i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Is it false that Dawkins wrote the following ?:
"the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )
If Dawkins said that, it means that he regards the existence of God as a hypothesis. yes or no?
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Coded Logic "If God exists , he does not interfere in our life". It is a good example of P=>Q in Logic, where P is called "hypothesis". That's all.
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
May be my English is not good, because it is not my native language, but it is clear that if I say "If God exists, then....", "God exists" is the hypothesis.
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Viviane What I see is you are unable to understand the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic. Did you take lectures of Logic?
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
I said nothing about the truth of your speculation, simple that you don't have a hypothesis.
According to the definition I have given above, in Logic, a hypothesis is the antecedent of a proposition. The antecedent is a premise. It can be false or true. It is what we may assume. If I assume that "God exists", it is a valid hypothesis in Logic, though it could not be scientific. Read examples of hypotheses in a book of Logic.
"the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Viviane I want to show you that the hypothesis "God exists" needs not to be TRUE so as to get a True implication, if the consequent were TRUE. We know that God does not interfere in our life, this can be proven by observation. So it does not matter if God exists in order to get my implication true, because we know that the consequent is true. See the table bellow:
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Viviane you said:
Exactly. A key component of a hypothesis is attempting to explain something. What is that something? What is the observation you are attempting to explain? What measurement? What phonomenon? What, specifically, is the "something" that needs explanation? Also, that isn't even a scientific definition you've provided, proofs only exist in math. Testing is also mentioned. How would you test your speculation? What are the consequenses if your idea is correct?
You've not got a hypothesis, but speculation.
You are wrong, because you exclude that a hypothesis can be also a speculation. For instance:
A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) what if question.
According to the above definition, I repeat what I said:
My hypothesis is that God exists, but he decided not to interfere in our life.
So we have if P => Q, where P is the hypothesis (God exists) and Q is the consequent (he does not interfere in our life).
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
Hypothesis: an idea that attempts to explain something but has not yet been tested or proved to be correct
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus/american/hypothesis
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
My hypothesis is that God exists, but he decided not to interfere in our life. He just wants us to evolve by ourselves. If there is a life after our death, we can know it for sure after dying.
The god of the Bible is an invention, and is the product of many different contradictory approaches, specially that of the Old Testament.
Another hypothesis is the following: If there is a judgment after our death, this judgment could not be based on our religious beliefs, because the hypothetical true God does not support any religion. Accordingly, for God, it does not matter if you are musilm, a member of a satanic cult , that is, a member of JW.ORG.
i'm new to this website and i thought i'd create a profile.
i was disfellowshipped in july of 2013 in another city.
i since moved and starting going to meeting about 6 months ago in my new city.
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. (James 5)
The above words contradict what the many elders do in a judicial committee. Many witnesses confess their sins, and get what? more than one year of ostracism.
