies and theologies.

By the way, you can find people claiming to be agnostic Christians even on a forum like this. If you want to know how such a creature is possible, then just ask them.

The difference is that there is tons of complex thinking about theology and comparative mythology in relation to the monotheistic God, but leprechauns are mostly an ancient folk belief that few intellectuals have given much thought to. As for Santa Claus, even most Christians don't believe in him.

renderator

So if you advance the hypothesis of God or a dwarf in your engine, you will stop advancing any other hypotheses any more, because you cannot verify them.

atheist-section

If God exists and influences this world, all your prooves become invalid, because any miricle becomes possible.
In fact you have to accept some limitations to be rational in advance before you begin thinking rationally.

1)the world around you is objective (exists independently of your consciousness).
2) there is no supernatural things influencing the object you want to investigate
3)miricles are impossible
...
etc.

If you dont accept all these premises, you cannot be sure that for example microscope you look through at bacteria is a microscope in fact. It can be absolutely anything in a mysterious way. So all the result of your investigation becomes invalid too. You can garantee absolutely nothing.


If you have accepted the hypothesis of God, then you cannot garantee that it was God you talked to, because if God exists any miricle is possible.

marmalade

Its not unusual for people to use the common useage definitions of atheism and agnosticism on this forum. Its not a false generalization because the common useage is what most people mean by these words. The defintion of "weak atheism" is the exception to the rule of what most people mean by atheism.

As for a related example, renderator is using the term "theism" in one of its common useages. Obviously, there are many subtle theological distinctions and variations within the broad general category of theism, but I generally understand what renderator is meaning by his use of the word. I wouldn't expect renderator to give me the precise academic philosophical label for his view on theism. I more or less understand him in the context of the thread.

Anyways, I was only using the term "atheism" in a general sense because renderator seemed to be doing so.

Which observation of renderator's do you mean?

The best test of science is its being practical, ie its research being repeatable, its conclusions leading to predictions, and its application in technology. Really, it doesn't matter if a scientific theory is philosophically true in some ultimate sense. I'm sure given enough time every scientific theory will be proven wrong or grossly inadequate.

Personally, rationality is a question of whether something is useful in some manner? Of course, verification with evidence and coherence with logic are two things I find useful.

renderator

The thing is you cannot. Before you start any experiment, you have to be sure that there is no any supernatural objects influencing the experiment. You have to accept that the experiment is not your illusion, the reality is objective etc. You can never prove that it is so. So you just have to accept all these limitations or your experiment will mean absolutely nothing.

Any proof begins with the words "Let us assume that miricles are impossible, then..."

The fact is that there they are at the bottom of the garden, but every time you try to find them they quickly hides, so you will never see them, because they are very very quick and clever. How can you disprove it? You have no chance to.

all the best

marmalade

No. My advancing one hypothesis doesn't stop me from advancing many other hypotheses. If I can't figure any way to verify or disprove a hypothesis, then I'd probably either get bored or frustrated with it. I wouldn't feel like I had to discard it, but I'd probably stop worrying about it... until further evidence presented itself. If a hypothesis goes no where, then its not very useful and not worth my time.

I don't think anyone in that thread was seriously advocating atheism as a religion, but correct me if you think I'm wrong.

I like this statement. That is a useful way to think of rationality. The difficult part is figuring out which accepted/assumed limitations are rational or else lead to rational methodologies and conclusions.

To clarify things, what do you mean by "rationality"?

These premises aren't the only possible rational limitations that one could assume.

I realize that. I only made my comment about God because I thought his hypothetical position would make a humorous counterpoint.

renderator

Just a minute. Explain me please how can you make an experiment without having accepted that there is no supernatural things nearby?
For a example.
You say that a physical body, you are using in your experiment weights 5 kg. I say that "No, it weights 3kg in fact, but those extra 2kg that the scales show is the influence of a supernatural object". You tell me "No it weights 5 kg because the scales show that it weights 5kg and there is no supernatural objects around". I say "OK, prove me that it is really so and there is no supernatural objects"

But you can't! You have no methods to test it.

Then it is not God, because God is supernatural. It means you have no way to prove Him in any way.

The same way. I would like to see the evidence that Leprechaun is not a product of the imagination. What's the difference?