Oliver,
As said before, I am not an expert on logical atomism, however there have been many (Western) philosophers who defined the concepts of “God” and “exists” in such a way as to arrive at the conclusion that God does exist. And there have been many who defined these concepts in such a way as to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Russell (and you?) are obviously of the second kind (I don't count myself a philosopher). It all depends on the world-view presupposition (given by one’s a priori “faith” or “unfaith”) that one starts from. (For instance, it probably follows from your a priori understanding of these two concepts that you compare the question of God’s existence with “ascertaining the reality” of some fictitious creatures that are unrelated to centuries of Western philosophy). The celebrated 1948 Russell-Copleston debate necessarily had to end unresolved thus illustrating the fact that neither of these two approaches can fault the other in the “logic” of their conclusions.

When you say “universe is a closed system and in a sense the notion of "a beginning" does … becomes obsolete”, you apparently hint at the idea of a self-explaining universe (or multiverse) with causal loops or backwards-in-time causation, c.f. P. Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, Allen Lane 2006, p. 301 or James N. Gardner, Biocosm, Inner Ocean 2003, which is a whole book dedicated to this hypothesis. It might “upset many religious (and other naive) apple carts” as did Darwin or Big Bang, but as bizarre as it is, it is still compatible with a belief in God who stands beyond - and gives meaning to - this “causal superloop” (yes, I am not defining “beyond” and “meaning”).

George,

From my perspective, Russell would be wrong to conclude a definite from and an indefinite something. Instead, I would suggest agnosticism, rather than atheism.

Alternatively, the construction warns, be carefeful of the way one uses the word "God," because it is not the same as saying, "Jesus," (atomic). The same goes for the Catholic Church in the use of the word, "Lord".

Because the word "God" does not achieve the standard of proof required of an atomic construction, it does not follow a divine entity does not exist. And this observation comes from a skeptic!

Off-line for a few days.

George,

I try to avoid a priori assumptions. Instead I see competing hypotheses to which one sees probabilities. Herein, I see the probability for the existence of God to be greater than the probabilities of either Zeus or Jesus being God (based on extant knowledge of culture and myth). Also, I see the probability of God not existing to be greater than God existing. Herein, dominant hypothesis and the degraded hypotheses are all tentative. In a word,

I am flexible, unlike many clerics and many geneticists. My view is one should avoid a priori assumptions, rather, we should maintain a tentative position and test what we believe.

In my experience scientists are better than clerics at revealing anomalies in hypotheses/postulations. I am yet to hear a parish priest say, for example, “Jesus was born of a virgin, there are several posits, as to meaning, assuming (a) Mary lived, and, assuming (b) she was a virgin, Mary may have been ‘physically a virgin’, ‘a women (not a crone)’ or ‘engaged to be married’, depending on the interpretation of the word, ‘virgin’. Moreover, if Jesus was of divine birth, the zygote was divinely created, and, therefore, Jesus was not genetically of Joseph or Mary, raising the question, did Jesus require a Placenta”? On the other hand, Johnjoe McFadden, after pages written supporting Darwinian and neoDarwinian evolution, “admits” biochemical pathways do not fit the mould, citing the existence of thirteen step transformations from rebose-5-phosphate to adenosine monophosphate, because there is no evidence of progressive stages.

So, when Science investigates the cause of the world (and the universe) it does with a greater appreciation human falliability than does religion.

O.

p.s. I think there is case a physical virgin was meant given that other religions held this meaning at the time and virgin did not refer to firt centtury Jewish engagements rites. It is more significant the term is used in terms familiar with other alleged divine births of antiquity.

Oliver,
Thanks again, but after all, I think I was right when I said our debate was going in circles.

>>I try to avoid a priori assumptions. Instead I see competing hypotheses to which one sees probabilities. <<
Hypotheses can compete only with respect to criteria accepted by all “competitors”, mostly when the competitors are all specialists in the field of science relevant to the hypotheses. When I spoke of world-view presuppositions (to avoid the more common term “belief systems”) I certainly did not mean scientific hypotheses that can be empirically “verified”, more precisely, whose adequacy to describe these or those phenomena of reality can be decided using scientific methods.

No “logically” coherent system of thought can start without a priori self-evident assumptions (either self-evident for all involved or assumed as such by the adherents of the particular system) that the system can evolve from. In religious language they are called tenets of faith. I quoted already from Sagan or Dawkins’ God-delusion what they states they believe (i.e. what are their “tenets of faith”), and for instance W.V.Quine and J.S. Ulian, certainly no “religionists”, have even a book called “The Web of Belief” (Random House, 1970, 1978).

You use the term “probability” apparently in the same sense as Dawkins. It is a subjective criterion (similar to “evidence” etc.,) - telling me what YOU, or the cultural context you are speaking from, find credible - unless you define and treat it using the rules of mathematical statistics. Dawkins uses probability in a context where this cannot be done.

>>I am yet to hear a parish priest say ...<<
I think this is a misunderstanding of what a parish priest is for. You obviously have problems with (Christian) religious language - as you might know, I prefer the term Christian models of reality - but I do not think a “parish priest” is the right person to ask for help. It is like asking your TV repairman to explain to you Maxwell’s equations.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you.

Dear George,

Thanks for your comments. I will reply in a few days.

Best wishes for Christmas and 2010.

Kind regards,

Oliver