Happy Atheist Forum

Any hard atheists on this message board?  I know we have at least one.  A hard atheist would be one who doesn't merely lack belief in deity, but has a positive belief that deity does not and cannot exist.

The only arguments for hard atheism that I've encountered are indefensible as far as I can see.  First, there's the argument that the unknowable cannot exist, or that the existing cannot be unknowable.  I see no causal link between knowability and existence, so I can't defend either proposition.  Second, there's the argument that we must not postulate what data doesn't demand, but to me that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.  Finally, there's the argument that we must not postulate what we can't conceive, but again, to me, that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.

Does anyone have anything to add to the above?  I would be delighted to be able to argue for hard atheism.  I just can't for the life of me see how.

This screen capture comes from a thread at the now defunct Richard Dawkins Forum.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg594.imageshack.us%2Fimg594%2F2415%2Fatheistpoll.jpg&hash=2b465c97c004cd53a91f9fea8a2e86bbcfb646d0)

It makes interesting reading in that a substantial number of members classified themselves as '7' on the Dawkins scale which would be a hard atheist. I classify myself as a 6. The debates between hard and de-facto atheists went on for thousands of posts. The main reason that people chose to justify there own classification of '7' was that the complete lack of evidence for a god allowed them to make the step from a logically defensible 6 to an emotionally defensible 7.

Quote from: "Tank"The main reason that people chose to justify there own classification of '7' was that the complete lack of evidence for a god allowed them to make the step from a logically defensible 6 to an emotionally defensible 7.

Thanks, Tank.  Interesting that they defended 7 emotionally.  I myself view emotion as irrelevant when discussing truth.  Yet even a logical defense of 6 is problematic for me.  How do we assess the probability of a Deistic God?  I'm actually not a fan of the Dawkins scale, but if I apply it to myself, I come out a 4 with respect to Deism's God, the probability of which seems impossible to assess, so I either reject the question (my usual response) or else, out of necessity, designate the probability as 50/50.

Typically when people argue for the implausibility of God, they mean the Christian God, with its implications of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.  But God doesn't have to be any of those things.  The Deistic God simply represents a way of saying that the universe was created.  What's the probability that the universe was created?  50/50.  How could we claim anything else?

Is there anything that would have to be true, if the universe were created, that manifestly isn't true?  A convincing affirmative response would turn me into a hard atheist.  

If the universe is created then X must be true.
X is false.
Therefore the universe is uncreated.

Unfortunately I can't come up with any X that isn't true.  Frankly, I can't come up with any X at all.  I don't see that the universe being created would imply anything about the universe.  A created universe could be logical or illogical, orderly or disorderly, benign or malevolent or indifferent.  Our universe is logical, orderly, and indifferent.  But it could have been illogical, disorderly, and malevolent, and still be created.  Or it could have been benign while still being logical and orderly, and be created.

A created universe could betray its created status or hide it.  Ours hides it - assuming there's something to hide - but it could have betrayed it at every turn.

Another approach would be to prove logically that matter and energy must be viewed as primary components of existence, such that, in order to exist, something must be either matter or energy or else the result of matter or energy; I.e., that nothing can be prior to matter and energy, that matter and energy must be prior to all else.  But how do we prove that logically?

Another approach would be to prove that matter and energy, or at least energy, have always existed, that there was no beginning.  But how do we prove that?

Deism just seems invulnerable.

For a while i was in the 'definitely no god' camp, but as Droid said in the first post, there's no real way to know for sure. It is that simple crux which makes the logical part of my brain concede to the infintesimal chance that god might exist.

Well I used to say that I was a 6 in my head but a 7 in my heart. For me nobody has yet been able to put together a sensible, rational, reasonable and verifiable argument for the existance of the supernatural. In addition that part of the supernatural realm is sentient or that the sentient part of the unproven supernatural realm cares about my existance one jot and that it cares that I might let another man put his willy in my bottom and as a result would send me to Hell for eternity! Sorry but this God nonsense is a pile of poo. I don't care which flavour of institutionalised superstition one subscribes too it's all man-made wishful thinking bullshit.

Now as one can't prove a negative I am forced to concede that the supernatural may exist but I'd no more buy religion from a preacher than I would a second hand car from Dell Boy (reference to UK comedy about a dodgy dealing character)!

