Atheism isn't a belief?

I think the hypothesis was that if it was done as a curious test/experiment then the hypothesis wasn't being followed and thus couldn't work. It must be from the heart. Whatever opinion you may have on that is not as relevant as what his opinion is. If his opinion is that it was, then come he will. He's signed your own life warrant. Sit back, don't worry about it anymore. The deal is done. If your the impatient type, you might find his first (of many lessons) is to teach you some. Enjoy the ride...if your on it.p.s. If and whenever you know, do let me know. It would make my day...(and not in a I-told-you-so-so-there way) whenever that day is. One word will do. It's a three letter word beginning with the letter 'W'

Yup. Haven't got the faintest idea. Maybe one day we will find out. Good point. If it were based entirely on empirical evidence, I would have to agree with you. My reason is that in the past, everything that has ever been successfully explained about anything has invariably been explained by science. God has never explained anything.Since past experience (making predictions of outcomes based on the fact that a thing has always happened in a given way) is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method then this leads me to conclude the the most probable scenario is that science will eventually come up with a perfectly valid explanation for life, the universe and everything.Who knows though? Maybe the conclusion they reach will actually be that "Goddidit" after all.Until then I will trust only what the evidence tells me and the simple fact is that we ARE here and there is NO evidence of god. Up till now, EVERYTHING has had a valid naturalistic explanation. Without very strong evidence there is absolutely no reason why I should believe that this will change.
That isn't faith!
That is simple logic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FYI The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
A notion that has precisely the same amount of evidence as God.This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 08-18-2005 09:26 AM

The existance of God is not something that probability methods shed light on. Either God exists or he doesn't. The probability that I will win the state lottery are decidedly slim. The probability that someone will win the lottery every week is amazingly high. Using probability is an inappropriate tool when it is powerless to measure probability for/against God at all. It depends to on what is complex and ordered. There is a phenomenal amount of complex and ordered in the world depending on what you consider complex and ordered. A single living cell is a picture of incredible complexity and order - even though our skin sheds them by the comparable bucketload every day. Put it another way. He'd be supernatural. Thus the evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence from what he created - the natural) would be supernatural. If that's not complex and radically different then I give up I was dealing with the athiest position. No evidence either way yet a decision that God (supernatural) isn't it. If the decision against God is a blind one, made without no evidence either way then fine. In other words, if its a decision for Natural without evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) either way then fine. Either way we can leave it at that. Athiesm joins the ranks of similar faith- based religions.If it's "I don't know" then thats a form of agnosticism. If its " I have no position and don't care" then it's a-everything (at least until Purple Youko comes back)

I am always the awkward one
I think it is because I am making an effort to actually figure out where I really stand on this stuff and why.
Your posts really get me thinking. A lot more than any creationist I have encountered previously.
I don't always agree with your logical steps and conclusions but at least it looks like you are thinking it through.

Well you're still failing to come up with reasonable objections.

quote:

---

The existance of God is not something that probability methods shed light on.

---

Why not ? Why should we avoid rational consideration of the question ? In your next sentence you say "Either God exists or he doesn't" but that is irrelevant - either you'll win the state lottery or you won't. But we can certainly use probability to decide that it is likely that you won't.Compare the etire biomess of the Earth with the mass of the solar system. Unless there's a LOT more life than that on Earth living things from an infinitesimal fraction even on that scale - and are likely rarer still in larger volumes.

quote:

---

Put it another way. He'd be supernatural. Thus the evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence from what he created - the natural) would be supernatural. If that's not complex and radically different then I give up

---

Since the evidence actually available to us would fall in the first category this statement tacitly admits that you were wrong. And since the second is still a non-sequitur I think that you should give up.

quote:

---

I was dealing with the athiest position. No evidence either way yet a decision that God (supernatural) isn't it. If the decision against God is a blind one, made without no evidence either way then fine. In other words, if its a decision for Natural without evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) either way then fine. Either way we can leave it at that. Athiesm joins the ranks of similar faith- based religions.

---

The statement you were replying to only dealt with the existence of evidence FOR God. That was what you were dealing with.

If you had a choice, that screws with everything that follows. If that was the case, my response wouldn't have been determined 13.7 billion years ago; it would've been determined as soon as you made your choice, as your choice affected the input that I mechanistically responded to.

IOW, belief in God is a prerequisite for a belief in God.

I don't always agree with my logical steps either - and when faced with reasoned argument I must try and figure out how the 'knowledge' that God did (the answer) can be reconciled with how and why he did it (the question). I'm glad that my posts have got you thinking. They and others do precisely the same for me. So that makes at least two of us. Better to make love not war...eh?. It's much more....er....reproductive

What PY said. Actually, technically it's suppose to be the immaterial/invisible pink unicorn.

...Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.

This is where I have the most trouble.
Your logic must always be biased because you have to reconcile the fact that you know god exists, with whatever evidence (or lack of) is available.
If you refuse to even entertain the possibility that god might not exist then you will never be able to understand the Atheist's arguments or position.
Keeping this possibility open should not weaken your faith one little bit but it would allow you to see both sides of the argument.My position is that I will continue to allow that god might exist, no matter how unlikely that seems to me. This allows me a wider perspective to look at the available evidence without (as far as possible) bias.

I was going to say.."And glory to her great spiral horn!"But then I realized that I am in fact an AIPUist too so I won't.

Well there is a small splinter group that says the IPU is purple!

BLASPHEMY!!From the Book of Pre-Scriptures, chapter 4:1. The Pink Unicorn, holding all potential within Herself, did plan out the general course of the reality which seemed best to Her sense of humor; and, since Surprise is a vital ingredient of Fun, did She decide that the others She created to share Her Fun should be unable to perceive Her; all the better to Surprise them, and to amuse Herself.2. In fairness to the others She would create, did She decide that they also would be able to Surprise Her occasionally; and thus did She conceive intelligence, and free will, and the Sense of Humor.3. Because of Her realization that pratfalls are a vital ingredient of Humor, did She create the Patsy; and to the Patsy did She give all the many varieties of Shitheadedness. Stupidity and stubborness, misery and pain, dullness, officiousness, greed, and fear- all these evils did She bestow upon the Patsy, like unto a "kick me" sign pinned upon its back for the lifetime of the universe which She would soon create.4. In the interest of fairness, did She divide the shitheadedness of the Patsy into divers forms, so that no one form did for ever and always embody the totality of shitheadedness; from Her humor, and Her fairness, were the avatars of the Patsy created.5. Thus came to be such minions of malaise as the Visible Brown Unicorn, and the Purple Oyster of Doom; for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown.