The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Seth]

My job is to attack the illogic and unreason of Atheists I m one of the only people who is both prepared and capable of doing so or so it seems There s plenty of folks who are ready and willing ( though sometimes not so able ) to take on theists

Your modus operandi is flawed then : if it was to expose a lack of logic and reason then it
should be of no consequence where it originates from :

As I said, I'm a specialist, one of the very few who can (or cares to) take on Atheists. Since almost no one else is doing so from a non-theistic point of view, I see it as a niche market.

to do so how ever from only one
quarter is ironically referencing the very same attributes that you seek to attack :

Yes, it is ironic isn't it?

you
are not therefore addressing the arguments for atheism but atheism itself because
it is your raison d etre which is not objective :

Wrong. I'm not attacking atheism, I'm attacking Atheism, and specifically I'm addressing the illogic and unreason of a group of people who (falsely) tout and trumpet their supposed intellectual, moral and rational superiority at every turn. I find it useful and entertaining to reveal their feet of clay.

now it does not matter who holds
a belief or what that belief is as long as it can be proven or falsified :

A belief that is proven or falsified is no longer a belief, it's a fact. Non sequitur.

but your
refusal to accept this invalidates any claim that you may subsequently make
to defending logic and reason :

No it doesn't.

I have no problem with you being on a self
appointed mission to discredit atheism but do not pretend that it is fair
and just for it is not :

I'm not discrediting atheism, I'm discrediting Atheism, and those who practice that religion through the use of illogic and unreason. In that regard, I'm doing science, reason, logic and even religion a favor by pointing out just how idiotic Atheists are.

ulterior motive and objective investigation are
mutually incompatible : least you are honest so credit to you for that

I have no ulterior motive. I'm simply interested in pointing out illogic and unreason purveyed under the guise of reason and logic by radical Atheists who are practicing religion, all the worst parts of it, every bit as much as any Catholic pedophile priest. I like pointing out the hypocrisy of Atheists and their jabs and diatribes at religion and theists. It's endlessly entertaining.

[Pappa]

Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.

Have you ever heard of the Smorgaloid? It's an all-powerful god that demands you receive anal sex 50 times a day, flagellate yourself 100 times a day, eat at least one piece of dog shit before noon, inject your testicles with saline every morning before breakfast and drink vomit on Sunday. If you don't do all of these things, the Smorgaloid will send you to Fooogon, where unspeakably disgusting and painful things will be done to you for all eternity.

[Seth]

Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.

Have you ever heard of the Smorgaloid? It's an all-powerful god that demands you receive anal sex 50 times a day, flagellate yourself 100 times a day, eat at least one piece of dog shit before noon, inject your testicles with saline every morning before breakfast and drink vomit on Sunday. If you don't do all of these things, the Smorgaloid will send you to Fooogon, where unspeakably disgusting and painful things will be done to you for all eternity.

Have Smorgaloid give me a call, we can do lunch.

Besides, I hear that all the bad press about Fooogon is disinformation and actually it's a utopia, but the Smorgaloids don't want anybody to know it because then all the rooms get booked by tourists.

[Jason]

My job is to attack the illogic and unreason of Atheists

As I said, I'm a specialist

I'm attacking Atheism,

I'm doing religion a favor by pointing out just how idiotic Atheists are.

I'm discrediting Atheism by pointing out just how idiotic Atheists are.

I have no ulterior motive. Yes, it is ironic isn't it? It's endlessly entertaining.

Argumentum ad post-chop?

[Coito ergo sum]

And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??

What are your critically robust scientific proof of the existence of God?

I have none. I have never made any claim that God exists. But you're simply evading the question here. If you cannot provide immediate rigorous proofs that God DOES NOT EXIST, then you are simply stating a belief in which you have faith, nothing more.

No no.

Here is where you have it wrong.

I can't provide immediate rigorous proofs that the astral plane does not exist -- therefore I suspend belief until such time as I have that proof.

Same goes for gods.

It's not "faith that X does not exist," it's REFRAINING FROM faith that X does exist.

A lack of faith that X (god/astral plane, whatever) does exist is the same as "not believing that X exists." That's atheism. That's "not believing in god."

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence. It is,consequently, not irrational to disbelieve in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence.

You're mistake here, Seth, is in equating belief in X with belief in "not X." It is a huge mistake in logic for you to do that. It's what makes your argument specious, at best.

[camoguard]

In response to Seth, I'm not sure why I should bother looking for Gods. Godless orgies are like tax free liquor; everything I want with less red tape.

