About the "evidence" point: You still assume there is no scientific "need" for metaphysical theories. All examples of yours, Nocheiner, aim at a theory that is not needed in order to have a full picture (example: Cthulhu) - our understanding of the world would not be better if we assumed that Cthulhu exists down in R'lyeh nor do we have evidence.

But about the point of existence itself - "why is there stuff?", we can't have evidence at the moment and we need an idea of it. Previous examples: If Galilei had been wrong, that would have meant that the previous theory would have been right, there would have been a theory nonetheless. There would have been a model of how to explain it, however flawed (science will always be wrong about something, I guess).

Let's take an example: Modern physics. The universe is way heavier than we previously thought it is. This mass can't come from the stars and planets alone. We have (or had, I'm not entirely up to date) no evidence about what exactly causes the additional weight. Now, what should we do? Where should we search? Physicists suggested that there is a "dark matter" between the stars and thought up some ideas about how it works. Now, according to genius Mr Hitchens, all their hypotheses could have been dismissed right away - not acknowledging that they are hypothesis and might be right or wrong, oh no, dismissed! That would have been utter BS, of course, because then physicists would have had nowhere to even start their search for the illusive mass, leaving them with nowhere to start. it's part of science to cook up ideas, right or wrong, and check them as soon as possible. Before being checked, they are valid hypotheses, afterwards, they are either theories or disproven hypotheses. That's why Hitchens is utterly wrong.

Ok...ok!

There is a huge difference between trying to explain a physical phenomena by suggesting a hypothesis that could explain the phenomena once it becomes an actual theory and simply staying "A god did it, but we cannot test it in anyway so let us base it on blind belief"

There have been plenty of scientific hypothesis where the scientific community said "No, this does not make sense with what we currently know" - but the huge difference is that once that hypothesis becomes an actual theory and it can be tested and verified the scientific community will accept it.

A belief in god can not be tested, it is not a valid theory (however it is a valid hypothesis) and as i said before once someone shows evidence of a god i will change my mind, exactly what Hitchens and pretty much every other atheist i know as well

The point is there is no no reason to blindly believe in a hypothesis. You always try to disprove a hypothesis by examining every possible contradiction...and there are simply too many to make a supernatural being worth beliving in at this point.

As for people such as Tim, he is as you point out a comedian so he does what he does to create laughs. If people are offended it is their problem ;) People are free to make a song about atheist as well..I just wont listen to it ;)

Well, nobody said that the god thing was a valid theory - Nocheiner said that it wasn't a valid hypothesis, I said it was, that's all. I find it rather sad that we don't have a real theist here, just a nice collection of gnostic and agnostic atheists. Would spice things up.

Oh..well if Noc said that then I dont agree with him... didnt see that!

I agree that it would indeed spice things up with more radical different viewpoints than what we have hehe. But at the same time I am guessing this is one of the reasons we have been able to make it a mostly civil talk ;)

That's why Hitchens is utterly wrong.

That is great! ( We'll, at least for me)

Gortos, I am God, and I command you to give me half of what you make every month, or I will send you to hell to suffer eternal torture and agony for all time after you die.

Since you don't require any evidence for my assertion, I am expecting the money at the end of the month.

I suggest a "Dauerauftrag", since you will be paying for your whole life.

That's why Hitchens is utterly wrong.

That is great! ( We'll, at least for me)

Gortos, I am God, and I command you to give me half of what you make every month, or I will send you to hell to suffer eternal torture and agony for all time after you die.

Since you don't require any evidence for my assertion, I am expecting the money at the end of the month.

I suggest a "Dauerauftrag", since you will be paying for your whole life.

Yeah, let me test my agnostic reasoning.

I don't think you're god. I think it is possible that you are, although in this case unlikely, yet I can't know. So I'll just go ahead and accept the small possibility that you are, indeed, god. That doesn't mean I act on it, just that I accept it's possible. Or, to contradict Hitchens, I won't entirely dismiss it.

So, no money, I'm afraid.

Sorry Bozo, I didn't see your post before.

So those who accepted what Roemer and Galileo said were wrong? That's a rare position, today.

Those who didn't accept the evidence where wrong.

He didn't have evidence. He only had assumption, and his theory nicely explained the phenomenon he observed. This was not an evidence, as other phenomena could have explained it as well.

He had a theory to explain the evidence, and that may have been wrong.

People were wrong to dismiss it not because he had evidences (he didn't), but because he gave a theory who explained the observation better (and simpler) than anything they could come up with. Which doesn't make it the absolute truth, but a better theory.

So you see the difference between evidence an the explanation of said evidence.

Now, if it is the only point we are disagreeing, we should still agree on the conclusion, based on the other points.

I don't think we can, since I base my Worldview on falsifiable evidence.

-Incomprehensible- is -incomprehensible-

So you just made an unfalsifiable claim, because once you understand something, you just shift the goalpost one unknown further.

But the point is, there are things simply outside of human comprehension. Yes, the human mind can craft, imagine and understand incredible things. But do not overestimate it, it also has its limits. Of course, they are hard to perceive from the inside, and being a human myself, I can't give you examples.

This assumes an "outside".

Any evidence for that?

