Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

For believers in a supreme deity - its existence would be a conjecture, no? Also...

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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?

    P.S.

    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!)?
    • 71 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?

    P.S.

    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!)?
    *not sure if there's a conclusion to this argument or if it's just another one of those 'rational god rants'*
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you. One cannot deny the existence of a supreme deity, it is mathematically impossible to say that a God does not exist because there is always a chance that anything can happen even if it is so small.

    One of the reasons why I don't believe in God is, I find it hard to believe that humans so early on in their existence have found their divine creator and can say it exists by basing their reasoning on a book which was written thousands of years ago and is less than accurate.

    Back to the main point. You cannot say God exists and you cannot say God does not exist. When I say God here, I am referring to any deity in any religion. There are things like the Big Bang that suggest that God does not exist but it just disproves what we believe to be God. For example in Christianity, it states that the world and everything on it was made in six days but evolution proves that humans were not on Earth 4/5 days after the Earth was made. This shows that what Christians believe to be God does not exist but it does not rule out the idea of a creator. The creator could exist and may be unknown to us at this stage.

    In the end you will never really find out whether a God exists so the way I see it is no point arguing about it although it is fun to hear what other people think about the subject
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?

    P.S.

    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!)?
    I'll give you rational, however...

    "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable."

    (wiki)
    But also, a sensible "whatever" should also consider that reports of miracles might actually (or not) be real. It doesn't change the conclusion, but it would "attack" the certainty on that point.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 29, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.