Well, obviously we can't know 100% that there is no God.  That would be as illogical as those who are sure there is one.  I think a lot of those who said they were "hard atheists" are doing so to show that they are committed to the cause - that they have no doubts.

Quote from: "Tank"For me nobody has yet been able to put together a sensible, rational, reasonable and verifiable argument for the existance of the supernatural.

For me, no one has yet put forth even a coherent definition of the supernatural. As for deism, how would we ever know, and what difference would it make if such an entity did exist? Occam's razor applies.

Quote from: "Wilson"Well, obviously we can't know 100% that there is no God.  That would be as illogical as those who are sure there is one.  I think a lot of those who said they were "hard atheists" are doing so to show that they are committed to the cause - that they have no doubts.

I think that is exactly what happens with some people. One trend I felt I think I saw were that there appeared to be a high probability that the '7s' were ex-theists. That would have been something that could bear further investigation. I did get the feeling that a small number of demonstrative atheists had left the dogma behind but not the dogmatic attitude. The was one 15yo lad who was an ex-Muslim, incredibly bright, incredibly obnoxious, all the subtlety of a shotgun at point blank range. He simply would not listen to what anybody had to say, whether it supported his position or not  

Quote from: "elliebean"[or me, no one has yet put forth even a coherent definition of the supernatural. As for deism, how would we ever know, and what difference would it make if such an entity did exist? Occam's razor applies.

How about this for a definition?  An intelligent entity which created the universe.

And you're absolutely right that unless someone believes in a personal god - one who either can intervene on Earth or provide an afterlife for those who please him - it makes no difference if that god exists or not.  The only advantage of deism that I can see is that it allows you to feel warm and fuzzy about us all being part of a greater whole.  Many of the important American founding fathers were deists, which was an intellectually defensible position, in my opinion, before Darwin came along.

I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

I was thinking the same damn thing! LOL!

Quote from: "Kylyssa"I thought this was maybe a porn title, "Hard Atheism."

I'd watch it.  

An interesting 'jury' analogy of Hard and Soft atheism. The defendant is unanimously found not guilty. Some people on the jury feel the person is innocent, some feel that the defendant has not been proved guilty and thus maintain the status quo of presumed innocence; these positions are analogous to hard and soft atheism respectively.

[youtube:358alqok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jgOivvOc7M[/youtube:358alqok]

Well, we CAN disprove the ones that provide testable handles.

For example, if a god is described as truthful and says its followers can drink any poison without ill effect, yet Drano cocktails have the unfortunate expected effect, then that particular god has been disproved.

Another different god may still exist, but the "drink poison without ill effect" one had been eliminated.

Same with moving mountains with prayer and any other testable quality.

Also, if certain observations are necessary given the description of the god, and the observations are in fact absent, that's another way to eliminate a god from the running. For instance, if the god is described as making its people wander the desert for 40 years, and there are no observations congruent with that event, then it didn't happen and that particular god does not exist.

All I see is cowardly sixers, unwilling to take a leap of faithlessness.

More seriously I agree with Wilsons  

Quote from: "Wilson"I think a lot of those who said they were "hard atheists" are doing so to show that they are committed to the cause - that they have no doubts.

I think Tank has told us previously we can't be 6.66ers, that's a shame.
Explaining our lowly existence by postulating an immeasurably more complex being seems just plain dumb.
I could accept the possibility of a technological creator a lot easier than a supernatural one.
I will continue to reject the comfort of absolute certainty, after all I could be an hallucinating fungus, growing on the foot of a dancing banana.
It would explain a lot of things.

Quote from: "dloubet"Well, we CAN disprove the ones that provide testable handles.

For example, if a god is described as truthful and says its followers can drink any poison without ill effect, yet Drano cocktails have the unfortunate expected effect, then that particular god has been disproved.

Another different god may still exist, but the "drink poison without ill effect" one had been eliminated.

Same with moving mountains with prayer and any other testable quality.

Also, if certain observations are necessary given the description of the god, and the observations are in fact absent, that's another way to eliminate a god from the running. For instance, if the god is described as making its people wander the desert for 40 years, and there are no observations congruent with that event, then it didn't happen and that particular god does not exist.

