Identifying false religions.

That's a very odd statement coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth.

I paid very good attention to the sentence that I quoted. Here's my post again. That's the only comment I've made on this thread.Now, are you paying attention?Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?If not, in what way am I not paying attention? I've addressed no points that you've made here. I merely stated a fact which no rational person could disagree with.

Once again: It's easy to type "yes" or "no". Exactly.

All religions are "suspect".If one contained a falsified belief on top of that, I'd use words like "ludicrous" or "ridiculous", rather than merely suspect.

Mr. X believes that his god created a universe with a flat planet earth at the centre of it 6,000 years ago.He believes that Satan rules the minds of unbelievers, and that all appearances that contradict his cosmology are illusions contrived by Satan to lead men away from god.Falsify his beliefs, bearing in mind your claims:

Let me introduce you to the concept of the random hypothesis.Cosmologists tell us there is dark matter in the universe. Assuming they're correct, we don't know what that dark matter is at present. So, it is reasonable to be agnostic on the question of what it is.Hypothesis: Dark matter is composed of quadrillions of small dark demons who have manifested themselves in the universe.That is a random explanatory hypothesis of dark matter. It is random because it is completely baseless, and has no scrap of positive evidence to support it.Like all such hypotheses, it is very unlikely to be true, as it would only be so by sheer chance.We do not have an explanation of the universe, what it ultimately is and, if it wasn't always there in some state, how it came to be. So, it is very reasonable to be agnostic on the questions "what is the universe and why is it there?".Hypothesis: A god did it.That is a random explanatory hypothesis of the universe. It is random because it is completely baseless, and has no scrap of positive evidence to support it.Atheists are people who see no reason to believe in that particular random hypothesis, just as they would think the "dark demons" hypothesis very unlikely.Do you see the difference between being agnostic about what the universe is and why it is there, and not believing in one particular random hypothesis put forward to explain it? Millions of such baseless hypotheses can be made.The "atheist position", as you put it has no explanation for the universe.This atheist would consider any particular baseless hypothesis purporting to explain the universe as very unlikely.On the topic, any individual religion can be considered to be very unlikely to be true. They are all random baseless hypotheses about the world.

"No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis of the universe.

No. "No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis because it leaves the universe unexplained.Random explanatory hypothesis: The universe was created by the fart of a celestial cow.Like the god hypothesis, this is random because there's no positive evidence to support it.What you're trying to do is give one random hypothesis that explains the universe special privilege. Does it make sense to you that the celestial cow hypothesis becomes likely merely because it can't be conclusively disproved?This is where you get into trouble. I described the religion of Mr. X further up the thread. Because it cannot be conclusively disproved, then, by your own arguments, you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god, and therefore the age of the earth, and everything else in science, because you are uncommitted on the role of a devil who sows illusions in your mind.I dismiss Mr. X's god and his satan primarily because there's no positive evidence to support their existence, to which I can add the evidence that our species has a proven tendency to invent such things (there are many "one true gods").So, I can post on science threads without contradiction, but you can't, and you should be retracting any definite statements you've made on the age of the earth and anything else in science if you want to continue arguing that you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god.

We both say that. We can propose many different types of flatulent celestial cows creating the universe as individuals or in herds of different numbers, but it's simpler to regard all hypotheses involving flatulent cows as one general hypothesis. There's no reason to consider the cows ahead of universe making machines, colliding five dimensional rocks, or any other completely baseless hypotheses, I'm sure you'll agree. Well done. You finally agree that one random hypothesis out of many that can be made is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head. Of course there can be a winner if there's an ultimate explanation of the universe and everything to be had. But whether we humans can "buy" the winning lottery ticket by merely making up random hypotheses is questionable, however many billions we make up.The answer may well involve unknown things we've never thought of, in the same way that we wouldn't have thought of quarks, the Higgs boson, or the "strings" of string theory 120 years ago when the investigation into the sub-atomic world was just beginning.On posting on science.What I mean here is that if you pretend to be completely uncommitted on random supernatural hypotheses that cannot be falsified, it is impossible to make any definite statements about the world.For example, some creationists put forward an hypothesis to explain why "evolutionists" refuse to accept their view which goes a bit like this:"Satan is manipulating the minds of scientists and evolutionists and deceiving them into perceiving a false illusion of reality which leads them away from seeing the truth of God's creation".Now, that can't be falsified by its nature.All of your arguments have been that it is "logical" or "rational" to be uncommitted on that kind of proposition, because one cannot know whether it is true or false. However, when you make any definite statement concerning the real world, you are automatically dismissing that proposition, and contradicting yourself.For me, however, not being able to know whether such a proposition is true or false doesn't matter. It can be dismissed as very improbable merely on the basis that it is a random baseless hypothesis, like "trolls built the mountains" or "evil spirits cause diseases" or "quadrillions of little manifested demons make up dark matter", or "god/s created the universe".There's no need to consider such things when we're seriously exploring reality.As to your point about different opinions, of course we have different opinions, I'm glad to say. I'm consistent in dismissing all baseless supernatural propositions as "very improbable", whereas you seem thoroughly confused.Incidentally, you couldn't be more wrong than when you claim that things cannot be described as "very improbable" or "very probable" when the actual probabilities are impossible to calculate. See your comment on the specific lottery ticket, for example, when we only know that there are many tickets, but not how many.Also, as I've said to you before on the subject, read scientific papers and you'll see plenty of such "very probable/very improbable" type judgements made in relation to observations for very good reasons.

