With respect, I dispute that you genuinely “doubt everything”.moving finger said:Are you suggesting that you doubt everything and will continue to doubt everything for the rest of your life? I doubt that.
nameless said:Yes. I have learned that the quickest way to be 'shown the light' is to firmly think that you absolutely know something. There is and will always be an element of doubt (for me, of course) about everything.
………..Yes, and the only 'healthy' position to take is one of doubt of everything.
For example, you do not seem to doubt the arguments put forward by the author of the website that you referred to regarding Pascal’s Wager. In your own words : “It is a fact.”
With respect, if this is not hypocrisy (ie claiming to doubt everything, yet also claiming that something is “a fact”), then what is?
Hypotheses are put forward to explain experimental or experiential observations. Call this “evidence” if you wish, but at the end of the day all we have is experimental and experiential observations. The hypothesis “God exists” is just as good an hypothesis to explain our experimental and experiential observations as any other (except that it is not falsifiable, which makes it unscientific)nameless said:a hypothesis requires supporting evidence to be taken seriously. Large 'claims' require large 'evidence'.
If an hypothesis of “flying elephants” fits all of the known experimental and experiential observations then yes, in fact, the onus would then be on you (or someone else) to falsify this hypothesis. This is exactly how science proceeds.nameless said:You can't possibly think that the onus would be on me to 'disprove' a claim of flying elephants?
Let’s start with “all of existence”. Everything in existence is compatible with, and nothing in existence is incompatible with, the hypothesis of the existence of God.nameless said:I could certainly examine your 'evidence' critically, though. Got evidence?
I see. Perhaps (with respect) this says a lot about your philosophy?moving finger said:It is well understood in science that no hypothesis can ever be proven, all we can ever hope to do via experimentation is to find data which either support or falsify the hypothesis. To my knowledge, there is no data which falsifies the hypothesis of the existence of God, and (because of the way God is defined) I doubt whether it will ever be possible to falsify this hypothesis – hence it is unfalsifiable – hence unscientific.
nameless said:It is irrelevent to me how 'scientific' the claim is
Scientific method dictates that any and all falsifiable hypotheses which are consistent with experimental and experiential observations be taken seriously, and the purpose of further experiment is then to try and falsify the hypothesis. This is how science proceeds – if you think differently that is fine, but nevertheless your philosophy would be by definition unscientific.nameless said:……if no 'evidence' is produced along with the claim, intelligence dictates that it not be taken seriously, unworthy of refutation.
Yes, hence I assume you are familiar with it.moving finger said:An unfalsifiable hypothesis such as “the existence of God” is unscientific, but you are wrong in your conception that science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses – it does not – it proceeds mainly by falsifying hypotheses.
nameless said:This is grade school stuff.
You ask, so I reply :nameless said:I'm not, nor have I ever said (produce quote, please) anything like 'science proceeds only by confirming hypotheses'.
nameless said:With no data or evidence, theism IS error
Am I in refutation mode? I am simply replying rationally to your own accusations.nameless said:Can you not refute something real (since you appear to be in a 'refutation' mode), instead of putting incorrect words in my mouth and pointing at 'my' error??
I suggest we stop this silly game of “I said, you said”, it is not worthy of intelligent agents.
I see. Thus claiming “it is a fact” does not actually mean “it is a fact”, rather it means “it might be a fact”. Thank you.nameless said:I 'doubt' the logical refutation that I have read by perhaps 3.7%.
Nothing personal here, I assure you. All of my arguments have been from a logical and rational perspective. If you wish to interpret rational arguments as a personal attack then that is (with respect) not my problem.nameless said:Is this all going to be personal attack or did you have a valid point you wanted to discuss?
I never said you were a Xtian. Neither am I a theist. But I do not need to be an atheist in order to view an argument from an atheistic point of view. Perhaps (with respect) if one could learn to view arguments from others’ points of view it might help one to understand them, don't you agree?nameless said:I look at NOTHING from a Xtian POV! I am not a Xtian.
Because (a) I “doubt” and (b) I believe in the law of the excluded middle.moving finger said:However it may be the case that the true God transcends all of these homocentric religions, therefore the question boils down simply to a choice : Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way. Simple as that. Why need there be a third option?
nameless said:How is it that you go from "it may be the case", to "Either the true God exists or does not exist – either believe in the true God or do not. No third way." in one breath.
With respect, this is logical fallacy.nameless said:There 'needs' to be third options because ther ARE further options, and deliberately ignoring them to 'prove' a hypothesis is error
The statement “the true God exists” is logically either true or false.
What would you suggest is “the third way”?
There is no “third way”. I am not deliberately ignoring anything, I am looking at the question from a purely rational and logical perspective. To claim that this is “downright dishonest” is to reject the whole foundation of logic.
Now who is indulging in “personal attacks”?nameless said:…….and downright dishonest.
I have answered your question, and "his critique" already.nameless said:If you have something of substance, evidence of your posited 'god', any real objections to his critique, come ahead and enlighten me.
I do not posit any “god”. But I do defend the right of others to do so.
I agree, but where have I done that? With respect, I have tried to keep this to a logical and rational debate.nameless said:But lets not waste time with word games and 'personalities'?!
As always, With respect