I agree, but you know with the certainty of death and taxes what comes next. The delusional victim of dogma will simply dismiss the dismissal as 'wrong', irrelevant, denial, incapability of seeing/perceiving etc etc etc. Delusional dogmatists have no need of reality, it just gets in the way of wishful thinking.

QuoteThe delusional victim of dogma will simply dismiss the dismissal as 'wrong', irrelevant, denial, incapability of seeing/perceiving etc etc etc. Delusional dogmatists have no need of reality, it just gets in the way of wishful thinking.

Oh, that goes without saying!  :-(

Baby steps, baby steps...

As an antitheist, I can only go against theistic claims since I don't believe in their concept of god or see it as real in any way. I'm a fluctuating antitheist, not out of hypocrisy, but wholly dependant on the claims I see as blatantly false. In a macro religion where even the smaller constituting parts or sects don't agree with eachother and even believe in contradictory things  - as a reminder, within the same religion - it becomes easier. When I'm at my most gnostic I simply inflate those to the whole religion, dogmas or belief system.

As for the concept of an intelligent god which I automatically attribute to a deism (I don't even consider a theistic god), I would place my self at number 6 on the Dawkins scale.

I'm a 7 and justify this position in the following manner..........

As I see it there are two aspects to this issue.

[1] The proposition of the existence of the supernatural.

[2] The proposition of a deity as a component of the supernatural.

[1] This proposition, IMHO, rests on a shakey foundation. It must forever remain beyond the approaches of science and our five senses. Our senses are foundational to the conduct of science. These human properties are the only means we have of acquiring a high degree of certainty about our world and the Universe. Intellectual activity, interpretation of what our senses tell us, the application of reason, logic and creative inference, enables our understanding and advancement.

A sixth sense is a nebulous thing incapable of definition and having no pin-point location in the human body as our five senses have, except that it may be located in the second largest organ in our body, the brain. But there's nothing definite we can say about it that can equate it with the normal five.

The supernatural can exist only in a realm beyond "knowing", beyond what we perceive as real, beyond what our five senses reveal to us. If, suddenly, a piece of the supernatural were made real by science then that piece is no longer supernatural. BUT! How do we recognise it as having been supernatural in the first place, before it was revealed? How did that piece differ from the Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle predicted to exist because of the way other sub-atomic particles behave? How does it differ from anything science reveals for the first time? We can't, because our definition of SUPERNATURAL is "something above and beyond the natural". And we then must define NATURAL in such a manner that SUPERNATURAL and UNNATURAL are minutely differentiated.

[2] The supernatural therefore depends for its existence entirely and inescapably upon our inability to "prove" its existence.
GODS share this very same property. They must never be "proven" to exist because if they were, their properties as gods would cease to exist and they become a component of the real, the natural, world. FAITH becomes redundant.

If, for something to exist, it depends solely upon its property of being "unprovable", then I view that something as fantasy, as belonging in the category of the fantastic, as being figments of human imagination. Does a figment of imagination have dimensions? Are some figments larger than others? More important perhaps?

Is there another possible source of the supernatural than the human imagination? A source that has some credibility and is still comprehensible to the human mind? I'm speculating that there isn't and invite others to test this if they think otherwise.

Gods, as shown in [1], are but one maifestation of human imagination when it is involved in speculating  on the supernatural. A human mind can create an infinite number of figments, if only insofaras there is an infinity of numbers. There is no largest number where the sequence becomes finite. Add to these the figments that the individual human imagination has already created and will create while still active. No limit has been demonstrated to exist in its creativity. Then multiply that infinity by the number of human imaginations that ever existed. Where infinity is a component of an equation the resolving of that equation is more infinity.

Gods are but one figment in an infinity of figments. The equation leads to absurdity. Religions create a hierarchy of figments and ignore infinity.    

I suggest that a life devoted to or deeply involved in absurdity is wasted, futile, mistaken, has no substance upon which to build a foundation. As brief as a human life is in the Cosmos, it is the only thing we really own...........it is the only thing.

This is why I'm a 7.

When I first abandoned the idea of Christianity 10+ years ago, I toyed around with Deism for a while. After some time I thought, "Why are you trying to hold on to this God concept? Just drop it." I think at first it was very difficult to simply stop believing something I've been told all my life. The transition was helpful. Once I was able to make that commitment, it's been easier to really reaffirm my current beliefs.

