Religion is a hypothesis.

[Ricter]

Quote from kut2k2:

Ricter, you're one of the few thinking theists in ET.

As stu pointed out, your second paragraph requires that we consider everything as possible because someday evidence may be found supporting it. I don't think that is a practical way to live.

I like the following:

"The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.[...] A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence." (Irving Copi 1953)

In other words, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but depending on the study in question, absence of evidence can reasonably be regarded as evidence of absence.

I've said elsewhere that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns on Neptune, but it is reasonable to conclude that no unicorns are roaming the earth, given the absence of evidence that they are.

Of course an omnipotent god would have no trouble concealing itself from humanity, but if that is the case, why are so many theists convinced that it is involved in their lives and futures?

I appreciate that but must propose caution, I usually have something stupid to say lurking nearby.

I don't think I mean the active stance that everything has to be considered possible. I mean more the passive stance that "anything is possible". Sure, many, many things are improbable, and whacky stuff does get us into trouble occasionally. I just like the open minded approach. Call it "freedom".

Besides, considering the infinitude of things that could be imagined possible, theists through history, and other whack jobs, have really only proposed a comparatively small number of variations on a theme. There are not enough human brains, nor will there ever be, to contain infinite imaginings.

 

[killthesunshine]

ANY theiset..

how can you negate omnipotence? is there ANY observation/fact/evidence/proof?

if NOTHING could possibly present itself as refutation to an idea then how can you any rational being accept it

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from kut2k2:

...In other words, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but depending on the study in question, absence of evidence can reasonably be regarded as evidence of absence.

I've said elsewhere that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns on Neptune, but it is reasonable to conclude that no unicorns are roaming the earth, given the absence of evidence that they are...

Exactly.

Further, I think the giveaway is the mental gymnastics that theists engage in to convince themselves and others of an omnipresent, omnipotent, supernatural god. If such a god actually existed, then how could anyone doubt or dismiss it? Would we really need microscopes or mental gymnastics to detect such an elephant in the room?

As for a simple "creator," we all know that the world's finest minds have already determined that the universe didn't need one. Should that collective leading edge view change, I'm sure we'll hear about it. But until then...

 

[killthesunshine]

elephants leave tracks. nuff said :eek:

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

people who don't want their beliefs ridiculed shouldn't have such ridiculous beliefs

Once upon a time there was nothing...you are free to fill in the blanks from this point forward towards whatever your heart desires. Can't be said enough, Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Once upon a time there was nothing...

\
and out of nothing God was created? by whom? Zeus?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from killthesunshine:

\
and out of nothing God was created? by whom?

That ain't the point! One theory is as unbelievable as the other. For one group to pass judgement on the other is intellectual elitism taken to it's most absurd extreme.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

That ain't the point! One theory is as unbelievable as the other. For one group to pass judgement on the other is intellectual elitism taken to it's most absurd extreme.

Intellectual Elitism is at the core of the atheist's religion as opposed to living life according to certain precepts that is at the core of the Believers religion.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

That ain't the point! One theory is as unbelievable as the other. For one group to pass judgement on the other is intellectual elitism taken to it's most absurd extreme.

the universe. god created the universe..

you don't see the extra step BACKWARD?

at the very LEAST, you must explain your "rational" need to step back, for the extra "level"

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from jficquette:

Intellectual Elitism is at the core of the atheist's religion as opposed to living life according to certain precepts that is at the core of the Believers religion.

Now you've gone and done it. I can see their heads exploding now.