This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Refuting supernatural

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by Jos Gibbons

science cannot determine whether God exists or not. Why? Because one cannot specify, even in principle, an experiment whereby His existence/non-existence could be determined.

Plenty of hypothetico-deductive analyses have undermined at least some forms of the god hypothesis, & science undermines any unevidenced hypothesis even if only some versions of it are falsifiable, because of the epistemic obligations in tow. I suggest you read Victor Stenger's God: the Failed Hypothesis for some examples.

Many (perhaps even a majority) of mathematicians adhere to such mathematical Platonism.

While I'd be interested to know what the percentage is, what case is there for such a belief? By the way, do you seriously consider numbers supernatural? If so, I think your definition is far from the norm.

I’m not clear what you are saying here, but in any case that does not matter since I have (above) provided a demonstration that your claim that (“that a claim is unevidenced is a reason why to believe it is irrational") is, on your criterion, itself irrational and therefor ought not to be believed.

You claim A&B implies a contradiction, I refute B, you're "not clear" what I'm saying when I do so and declare it doesn't matter because you've "already shown" not-A. Bull. B is wrong; I showed that.

A sound argument (i.e. one which has true premises and is deductively valid) would “warrant” a conclusion; such arguments are truth preserving.

That's a subspecies of evidence. I imagine you won't claim beliefs are only rational if achieved by that method, since you think you've already proven beliefs can be rational even if not achievable from my, broader method. What then is your point here? Also, are you ever going to discuss specifics, or will you continue to simply talk about "the supernatural"?

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:23:24 UTC | #949120