The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Blind groper]

To Seth

On a purely qualitative basis (not arguing actual numbers, since I admit they are guesses) what think you of my probability approach?
To assign an estimated probability to each model of deity?

[JimC]

'I have no need of that hypothesis"

[Azathoth]

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.

He isn't really a nutter you can't prove him wrong.



He isn't really a nutter you can't prove him wrong.



He isn't really a nutter you can't prove him wrong.

[Seth]

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

No, several times I've pointed out Pascal's Wager as a method of Socratic rhetorical guidance. Doesn't mean I believe in God, or gods.

[Seth]

To Seth

On a purely qualitative basis (not arguing actual numbers, since I admit they are guesses) what think you of my probability approach?
To assign an estimated probability to each model of deity?

That would depend upon an accurate analysis of the model.

So, how do you propose to model a deity?

[surreptitious57]

Supernatural is merely that which science is not yet capable of explaining Its 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

You could not be more wrong : atheists accept objective reality as it is no matter
what that objective reality reveals : if it could be proved beyond all doubt that
God existed then I would accept that with no reservation whatsoever : until
that time however I shall remain sceptical about His supposed existence
due to the lack of evidence and note I am not saying that He does not
exist but that there is no proof of this : also remember that theists
have no proof but still believe : their position is therefore more
untenable but you refuse to accept this because it is your job
to reference the falsehood of atheism : well fair enough it
is my job then to be logical and rational in referencing
the world I live in and accept reality as it is not as I
want it to be unlike all those theists on the planet

[surreptitious57]

So how do you propose to model a deity

You need to falsify the metaphysical before modelling any thing otherwise
is a waste of time and if you can falsify it then it is still a waste of time
as there will be no restriction on the nature of any entities which exist
or can exist within it and so such a question is purely rhetorical then

[Blind groper]

So, how do you propose to model a deity?

I do not need to.

Each religion already has its model of deity, described in their sacred books.

[Coito ergo sum]

To Seth

On a purely qualitative basis (not arguing actual numbers, since I admit they are guesses) what think you of my probability approach?
To assign an estimated probability to each model of deity?

That would depend upon an accurate analysis of the model.

So, how do you propose to model a deity?

On the catwalk?

[Seth]

So, how do you propose to model a deity?

I do not need to.

Each religion already has its model of deity, described in their sacred books.

Yes, but as the Atheist's Fallacy shows, you cannot use that description as the basis for concluding anything at all because they might be mistaken.

[Seth]

Supernatural is merely that which science is not yet capable of explaining Its 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

You could not be more wrong : atheists accept objective reality as it is no matter
what that objective reality reveals : if it could be proved beyond all doubt that
God existed then I would accept that with no reservation whatsoever : until
that time however I shall remain sceptical about His supposed existence
due to the lack of evidence and note I am not saying that He does not
exist but that there is no proof of this : also remember that theists
have no proof but still believe : their position is therefore more
untenable but you refuse to accept this because it is your job
to reference the falsehood of atheism : well fair enough it
is my job then to be logical and rational in referencing
the world I live in and accept reality as it is not as I
want it to be unlike all those theists on the planet

Well, if it's scientifically proven, it's not "supernatural" is it?

That there is no "proof" that YOU have seen that is sufficient to dispel your skepticism does not mean there is no proof, or that such proof may not one day become available, now does it? Logic dictates that the ONLY rational statement that an atheist (small-a) can make about the existence of God is "I don't know." This is because a person of rigorous logic and reason recognizes that he does not have all the knowledge or information required to draw any other rational conclusion.

[surreptitious57]

That there is no proof that YOU have seen that is sufficient to dispel your skepticism does not mean there is no proof or that such proof may not one day become available now does it Logic dictates that the ONLY rational statement that an atheist ( small a ) can make about the existence of God is I don t know This is because a person of rigorous logic and reason recognizes that he does not have all the knowledge or information required to draw any other rational conclusion

Where have I ever said that I have all the knowledge or information : in your eagerness to do
your job in discrediting atheism or Atheism as you prefer it you choose not to notice though
that I make no absolute claims : that is because I am an agnostic atheist as opposed to a
gnostic atheist : now you have already been told this but seek to conveniently ignore it
so much that you are now reduced to posting replies which completely agree with my
position : your opponent does this it is a sign that they have lost the argument : if
this is the best you can do then you should consider giving up your job since you
appear to be not very good at it and so have failed to discredit Atheism at all

[Blind groper]

Yes, but as the Atheist's Fallacy shows, you cannot use that description as the basis for concluding anything at all because they might be mistaken.

As i pointed out, there are a million plus possible models of deity.
Each model is assigned a guessed probability.

The one we mostly talk about is the Christian model, which says the deity is omnipotent, omniscient and behaves as a loving father to humans. This description of a deity model is not compatible with what we know of the real world, so must be assigned a very low probability.

[trdsf]

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.

My rationale goes the other way, thusly: explaining phenomena by recourse to metaphysical causes is a very old theory of how reality works, dating back to the earliest religious behaviors of prehistoric man.

However, every time that we have studied a phenomenon, it has turned out to have a non-metaphysical explanation. In short, in at least 12000 years (and possibly for 100000 years or longer) of studying the world around us, metaphysics has never once been demonstrably and unambiguously a correct explanation of events.

While I would agree that in the name of science, the possibility be left open, I would put the probability far, far lower than a billionth. I would put it on par with finding modern evidence supporting alchemy, phlogiston, caloric and/or superluminal aether theories. Actually, I would put it on par with finding evidence of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. It's non-zero, but so vastly remote it might as well be zero.

The real problem is that resorting to metaphysics also generally means not inquiring any further, so in addition to being an inaccurate description of the universe, it's a stagnating force as well. A realist perspective is no more than just being willing to say "we don't know yet" -- and that phrase is one of the single driving forces behind the advance of knowledge, alongside "I wonder how that works" and "Hey, that's odd...".

[Coito ergo sum]

So, how do you propose to model a deity?

I do not need to.

Each religion already has its model of deity, described in their sacred books.

Yes, but as the Atheist's Fallacy shows, you cannot use that description as the basis for concluding anything at all because they might be mistaken.

You can conclude that the description is mistaken, or that whatever actually does exist certainly doesn't comport with the description.

Without a description, there can be no analysis of anything. If you're not going to describe something, then there is no way to say whether "it" exists because we don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "it." It has no description.

This is the Seth Fallacy: "God is something that cannot be analyzed with respect to its description, because all descriptions of God could be wrong. Therefore, it is irrational to not believe in God."

That is sophistry in the extreme Seth.