Oliver,

You are confused. Discussing that which has precedents, Atlantis (Cities do exist), gold message plates (Gold and plates do exist) etc and tying that up with the god concept with no precedents is, as I have stated, irrational.

David

Oliver,

The post you're quoting there was someone else, on an entirely different thread, not me... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6887&page=0#103745

David,

Didn't think I would have an other chance to post today: Bound be reach a post limit soon:

Teapots do exist, generically. Physically exist. My comment was aimed at Russell in that regard. If my example is inappropriate on the grounds you stated, so was his. Someone from 3952 might find Voyager and its goldplate. With ease, we could substitute a dozen words from Russell, to make us the ancients and the society cable of finding a physical object plausible: Yet, we might not and someone in 1952 could not find the tea pot. In 3952, we can still maintain, as an opposite to our main conjecture, a null hypothesis. It is how a Thesis works.

With regards that which does not/isn't shown to not exist:

1. Black Holes before theories of gravity and quasi-confirmation. 2. Phase Space [Penrose], now a mere posit. If I do not believe in some form of Singularity birthing universes, it does not follow that that entity does not exist. 3. Same of quantum infinite indetermancy.

In our macro-world-sized universe, at its current age, prior existences and quantum pseudo-realities are very spectulative. [Not all: e.g., micro-electronics uses QM]

I would call 2. & 3. working hypotheses. Moreover, I would maintain if one holds 2. and/or 3. does not exist, one can justly hold a null hypothesis, that one or both do exist [to be tested].

We both see no justification in the arguments presented by Theists that God exists. However, the Theists' arguments are wrong and "finite" in argument, not wrong and infinite in argument. My judgement is fallible. With knowledge discovery, there is not a terminus.

As previously stated, had Dawkins shared his stage with subject experts, to test the null hypthesis, "God does exist", the null hypothesis would have been highly likely disproven to a greater extent than he has presented. The more arguments that are empirically rejected, the stronger the Atheist's [always tentative] case.

... Cont/

Further …

Too often dialogue between Athiests and Thiests involves Physical Science vs. Scriptural posits. Triangulating the knowledge of more meta-disciplines, which can examine science and theology like bugs, can beneficial: The benefit is to be derived from extra effort and study. One should not take an armchair position for all time.

Further, a knowledge of the workings of a false super-natural can be a primer to an unreal, but existent {not a tautology: hyper cubes, as mentioned} supra-dimentational. We need to complement classical mechanics with new fuzzier thinking as much as we need to test the claimes of the Theists. Can you envisage the possibility of a 6-D manifold with three dimensions of space for every particle sitting in 4-D spacetime? Is it impossible? (extreme simplificaion of manifold physics) If you did. Would you not hold a null hypothesis?

AJP,

Sorry, I think we are did not connect last time. Might be my error, with wrong URL?

CJM,

Good pick-up. I once applied for a job and mentioned in the CV, I had won awards in p-u-b-i-c speaking. One panel member said he was jealous :-). Well, on the face of it, the angels did say, no “L”.

p.s. I turned them down.

Philo,

I think George [of old might see what I am saying?]

Oliver,
I think so too of George. I can follow your logic and I find it does not demonstrate a closed mind obsession that can be found in many theists and atheists alike.

Meditating this morning on the reality of is there a Santa Clause led to this conclusion. To non-believers Santa does not exist - end of story. To believers Santa does exist, with all kinds of mythology.

Now there are another set of believers - those that know Santa does not live at the North pole, but is the spirit of unconditional gift giving, acts of love and generosity. Now to unbelievers they look for the evidence of an actual man in a red suit with a beard that lives at the North Pole with lots of toy makers. Of course they will never find if one exists. It is a myth! Similarly God does not physically exist up in the remote sky. It is a myth. However men might live on distant galaxies - it is not currently testable.

However are we to say because we cannot find such man at the North Pole that Santa is purely myth. When the reality is his spirit is still alive in that such demonstrates unconditional love and care for all children. Unconditional Gift giving is not based on having earned or deserved the gift otherwise it is not a gift.

What was begun by St Nicholas was a demonstration of the Spirit of God - that he loves unconditionally even the undeserving. And the right response from the recipient is gratitude and recognising this is an act of reconciliation and pure love. These are all real human experiences not defined by biochemistry and test tube mechanics. Though Christians are equally dissapointed in the "Myer" commercial approach to gifts.

Oliver,

The examples you give are formed from scientific principle on precedent knowledge. They are not pure guesses because of psychological needs. They also differ in that no one is threatening anyone with a heaven or a hell for not believing them and no one is going to fly a plane into a building to convince others they are correct or use them to oppress fellow humans.

The crux of the matter as to why it is pointless, especially in a forum atmosphere, to endlessly argue the finer points of what is and what is not known about science, history and knowledge, is clearly demonstrated by your own words; “Either party can merely have a conviction.” I do not have a conviction; I am waiting for those who have, to prove their conviction is right.

Even if the history of the Bible (Or parts of) is correct, the jump to a position that a god is involved, departs from any field of empirical study and returns to guessing for the mentioned psychological reasons. So, the question is; why entertain argument that surely and eventually will demonstrate the existence of a god is only a psychological need. Those with the god conviction will never concede that conclusion anyway.

The nitty gritty of religion is the proposition of religionists that there is a supernatural part to life and they wish to impose it on everyone. Atheists do not wish to impose anything.

I have seen and have been involved in endless arguments that hang on etymology, epistemology, interpretations of history etc and have always found them fruitless.

The real “arm-chair” position is giving more credibility to the credulous than is due.

Oliver, you are forgetting that the near majority of religionists believe on gut feeling and it is only a very few who explore ‘faith’ as deeply as you propound. These few are generally in positions of power, influence or derive livelihoods from ‘faith’, adding the possibility, and indeed, the likelihood, of unchecked bias.

In opposition to ‘faith’ acceptance is the beauty of science, which recognises bias as a problem.

David