I'm convinced without a shred of doubt that there is no god/deity/higher power.

I identify with 6, but I sometimes make a frowny face when an atheist says we "can't know" if a god exists, but still reject the idea of god anyway. I'd argue we certainly can know, we just don't, which in itself is good evidence to stay an atheist! (Yes, I saw the absence of evidence as evidence of absence logical fallacy thing in a thread but I'm not sold). Maybe I'm misusing some people's words (and would apologize), and certainly being a nit picker (and won't apologize hehe), but I think saying we can't disprove god doesn't give science enough credit

But I, like Tank, feel a six in the brain and a seven in the heart. I feel like hard atheism might prematurely close the door on future discovery (where we only search for self-fulfilling evidence), as much as I would love to say HEY! THERE IS NO GOD, OSM.

Quote from: "Extropian"I'm a 7 and justify this position in the following manner..........

As I see it there are two aspects to this issue.

[1] The proposition of the existence of the supernatural.

[2] The proposition of a deity as a component of the supernatural.

[1] This proposition, IMHO, rests on a shakey foundation. It must forever remain beyond the approaches of science and our five senses. Our senses are foundational to the conduct of science. These human properties are the only means we have of acquiring a high degree of certainty about our world and the Universe. Intellectual activity, interpretation of what our senses tell us, the application of reason, logic and creative inference, enables our understanding and advancement.

A sixth sense is a nebulous thing incapable of definition and having no pin-point location in the human body as our five senses have, except that it may be located in the second largest organ in our body, the brain. But there's nothing definite we can say about it that can equate it with the normal five.

The supernatural can exist only in a realm beyond "knowing", beyond what we perceive as real, beyond what our five senses reveal to us. If, suddenly, a piece of the supernatural were made real by science then that piece is no longer supernatural. BUT! How do we recognise it as having been supernatural in the first place, before it was revealed? How did that piece differ from the Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle predicted to exist because of the way other sub-atomic particles behave? How does it differ from anything science reveals for the first time? We can't, because our definition of SUPERNATURAL is "something above and beyond the natural". And we then must define NATURAL in such a manner that SUPERNATURAL and UNNATURAL are minutely differentiated.

[2] The supernatural therefore depends for its existence entirely and inescapably upon our inability to "prove" its existence.
GODS share this very same property. They must never be "proven" to exist because if they were, their properties as gods would cease to exist and they become a component of the real, the natural, world. FAITH becomes redundant.

If, for something to exist, it depends solely upon its property of being "unprovable", then I view that something as fantasy, as belonging in the category of the fantastic, as being figments of human imagination. Does a figment of imagination have dimensions? Are some figments larger than others? More important perhaps?

Is there another possible source of the supernatural than the human imagination? A source that has some credibility and is still comprehensible to the human mind? I'm speculating that there isn't and invite others to test this if they think otherwise.

Gods, as shown in [1], are but one maifestation of human imagination when it is involved in speculating  on the supernatural. A human mind can create an infinite number of figments, if only insofaras there is an infinity of numbers. There is no largest number where the sequence becomes finite. Add to these the figments that the individual human imagination has already created and will create while still active. No limit has been demonstrated to exist in its creativity. Then multiply that infinity by the number of human imaginations that ever existed. Where infinity is a component of an equation the resolving of that equation is more infinity.

Gods are but one figment in an infinity of figments. The equation leads to absurdity. Religions create a hierarchy of figments and ignore infinity.    

I suggest that a life devoted to or deeply involved in absurdity is wasted, futile, mistaken, has no substance upon which to build a foundation. As brief as a human life is in the Cosmos, it is the only thing we really own...........it is the only thing.

This is why I'm a 7.

Yeah!  In your face Pat Robertson!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Any hard atheists on this message board?  I know we have at least one.  A hard atheist would be one who doesn't merely lack belief in deity, but has a positive belief that deity does not and cannot exist.

The only arguments for hard atheism that I've encountered are indefensible as far as I can see.  First, there's the argument that the unknowable cannot exist, or that the existing cannot be unknowable.  I see no causal link between knowability and existence, so I can't defend either proposition.  Second, there's the argument that we must not postulate what data doesn't demand, but to me that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.  Finally, there's the argument that we must not postulate what we can't conceive, but again, to me, that merely argues for soft atheism, not hard.