[FBM]

In response to Seth, I'm not sure why I should bother looking for Gods. Godless orgies are like tax free liquor; everything I want with less red tape.

There ya go.

[Seth]

And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??

What are your critically robust scientific proof of the existence of God?

I have none. I have never made any claim that God exists. But you're simply evading the question here. If you cannot provide immediate rigorous proofs that God DOES NOT EXIST, then you are simply stating a belief in which you have faith, nothing more.

No no.

Here is where you have it wrong.

I can't provide immediate rigorous proofs that the astral plane does not exist -- therefore I suspend belief until such time as I have that proof.

Same goes for gods.

If that's what you actually did, that would be fine, but that's not what you actually do. In reality you hold a very firm belief that god DOES NOT EXIST, which is an article of religious faith.

It's not "faith that X does not exist," it's REFRAINING FROM faith that X does exist.

A lack of faith that X (god/astral plane, whatever) does exist is the same as "not believing that X exists." That's atheism. That's "not believing in god."

Well, that's the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. You cannot have a lack of belief about god-claims unless you're ignorant of them entirely. Your "not-belief" in X is the product of examination of the claims of X and a conscious rejection of X, which is in turn, an active belief that X does not exist. You cannot avoid this train of thought, it happens automatically when you give consideration of X and then reject X as existing. You cannot have no belief about X unless you are entirely ignorant of X. Once you are informed of the proposition that X exists, you automatically and inevitably test the claims regarding X against your existing knowledge and you draw a conclusion, which may be preliminary or subject to revision, which assigns a truth-value to the proposition of X, in this case in the negative.

You can try to evade and pettifog your way around this fact of human thought, but you're just equivocating and trying to avoid being labeled as having religious faith and beliefs about the non-existence of God.

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence. It is,consequently, not irrational to disbelieve in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence.

Sure it is, if you also have no immediate critically robust evidence that it does not exist, particularly in the face of numerous and pervasive claims that it does exist widely held by a vast majority of individuals on the planet. That's the rub with your argument. You are trying to use, falsely, the premise that god-claims are in the same category as some fanciful concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster when in reality belief in God is pervasive in human history for thousands of years with innumerable claims of personal experience with God made by individuals that YOU CANNOT PROVE DID NOT OCCUR. You PRESUME they did not occur only because YOU are ignorant of the events and therefore discard them as valid because YOU are not aware of any critically robust evidence that meets YOUR standards.

But your skepticism does not disprove the claims, it's just skepticism based on ignorance, and therefore the conclusions you draw are just exactly as irrational, and perhaps more so, than those of theists.

You're mistake here, Seth, is in equating belief in X with belief in "not X." It is a huge mistake in logic for you to do that. It's what makes your argument specious, at best.

Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it is impossible for you not to hold beliefs ABOUT X (not IN X) once you have been informed of the proposition of the existence of X. Having been informed of the proposition, you automatically give that proposition consideration and draw a conclusion about the validity and truth-value of the proposition based on your existing understanding and knowledge. It is THAT conclusion that forms your belief about the proposition where the existence of X is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs. You can't help it, you do it as a function of the way the human mind operates. Your failure is that you are falsely limiting the scope of belief to being "in" X rather than including conclusions "about" X's existence. The term "belief in" used in this context means a positive conclusion about the existence of X. But the opposite of that is not "no belief," it's active DISBELIEF in the proposition that X exists. It must be so for all explicit atheists like you because having examined the claims you have assigned a negative truth-value to the proposition, which is the formation of a belief since you cannot prove that X does not exist.

[Coito ergo sum]

And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??

What are your critically robust scientific proof of the existence of God?

I have none. I have never made any claim that God exists. But you're simply evading the question here. If you cannot provide immediate rigorous proofs that God DOES NOT EXIST, then you are simply stating a belief in which you have faith, nothing more.

No no.

Here is where you have it wrong.

I can't provide immediate rigorous proofs that the astral plane does not exist -- therefore I suspend belief until such time as I have that proof.

Same goes for gods.

If that's what you actually did, that would be fine, but that's not what you actually do. In reality you hold a very firm belief that god DOES NOT EXIST, which is an article of religious faith.

No, I explained to you my view of it. Your attempt to tell me what I really think and believe is only relevant as an example of your tendency to believe in things you know nothing about.

Regardless of what I believe, though, the fact remains, that I've explained exactly where your purported logic fails. You're equating a belief that "X" exists, with the belief that "X doesn't exist." These aren't equivalents. You make a false equivalence.

