(Original post by UniversalAutocrat)
A conjecture is simply a statement/proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not (yet) been disproven.
Therefore, would the proposition, "God exists" not be a conjecture for many believers in the supreme deity? (I say 'many', for some believers actually believe His existence has been proven - which does not seem so to the empirical world.)
With atheists, on the other hand, such a statment would not be a conjecture, for it is not thought by them to be true.
However, the rational (but sensible and intelligent 'atheist') would still allow some room for the possibility of God existing. He would not want to go as far as to label himself an agnostic, but he would not completely discount the possibility of the existence of a supreme deity, for to do so would be unscientific (much like discounting the existence of a extraterrestrial life would be). Therefore, for such an intelligent and sensible person, the existence of God, whilst unproven, has not been disproven (and I cannot see how it can yet be disproven, regardless of the amount of astronomical and cosmological discoveries and so on).
Therefore, would the wise decision of an 'unbeliever' not be to adopt the aforementioned position; for to adopt a complete atheistic position would be unscientific and unempirical? One would not confidently say that extraterrestrial life does not exist, now would they? To do so would be quite silly and unintelligent as evidence would be lacking to support such a statement.
Furthermore, this sensible and intelligent 'atheist' would not be called an agnostic (as stated above) because he is not confused or leaving it fully open. He sees that he has no need for the existence of a supreme deity; yet for the purposes of maintaining intelligence and intelligent empirical enquiry and 'precepts' of science, he would have to maintain that the existence of God is unproven but not disproven and would therefore have to (even if, reluctantly) conclude that God's existence is indeed still a possibility, no?
I identify with such a position of the sensible and intelligent 'atheist' and I am by no means a 'believer' attempting to undermine the atheistic position.
Additionally, the 'God' here is in the traditional sense - i.e. Creator etc (even with the full proof of the Big Bang being provided and indeed evolution already, the existence of a Creator would still not be (and is not) disproven).
So, would you say that the reasoning in this post is correct (or at least rational!)?