Does anyone have anything to add to the above?  I would be delighted to be able to argue for hard atheism.  I just can't for the life of me see how.

So, ID, is it possible that your "delight" has been aroused?

This hard atheist poses the absolute minimum for existence.......That which our five senses reveal to us when filtered through a process comprised of logic, reason, rationality and creative inferencing, or to put it another way; when our intelligence is applied to those five sensations.

Add to this the the fact that the energy/matter manifestation can be neither created nor destroyed. In one form or the other, they are eternal.

All of existence, which includes our Universe of course, in one form or another, is eternal. Only shapes, components, combinations and chronologies are ephemeral and thus they vary.

The supernatural, by definition, can remain so only if it is never made natural, only if it is rendered immune from detection by the five senses.

Therefore, it is a valid proposition to hold that all existence is pristine and unalloyed, that it has no other components, no supernatural.

Thus, position number 7 is a valid one.

It exemplifies the principal of parsimony of William of Ockham and is, via the scientific method, open to falsification.

Adding to position 7 violates William's principal and renders it invulnerable to falsification because the supernatural, in order to exist, must be so. Thus the supernatural is the agent of its own nullification.

My most recent post above explains the principle of infinite absurdity which describes the supernatural unequivocally.

As you wrote; Does anyone have anything to add to the above?  I would be delighted to be able to argue for hard atheism.
Do you, or any other member for that matter, have any comments?

Extropian

I believe that, in relation the biblical god, hard atheism is valid, however in the face of a general cosmic being, I believe it fails. How is it possible to say for certain that there is no higher being yet? I am sure humanity will answer that question for itself as science continues to progress and i'm pretty damn sure there is no higher being but doesn't it go against the scientific method itself, to claim that there is no chance of a higher being until proof is found to validate said claim or or falsify it?

I think the whole thing has gotten too confusing.  We've got almost as many different definitions for non-belief as Christians do denominations.  All because people want to define what they believe more precisely.  When I was growing up, agnostic wasn't a much-used word.  Now it's all over the place.  Used to be that you either believed in God or you didn't.  If you didn't, you were an atheist.  Whether you believed a God exists, doesn't exist, or might exist but don't know, and chose not to follow a god for whatever reason, you were an atheist.  Not an agnostic, or a humanist, or a free-thinker.  At least that's what it seemed to me back then.  It wasn't until the late 90s that I started reading about, hearing about, and seeing all these other definitions.

How much does it matter that you cannot disprove God?  You either choose to believe in God or you don't.  Some people believe in God but nothing else supernatural.  Some people don't believe in God but do believe in ghosts or ET visits/abductions.  

Sorry, that's my .02, and my rant.   :)

Inevitable Droid writes;
What's the probability that the universe was created? 50/50. How could we claim anything else?

With respect, I believe you are over-simplifying the question and thus delivering a similar answer.

In a YES-NO or IS-IS NOT or WILL-WILL NOT circumstance as above I pose the question on the probability of the sun sinking below the horizon and reappearing the morrow above the opposite horizon. Would you assign equal odds to it happening and not happening?

The Universe, all of existence, seems to rejoice in being eternal and indifferent. The matter/energy matrix can be neither created nor destroyed.

The supernatural must be eternally beyond human ken and the enquiry of science. Were it not so then the supernatural becomes natural. If there were a supernatural realm and someone ascribed a new scientific discovery to revealing the validity of the supernatural, how could we possibly know certainly that the new discovery had been supernatural? Would it be labeled "THIS IS A PIECE OF THE SUPERNATURAL"?

Of course, this "piece" suddenly becomes completely natural and no longer represents its former state. It follows as night the day that the supernatural maintains its integrity by being essentially unknowable.

It rules of existence are its own nullification. It can exist only within the human imagination.

As to the question of an omnipotent, omniscient deity/creator. It is folly and illogical to presume that which is not shown to be necessary. All existence, including our Universe is pristine and unalloyed and does not require a supernatural realm to exist because the supernatural is imaginary and can have no independent existence, quod erat demonstrandum.

