/...

The way you phrased the sentence made it appear that each side had equality in holding a conviction. Are you a cupboard religionist?

-- No, no, friend, I am a non-relionist, whom believes my null hypothesis, "god does exist" must be rejected. Nothing cardborad about that. My position is stronger than yours, if I test, and, you sit.

I probably stand; where Richard Dawkins would; we two would not make a "total" commitment on a belief continuum, because (1) the infallibility issue (at the opposite pole to the Pope) and (2)beliefs need to be tested.

-- Fairies do exist in fiction books. Russell would possibly agree with this? ... I think (?) it was he, who segments statements into atomic and grammatical structures. If not Russell, other philosphers address, the existence of subsistent entities [e.g.Tom Sawyer]: Subsistent entities do exist in a Literary realm, if not in the 4-D spacetime realm. Zeus exists in a [imaginery?] Theoristic realm, but merely subsists in the 4-D spacetime realm. Six-D manifolds can have dimensions in 4-D spacetime and others in supra~dimensions! A foot in two, perhaps infinite realms!

Oliver,

Even though I think we are in rough agreement, shall we go on?

>>>Do you know "all of history".<<<

No, but if a significant compilation of evidence were around for the existence of gods, then I would know about it. Religions would not keep that a secret. Which is a very good reason that a god does not exist, for if it did, there would only be one religion or religions would be compatible. (Which there is not and they are not)

I live in the realty displayed by our senses. Once a point is made to explore possible realities, then anything can be ‘believed’. (And is)

David

--Religicles, Scepticus and Inquirius—

Religicles:

I think we are in basic agreement about Religicles: His main thesis we did agree with. Religicles believes “God exists”. I would hope Religicles also maintains a null hypothesis, “God does not exist”, wherein he could review history and theocracia [how religions are formed and interconnected.].

I think Scepticus would feel, Religicles should have this approach while concurrently maintaining a null/degraded hypothesis, “god exists”.

Religicles knows his scriptures very well and has a lay knowledge of major historical events; and, science, well, a book or two by Paul Davies, perhaps.

Religicles in the face of new evidence might turn his back on Theism and become a Free Thinker, Agnostic or even an Atheist? Wow!

Scepticus:

Scepticus feels that the full burden of proof rests with Religicles. Religicles has to convert him with the power of Religicles' arguments/studies, which incidentally are incomplete:

Scepticus maintains there is "no god", stop. He waits for Religicles, whom you might recall has limited knowledge, as does Scepticus .

Scepticus does not expand his knowledge to test two things, one his primary posit the “non-existence of God”, nor the alternative [null] hypothesis the “existence of God”. [Hypthetically]Had he known about Red Shift across the expanding universe, perhaps, he would have learned that there is strong evidence the Earth was not created in 4,004 BCE. He didn’t look, too busy waiting on Religicles, whom was equally unaware of this evidence.

So, here we have it; Religicles an apostate, and, Scepticus unwilling to develop alternative hypotheses, which can be rejected based on evidence still unknown to Scepticus.[He never discovered that knowledge]. He is an atheist and passive about inquiry. Conjectures and refutations [Popper] take second place to re-confirmation [Freud, Adler & Jung].

Inquirius:

Inquirius holds basically the same conclusion, as does Scepticus, but maintains scientific methodologies, falsifiable scenarios and alertrnative [null] hypothesis are critical in knowledge discovery.

Inquirius doesn’t just rely on Religicles to win him over; he proactively seeks out new knowledge and tests null hypothesis, which he commonly rejects across many disciplines, “independent” and inclusive of Religicles.

--space--

Oliver,

Nice story. Instead of continually going on about testing “null hypothesis” how about telling us some you have tested. I don’t mean concerning historical fact, but in relation to supernatural realms and gods.

David

Oliver,

The real story of the three little-humans: (The species has been changed to protect the innocent)

The first little-human made the house out of straw-man arguments and was happy living in a straw house even though the security it afforded was an illusion.

The second little-human made the house out of sticks, as they were superior in strength to straw. With some complicated effort, the little-human could rearrange the sticks and make it appear the house was really made of straw to the straw little-human and of bricks to the brick housed little-human. This afforded the little-human a sense of security and it was felt that neither the wolf nor the other little-humans would notice.

The third little-human made the house out of bricks. The wolf and the first and second little-human were invited to tear it down.

Even though they threw straw and sticks aplenty, there was no breaching of the brick house.

Both the little-humans of straw and stick fame and the wolf failed to realise that they needed to pelt the house with bricks if they expected at least to make a dent. The brick housed little-human knew that the exercise need not be repeated with the straw and stick house, as the wolf could easily enter them

Eventually, the wolf also saw this and decided to eat the straw and stick housed little-humans, much to their surprise.

The brick housed little-human continued on advising all others that living in brick houses is the only way they would survive.

If they took the advice, all would probably live happily ever after. If they did not, the wolves would increase in numbers, feeding rapaciously on straw and stick housed little-humans until all were gone.

David

Oliver, if I may explain a non-believer perspective. Its not a case that I believe god does not exist , it is rather that I know god does not exist. How do I know God does not exist? I (not literally) hear you ask. I know god does not exist because there has never in reality been a serious proposition of the existence of god, that is to say all alegations that a god exists are based on fantasy and not in truth. As I know you are well aware that written history and archeological human artifact prove conclusively that all gods are products of fiction.

Additional to the reality of this universe taken in a functional subtext god worship does not even make sense , invisible gods less sense and magic dependency non-sense. One can see in a society without progressive liberalism and without scientific technology that superstion is needed by the homosapien to cope with the knowledge that he/she is doomed. Science studies reality, with understanding what and how , tools are developed to benefit humans. Prayer can put off facing a disease but science is the only chance of a cure.

Russell argued many post modernist ideas but at the end of the day fairies do not and have never existed in reality. Even if the Post Modernist view were taken seriously , it would mean the Learner driver who manned a speed camera and fined me for keeping a cat and a goose in a box all in a dream were supernatural entities. In reality they are illusions of a brain that was in part , asleep.

Philo , my car is dirty and I am loath to clean it due to water restrictions, but the image of Adam West as Batman has appeared low on the rear passenger door. Is Bob Kane trying to contact me from beyond the grave? Because I think Adam West is still alive.