FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page Necessity of God
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM
Search

 
Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-11-2003, 06:18 PM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
Nope. There are several scientists and philosophers who had serioulsy considered the hypothesis of God in their theories.
Hypothesis, huh? Would you care to provide an example of such an alternate hypothesis? Just wondering, you understand. Peer review and all.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 06:21 PM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Hypothesis, huh? Would you care to provide an example of such an alternate hypothesis? Just wondering, you understand. Peer review and all.
Probably something like: God did it - pew reviewed and all ...
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 06:23 PM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Thumbs up
Quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Probably something like: God did it - pew reviewed and all ...
Absolutely classic! :notworthy
Philosoft is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 06:44 PM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default
irichc

see beyelzu's wager

an atheist believes that there is no god. a theist believes that there is a god.

if the the atheist is right, he goes his whole life being right and the theist goes his whole life being wrong.

if the theist is right. the atheist gets to find out he is wrong when he dies and recant. and the theist dies and finds that he is right.

so atheism is the only way to be sure that you are right, either in this world or if wrong in the next.
beyelzu is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 07:19 PM   #55
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Hypothesis, huh? Would you care to provide an example of such an alternate hypothesis? Just wondering, you understand. Peer review and all.
Pascal

Leibniz

Newton (although his God wasn't an ortodox one)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1998/304/304p25.htm

Einstein (idem)

Wittgenstein

At least.

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 07:25 PM   #56
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Beyelzu
if the theist is right. the atheist gets to find out he is wrong when he dies and recant.
Yeah, but too late :-)

And, if the atheist is right, he will never realize it.

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 07:45 PM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist
Posts: 2,869
Default
the point of beyelzu's wager is that atheism is the only way to be sure of being correct because in the case of being wrong you get to change your mind. it is at least as valid as pascal's wager.
beyelzu is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 07:47 PM   #58
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Beyelzu
the point of beyelzu's wager is that atheism is the only way to be sure of being correct
No, it's the only way to be sure of being wrong :-)

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 07:59 PM   #59
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
Pascal

Leibniz
I was thinking more of a scientific hypothesis. Philosophical guesswork, while often thought provoking, is not my idea of rigorous method.

Quote:
Newton (although his God wasn't an ortodox one)
Ah, now we're talking. From your link:
Quote:
Newton was quick to disavow the atheistic implications of the new physics -- God the watchmaker was still essential to get the universe ticking in the first place. The new laws of dynamics and mechanics allowed increased understanding, and therefore control, of nature by human intervention, both of which were much to the ideological and material liking of the growing merchant and industrialist class which had emerged strengthened from the English Revolution. Newton's universe made room for both God and the new science.
Newton may have believed God was present under the hood of physics, but he couldn't formulate an experiment to show that. In other words, "the workings of the universe are attributable to the power of God" is not a hypothesis.
Quote:
Einstein (idem)

Laughable. Einstein was some kind of pantheist. Besides, his cosmological contortions meant to predict a non-random universal structure were wrong.
Quote:
Wittgenstein

Really, more philosophy? You seem to be a keen fellow, Daniel. Find me some actual hypotheses.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 01-11-2003, 08:01 PM   #60
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
Yeah, but too late :-)
Too late for what? Careful, Daniel. Your Christianity is showing.
Quote:
And, if the atheist is right, he will never realize it.

What an astoundingly trivial objection. Small price to pay for intellectual honesty.
Philosoft is offline  
 
Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:27 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.