Extropian

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I believe that, in relation the biblical god, hard atheism is valid, however in the face of a general cosmic being, I believe it fails. How is it possible to say for certain that there is no higher being yet? I am sure humanity will answer that question for itself as science continues to progress and i'm pretty damn sure there is no higher being but doesn't it go against the scientific method itself, to claim that there is no chance of a higher being until proof is found to validate said claim or or falsify it?

Unless we can define "Higher Being" science can never know whether it has been discovered or not. What parameters of test results could be set that would exclude everything but a "Higher Being"?

Has science a means of identifying and measuring omnipotence and omniscience? Are these absolutes, like "unique" and "perfect"? Do they have infinite capacity and existence?

Extropian

Quote from: "Extropian"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I believe that, in relation the biblical god, hard atheism is valid, however in the face of a general cosmic being, I believe it fails. How is it possible to say for certain that there is no higher being yet? I am sure humanity will answer that question for itself as science continues to progress and i'm pretty damn sure there is no higher being but doesn't it go against the scientific method itself, to claim that there is no chance of a higher being until proof is found to validate said claim or or falsify it?

Unless we can define "Higher Being" science can never know whether it has been discovered or not. What parameters of test results could be set that would exclude everything but a "Higher Being"?

Has science a means of identifying and measuring omnipotence and omniscience? Are these absolutes, like "unique" and "perfect"? Do they have infinite capacity and existence?

Extropian

Of course not, which is why I said, the biblical god, hard atheism has a case for however, if there is an actual higher being to discover out there, who knows what it could be like? For all we know some time travelling alien that's the last of his species has been watching over us since the Earth's inception. Maybe we were created by some sort of genesis machine? Who knows what defines a higher being, i'm sure supernatural doesn't have to be an absolute condition. Do I believe any of that? Of course not, but I don't think it's logical to say that any of the above are impossible, just incredibly unlikely.

I think that if there's a supernatural, then by definition it cannot be measured.  If god is supernatural, and decides to make himself measurable, then he becomes natural, then by definition not supernatural, omnipotent, etc.  The entire idea of a god that works outside of physics doesn't work for proof... there would be no way to prove the supernatural.  Therefore god would forever exist entirely outside any ability to measure him scientifically.  Science and god will never coexist.

Ultima22689 writes,
                             "Of course not, which is why I said, the biblical god, hard atheism has a case for however, if there is an actual higher being to discover out there, who knows what it could be like?"

 Extropian replies;                            
                           Exactly my point. No one knows what it would be like. It could be one of an infinite number of things, real or imagined.  

Ultima22689;
                    "Who knows what defines a higher being, i'm sure supernatural doesn't have to be an absolute condition."

Extropian;
               If we don't know what defines a higher being, then how could science recognise it for what it is? Among the infinite number of things it might be [including a genesis machine] which is more likely? Positing the existence of one or two units from an infinity of units is a futile exercise that has no end, it leads to absurdity. IMHO, it is folly to presume that which is unnecessary. Ockham's principal of parsimony [his razor] cautions us on this point.

               It profits humankind nought to presume the supernatural when we can do no more that imagine it to exist. Our five senses, our intelligence and our technology have revealed much of nature's wonders and secrets but not one whit of something that could be positively identified as a piece of the supernatural.

              The supernatural must be eternally beyond human ken and the enquiry of science. Were it not so then the supernatural becomes natural. If there were a supernatural realm and someone ascribed a new scientific discovery to revealing the validity of the supernatural, how could we possibly know certainly that the new discovery had been supernatural? Would it be labeled "THIS IS A PIECE OF THE SUPERNATURAL"? Of course, this "piece" suddenly becomes completely natural and no longer represents its former state. It follows as night the day that the supernatural maintains its integrity by being essentially unknowable.

Ultima22689;
                    "Do I believe any of that? Of course not, but I don't think it's logical to say that any of the above are impossible, just incredibly unlikely."

Extropian;
               When one must consider an infinite number of things as being faintly "possible" then any solution to a problem becomes a pursuit of the absurd. Living one's life allowing for such circumstances [being as open-minded as it is humanly possible to be] is to ignore Ockham's razor and leaves one in a state of constant bewilderment.

               The scientific method advances our knowledge but, IMHO, it is a futile exercise to saddle one's cosmogony with things [the supernatural] that science has no hope of dealing with, that are no more than figments of an active imagination. We'll never know anyway whether science has discovered anything that had been supernatural before its discovery. It is far better scientifically and philosophically to presume as little as possible and to conduct scientific endeavours in the same manner.