We either have critically robust evidence that X (astral plane/gods whatever) exists, or we do not have such evidence. You've stated that it is irrational to believe in atheism, because there is no critically robust evidence for it. If you take that position, then you must also accept that it is irrational to believe in a god absent self-same critically robust evidence.

If it is irrational to believe in god without such critically robust evidence, then we ought not believe in god for the reason that it doesn't make sense to believe things that would be irrational to believe. Yes? And, what do we call someone who does not believe in god? Yes, you got it -- an atheist.

It's not "faith that X does not exist," it's REFRAINING FROM faith that X does exist.

A lack of faith that X (god/astral plane, whatever) does exist is the same as "not believing that X exists." That's atheism. That's "not believing in god."

Well, that's the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. You cannot have a lack of belief about god-claims unless you're ignorant of them entirely.

No, that isn't true. One can not believe in a god-claim simply because there isn't any critically robust evidence to support the claims made.

Your "not-belief" in X is the product of examination of the claims of X and a conscious rejection of X, which is in turn, an active belief that X does not exist.

No, my non belief in X is a the product of the lack of critically robust evidence that X is true.

You cannot avoid this train of thought, it happens automatically when you give consideration of X and then reject X as existing. You cannot have no belief about X unless you are entirely ignorant of X.

I never said I have "no belief about" X. I said I don't believe X exists because there is no critically robust evidence for it.

Once you are informed of the proposition that X exists, you automatically and inevitably test the claims regarding X against your existing knowledge and you draw a conclusion, which may be preliminary or subject to revision, which assigns a truth-value to the proposition of X, in this case in the negative.

You can try to evade and pettifog your way around this fact of human thought, but you're just equivocating and trying to avoid being labeled as having religious faith and beliefs about the non-existence of God.

I don't have faith in the non-existence of gods. I merely acknowledge that there is no critically robust, verifiable evidence of gods' existences, and therefore it is irrational to believe in said gods. Since it is irrational to believe in said gods, I do not believe in said gods (so as to avoid believing in something in which it is irrational to believe). That's the definition of atheist. I can't be anything other than an atheist, and remain rational.

Faith is an irrational belief, which is why those who are faithful in or to a god are said to have "faith." They have a belief without critically robust proof or reason, but they have either claimed unverifiable, noncritically robust personal experiences, subjective feelings, ancient texts, or authority figures.

Faith is just fine, mind you. And, faithful belief in gods may well be true, because it may well be that the subjective personal experiences, the subjective feelings are really revealing the truth. It's just that they are not based on critically robust, verifiable evidence. And, as such it's not rational for anyone who hasn't experienced the subjective personal experiences to believe in them.

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence. It is,consequently, not irrational to disbelieve in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence.

Sure it is,

You're saying - "sure it is" in response to "it is not irrational to disbelieve in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence." So, you are necessarily claiming that it is rational to believe in something for which there is no immediate critically robust evidence for its existence. Then you have no right to ask atheists for critically robust evidence that atheism is true.

if you also have no immediate critically robust evidence that it does not exist, particularly in the face of numerous and pervasive claims that it does exist widely held by a vast majority of individuals on the planet.

Offering mere claims as proof is another specious fallacy on your part: Argument from assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
Offering the widespread nature of the claims is yet another fallacy on your part: Argument from popularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

That's the rub with your argument. You are trying to use, falsely, the premise that god-claims are in the same category as some fanciful concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster when in reality belief in God is pervasive in human history for thousands of years with innumerable claims of personal experience with God made by individuals that YOU CANNOT PROVE DID NOT OCCUR. You PRESUME they did not occur only because YOU are ignorant of the events and therefore discard them as valid because YOU are not aware of any critically robust evidence that meets YOUR standards.

Negative. You're wrong. There is no presumption that they did not occur. There is only the acknowledgement that there is no critically robust verifiable evidence that they did occur. This is the test you've applied yourself.

Of course I reject evidence that I don't think is critically robust evidence. Doesn't everybody?

You discard atheism because YOU are not aware of any critically robust evidence that meets YOUR standards. Right?

Aren't we in agreement that there isn't any critically robust, verifiable evidence for gods? I mean, you've advanced (a) there were many claims made throughout human history that gods exist, and (b) lots of people believe it, and (c) people cite unverifiable subjective feelings and personal experiences. Yes? None of that is "critically robust, verifiable" evidence, right? If you think it is, please explain how it is crtically robust and verifiable. if you have other evidence which is critically robust and verifiable, please present it or explain it.