We witness a tiny fraction of the births of animals into this world, yet we can infer beyond all reasonable doubt that all animals are born from other animals, and we have never found exceptions to falsify the theory.We need only establish that some supernatural beings are born of the human imagination to establish an equally strong theory that all supernatural beings are born from the human imagination, and we have never found exceptions to falsify this theory.Why would someone accept one theory but not the other?Establish that just one animal has popped into existence by magic and was not born from another, and you falsify the first theory.Establish the real existence of just one supernatural being, and you can falsify the second theory.This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.

Read my post again. I understand that you can split your random cow/s hypothesis into millions of different cow hypotheses. The same can be done for all other general random hypotheses. That still doesn't make a winner coming from the set of cow hypotheses any more likely. There is still no reason to consider cows of any description in any quantities as likely explanations of the universe.The set of random hypotheses that doesn't involve cows is always far greater than the set that does.Why cows? That's the point. Why not rocks or branes or any other word you care to think of? That sounds like the base for as good a random hypothesis as any other. "The universe is explained by golly, gee, and whillikers combining in the 9th dimension."It has as much support as any other belief.Edited by bluegenes, : typo

Are you looking for a prize for bad analogies? If there was no evidence of non-science fiction books existing, then the analogy might be apt. Try thinking before you type. Of course it's my opinion, and a very well thought out opinion it is. What follows in your post is exactly like the efforts made by creationists when they can't falsify the theory of evolution. It's waffle.Ancient random hypotheses: All of the magical beings in these stories (and there are hundreds) are demonstrably figments of the human imagination. If you don't understand why, I'll explain.Now, I'm waiting for one example of a real supernatural being, which is all it takes to falsify the theory.I have plenty more evidence of false ones.

No, I don't. I am not proposing that something that is well known to commonly exist in a certain kind of place doesn't exist in one of those places because something else that is well known to exist in that kind of place does exist in that one place. Well, you made it up, so any poor logic is hardly surprising. Observation tells us that science-fiction books frequently exist alongside non-science fiction books, and that books in general are real and common things. Which is why no-one else has made up any silly theories about books of any genre not being on your shelves.Observations are the base of scientific theories.This is the theory you can't falsify: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.It is not falsified by pointing out that the existence of imaginary supernatural beings does not prove that real supernatural beings don't exist. The theory that all animals are born from other animals does not prove that there are not individual animals who pop into existence by magic, but it is accepted because the only confirmed source of animals is other animals.The only confirmed source of supernatural being concepts is the human imagination.Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational. You seem to spend a lot of time reading your own posts.

For those who honestly admit their inconsistency and irrationality, and understand that to be the case, I see no serious problems. Such people are unlikely to be forceful and political in their supernatural beliefs, and would not seek to impose them on others.On the other hand, it could be argued, on observation, that the less inconsistency and irrationality there is in human cultures, the better off the people are in those cultures. If you sign a cheque for aid to a foreign country, it'll be headed somewhere where the rate of supernaturalism is very high.And welcome back to the argument factory, if I haven't already said it!

Same here. Exactly. It would require positive evidence for the proposition, but if there was some, then I'd take it on board and assess it.Same with supernatural beings actually existing outside our heads! I wouldn't actually mind my theory being falsified. It would be about the most exciting moment in human history, when you think about it. What!!!!!. There really are leprechauns?It would certainly make the world even more interesting than it already is, but I don't think it's going to happen.