               I propose that it serves no useful purpose to presume possibilities when it is unnecessary. What is discoverable will be discovered soon enough.

              Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Extropian

Spot on Fester30.

But I think it would be better to work on the presumption that all gods are units in an infinity of units that comprise just one aspect of the supernatural. But we can know little if not nothing of the supernatural and we will endure that condition for a time beyond comprehension, given that the supernatural is essentially unknowable. Ergo, we can never know if it has any dimensions, we can only know that it dwells in the human mind and has no independent existence.

I have presumed for the sake of the argument that your "god" is a generic term for all gods.

Extropian

You have presumed accurately.

A fine article which explores the idea of "supernatural" and whether it really has a useful meaning:

"Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea" by Paul Almond (http://www.paul-almond.com/Supernatural.htm)

QuoteAbstract

This article will show that the term "supernatural", and similar terms, cannot have any of the profound meanings that people normally think they imply. This leaves a choice of discarding the word as incoherent or accepting its use but only with less profound meanings. This has implications for the frequent theistic claim that a "supernatural" god exists who is profoundly different to anything else.

I do not think there is any foundation for the supernatural, nor do I look for evidence for it. I don't hypothesize about are supreme, robotic galactic overlords or the magical space man that pooped out the big bang, I simply believe, it is contradictory to make an assumption and accept X thing as fact simply because there is no evidence for it despite there being no evidence against it. Which is why I think that hard atheism succeeds when it meets the belief in the abrahamic god but not the general idea of some deity because we simply don't know. Fifty years from now, physics is probably going to look very different. The amount of things we have learned in only the past ten years is staggering, in the past 15-20 years we have made "big bang machines", discovered new subatomic particles, new theories for the origins of the universe, etc.

Who is to say that one day, we may not find some sort of source of energy that can only be described as magic or supernatural with actual science behind it? I don't think any of that loony crap will happen but you never know, bottom line, Science is a process, so to a make a claim of absolute certainty(without empirical evidence) is a contradiction to science, is it not?

Does it really matter whether an obscure fundamental creator is behind the vastness of the cosmos. Sure we could all postulate all sorts of crazy possibilities, like god is energy or god is the collective force in the universe, or god is really an alien scientist are we are all just in a test tube in his lab or any other sort of far reaching obscure definitions of god. What we have and can easily disprove is the interventionist god that most religions are rooted in. We can also disprove any purported factual content in any of the holy texts. We can however show that humans are predisposed to form meaning systems, and that those meaning systems take all sorts of shapes and each harbor its own group of moderates and extremists. What we need to be concerned with is not allowing ancient ideologies and false institutions to influence societies too greatly or to become harmful. There are certain things about existence that may well be outside our ability to perceive it. But of the things we can perceive, none of it when viewed logically, points to a substantial truth in any modern religious organizations. That is the battle that rationality has to take on, not proving or disproving an abstract non conditional idea of a possibility of god, but the fact that a majority of the world as we know it is influenced by myth, fantasy and irrational meaning systems that give them false justification in their irrational behaviors.

Quote from: "Twentythree"Does it really matter whether an obscure fundamental creator is behind the vastness of the cosmos. Sure we could all postulate all sorts of crazy possibilities, like god is energy or god is the collective force in the universe, or god is really an alien scientist are we are all just in a test tube in his lab or any other sort of far reaching obscure definitions of god. What we have and can easily disprove is the interventionist god that most religions are rooted in. We can also disprove any purported factual content in any of the holy texts. We can however show that humans are predisposed to form meaning systems, and that those meaning systems take all sorts of shapes and each harbor its own group of moderates and extremists. What we need to be concerned with is not allowing ancient ideologies and false institutions to influence societies too greatly or to become harmful. There are certain things about existence that may well be outside our ability to perceive it. But of the things we can perceive, none of it when viewed logically, points to a substantial truth in any modern religious organizations. That is the battle that rationality has to take on, not proving or disproving an abstract non conditional idea of a possibility of god, but the fact that a majority of the world as we know it is influenced by myth, fantasy and irrational meaning systems that give them false justification in their irrational behaviors.

I think we all agreed on this already, at this point, I think we're just curious and bored.