[Pappa]

Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.

Have you ever heard of the Smorgaloid? It's an all-powerful god that demands you receive anal sex 50 times a day, flagellate yourself 100 times a day, eat at least one piece of dog shit before noon, inject your testicles with saline every morning before breakfast and drink vomit on Sunday. If you don't do all of these things, the Smorgaloid will send you to Fooogon, where unspeakably disgusting and painful things will be done to you for all eternity.

Have Smorgaloid give me a call, we can do lunch.

Besides, I hear that all the bad press about Fooogon is disinformation and actually it's a utopia, but the Smorgaloids don't want anybody to know it because then all the rooms get booked by tourists.

Nice dodge Seth.

How do you justify your Pascal's Wager stance with regards to all the other gods that are either purported to exist or could conceivably exist?

[trdsf]

However, someone else may come up with a model of deity, which consists of an alien intelligence, in a distant galaxy, with such an advanced technology that they are indistinguishable from deities from the human perspective. This model I would assign a much greater probability.

Two interesting points here.

One: if you have a naturally evolved physical entity in the form of an alien intelligence, even if extremely advanced, what's the transition between being a naturally involved physical entity, and a deity?

and Two: is there a way to differentiate between a deity and a highly advanced alien intelligence?

It seems to me that an alien, no matter how advanced, is still a physical explanation and not a metaphysical one.

[Blind groper]

trdsf

Based on current knowledge, there is nothing metaphysical.
However, in the spirit of open mindedness, I accept the possibility. Just assign a guess that its probability is less than one in a billion.

[Seth]

Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.

Have you ever heard of the Smorgaloid? It's an all-powerful god that demands you receive anal sex 50 times a day, flagellate yourself 100 times a day, eat at least one piece of dog shit before noon, inject your testicles with saline every morning before breakfast and drink vomit on Sunday. If you don't do all of these things, the Smorgaloid will send you to Fooogon, where unspeakably disgusting and painful things will be done to you for all eternity.

Have Smorgaloid give me a call, we can do lunch.

Besides, I hear that all the bad press about Fooogon is disinformation and actually it's a utopia, but the Smorgaloids don't want anybody to know it because then all the rooms get booked by tourists.

Nice dodge Seth.

How do you justify your Pascal's Wager stance with regards to all the other gods that are either purported to exist or could conceivably exist?

I don't.

[Seth]

However, someone else may come up with a model of deity, which consists of an alien intelligence, in a distant galaxy, with such an advanced technology that they are indistinguishable from deities from the human perspective. This model I would assign a much greater probability.

Two interesting points here.

One: if you have a naturally evolved physical entity in the form of an alien intelligence, even if extremely advanced, what's the transition between being a naturally involved physical entity, and a deity?

Worship by inferior creatures. To my dog, I'm God.

and Two: is there a way to differentiate between a deity and a highly advanced alien intelligence?

It seems to me that an alien, no matter how advanced, is still a physical explanation and not a metaphysical one.

Indeed. That's my point. The Atheist's Fallacy exists because Atheists insist on using a theist-created description of God as a (false) premise in their argument that God cannot exist because he is metaphysical.

You see, God may be entirely physical and natural, but so far advanced beyond our paltry knowledge as to appear to be supernatural.

"Supernatural" is merely that which science is not yet capable of explaining. It's a dodge for Atheists so that they don't have to consider the prospect that God does exist, but not as a supernatural, metaphysical being, but rather as an entirely natural entity that we simply do not understand.

[Pappa]

Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.

Have you ever heard of the Smorgaloid? It's an all-powerful god that demands you receive anal sex 50 times a day, flagellate yourself 100 times a day, eat at least one piece of dog shit before noon, inject your testicles with saline every morning before breakfast and drink vomit on Sunday. If you don't do all of these things, the Smorgaloid will send you to Fooogon, where unspeakably disgusting and painful things will be done to you for all eternity.

Have Smorgaloid give me a call, we can do lunch.

Besides, I hear that all the bad press about Fooogon is disinformation and actually it's a utopia, but the Smorgaloids don't want anybody to know it because then all the rooms get booked by tourists.

Nice dodge Seth.

How do you justify your Pascal's Wager stance with regards to all the other gods that are either purported to exist or could conceivably exist?

I don't.

Sorry, I'm not buying that. Several times on this forum you've used the "just in case" argument.