it was already answered in the same post you’re referencing. You quoted it, in fact.
Speaking of quoting, please learn to use the quote function. All you have to do is click the word “quote” on the post you wish to quote.
To aigonz: I’d appreciate it if you answered post #73.
I restate. The claim was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.
1> Lack of necessity is not a valid argument. The tonsils are not necessay, yet they exist.
2> You cannot explain the universe using only naturalistic methodology.
3> False claims made about something do not begate it’s existence. For years people believed the earth to be flat. The earth still existed.
Oh I will, but let’s deal with the ‘empirical reality’ claims first.
Good. I would also appreciate knowing if you’re arguing for some kind of Deist position or something more specific.
Say that I hypothesize that a dice is unbalanced. If I roll it several million times, I’ll either get the expected, random distribution, or I’ll get something that demonstrates that there is some sort of something pushing on the dice to lead it to prefer a particular result.
A hypothesis of deities proposes that there has been something influencing the world, humanity, and the universe away from a simple random distribution. If we observe nature, however, everything that we observe appears to happen according to random distribution. IQ falls on a bell curve, evolution is clearly the result of random mutations, most of the universe is empty, etc. All of these are what you would expect to see if there was no guiding hand, which contradicts the idea of a guiding hand.
Thanks…I’ve got it now (new to this board).
As to your ressponse…your post contaned a selection of claims of lack of evidence.
1> A lack of evidence to support a hypothesis is not empirical evidence against that hypothesis.
2> The multiverse ‘hypothesis’ lacks evidence. But that is not evidence that it is false.
Tonsils aren’t physically impossible. If you hypothesize a sky god, you are hypothesizing the physically impossible before exhausting the possible. Lack of necessity is indeed evidence against when you’re talking about magic.
Yes I can.
There was never any doubt that the earth existed. People were making erroneous assumptyions about somthing they could see. God is completely made up out of the asshole as an explanation for something which does not require gods to explain it.
You confuse the existence of God with the will of God. Nothing you state harms the God hypothesis.
At the moment I am arguing for the postion that (a) God exists.
My personal view is that of a theistic concept of God (one, infinite and personal).
I noted that what is observable doesn’t contradict the Deist hypothesis. But, in that case the answer to the question doesn’t really matter anyways. There’s no purpose in caring about something which affects nothing. Very few people are Deists, however.
Me: “which basically goes against everything that is hypothesized about him, unless you’re a Deist.”
And people make erroneous assumptions about God. False claims about something do not negate it’s existence.
It’s easy to argue that god(s) exists; see the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Russel’s Tea Pot. Once you get into the “personal” field, you’re positing some god that has some influence in the world. That requires a LOT more evidence than “just” some creator.
It should also be noted, in regards specifically to the Abrahamic deity, that besides a lack of evidence for him, contradictory evidence against a deity who actually does anything, there is both textual and archaeological evidence which indicates that the mythos of the deity was fictional to begin with.
Sorry Diogenes…I’m still learning to use the quotes…
my response to your first point was:
“The notion that God is physically impossible is an oxymoron. God is, by definition, super-natural, and therefore is seperate from the physical universe.”
…which is why I am not trying to argue that at this stage, because it invokes discussions that are well outside the boundaries of this one (eg why does God allow evil, etc).
Fair enough for now. Just explain to me why the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not create the universe.
That claim just makes God even less plausible, since you are now claiming that a poorly defined god for whom there is no evidence is in turn made out of something undefined and unproven to exist.
I don’t know what atttributes you ascribe to the FSM, so I wouldn’t presume to argue any such thing.
However it is my opinion that we can infer something ABOUT the designer from the DESIGN, which is why I submit that the God hypothesis is far more plausable than the FSM one.
Except that there IS no design.
And the FSM is less implausible than God because the claims made about the FSM are less grandiose and impossible.