But don't think that there is nothing out of our grasp simply because we can imagine transdimensional goldfish living in our brains and influencing our thoughts. Because that's not anything extraordinary, IMHO. Transdimensional objects are not such a complicated idea, just something we can't 'visualise'. Brain parasites influencing behaviour are also something well-known. With all the shapes they can have, a goldfish is not the worst one. Linking the dots together is something very neat for the mind to be capable of, and very useful, but it is not the all-reaching tool one may think.

I am not talking about parasites, I am talking about Xhywfä, Gäaqlb and Üfgqyax.

The idea is funny, but he is lumping together wildly different things, and seems to make the same common mistake that rationalism can cover anything.

Anything rational at least.

Now irrational things.....

Among other things, bashing homoeopathy is like bashing modified organisms : both sides have some very valid arguments, both sides have loads of bullshit arguments, both sides are often unable and unwilling to grasp what the other side is really about, and no side wants to do the damn studies, because it is expensive and despite all they claim, it may prove them wrong.

I am happy to discuss pilosophy, but this does actual harm to actual people.

If you are saying that Homeopathie, which puts peoples life at risk because they think it is actual medicine instead of a placebo, is not a criminal offence, then I am afraid I will no longer continue this conversation.

I DARE YOU to explain the potency system of Homeopathie to us.

And regarding your study read here and here.

Yeah, let me test my agnostic reasoning.

I don't think you're god. I think it is possible that you are, although in this case unlikely, yet I can't know. So I'll just go ahead and accept the small possibility that you are, indeed, god. That doesn't mean I act on it, just that I accept it's possible. Or, to contradict Hitchens, I won't entirely dismiss it.

So, no money, I'm afraid.

So, as there is no evidence for my claim, you dismiss it?

( Well not entirely of course, you just don't act or think about it in any way, shape or form outside a philosophical discussion. )

Good for you.

Yeah, let me test my agnostic reasoning.

I don't think you're god. I think it is possible that you are, although in this case unlikely, yet I can't know. So I'll just go ahead and accept the small possibility that you are, indeed, god. That doesn't mean I act on it, just that I accept it's possible. Or, to contradict Hitchens, I won't entirely dismiss it.

So, no money, I'm afraid.

So, as there is no evidence for my claim, you dismiss it?

( Well not entirely of course, you just don't act or think about it in any way, shape or form outside a philosophical discussion. )

Good for you.

I wish I were able to practically act on my philosophies all the time, but I'm still a human being who has to buy toilet paper at the supermarket. I have to separate philosophy from everyday life.

But your premise is much more unlikely than the idea of a god per se. Your premise, like the hypothesis of Cthulhu, does not only lack any evidence, but it doesn't help explaining the universe any better, as any good hypothesis should. The "god hypothesis" does.

Oh, and regarding homeopathy, it doesn't harm anybody as long as it's taken alongside normal medication. The patients feel better, maybe placebo, maybe not, so why not. Any responsible homeopath should just keep in mind that it won't heal cancer, then we're fine.

I wish I were able to practically act on my philosophies all the time, but I'm still a human being who has to buy toilet paper at the supermarket. I have to separate philosophy from everyday life.

So you have one philosophy for reality, and one for fantasy land?

Ok.

But your premise is much more unlikely than the idea of a god per se. Your premise, like the hypothesis of Cthulhu, does not only lack any evidence, but it doesn't help explaining the universe any better, as any good hypothesis should. The "god hypothesis" does.

"God did it" explains the universe better than "Cthulhu did it"?

How?

Oh, and regarding homeopathy, it doesn't harm anybody as long as it's taken alongside normal medication. The patients feel better, maybe placebo, maybe not, so why not. Any responsible homeopath should just keep in mind that it won't heal cancer, then we're fine.

And you don't find it unethical that people make billions of money by selling placebos.

And you don't find it unethical that people may die, because they thought it was real medicine?

And you don't find it unethical that people say that Homeopathy works, even though you are giving them a glass of water?

Sorry, my morals and my empathy prohibit me from saying that we are "fine".

As long as the homeopathy is done well, it generally isn't harmful. I actually tried a homeopathy cure for acne before i knew what exactly homeopathy was. the reason i started investigating is because I was taking *arsenic pills orally. the way this is even remotely safe is because people who make these pills dilute it until there is almost no Arsenic trioxide left in the pill. making it so small of a dose that the arsenic doesn't have any affect. although if the process isn't done correctly, then the patient can get arsenic poisoning. so the *potential of harm is there.

of course, this is just my personal experience.

As long as the homeopathy is done well, it generally isn't harmful.

As long as the homeopathy is done well, it generally isn't helpful.

the way this is even remotely safe is because people who make these pills dilute it until there is almost no Arsenic trioxide left in the pill. making it so small of a dose that the arsenic doesn't have any affect.

And how much did you pay for that glass of water?

And did it help as advertised?

I mean, water is the perfect cure for acne right?

I agree with you on the water, but most of homeopathic medication does actually contain doses of the stuff... I'll wait for a study that actually proves things. The word proof actually leads me to my next point: I just said "proof" although I previously stated that nothing can be proven 100%. Philosophies, unless they are very, very simple, have to be simplified for everyday life. Not changed, I don't have two different sets, but simplified. Not all nihilists starve, you know.

"God did it" explains the universe better than "Cthulhu did it"?

How?

Oh, don't be so stubborn, we had that. "God" as a concept means a conscious being (or something similar), therefore attributing the working of existence to a will or something similar, a valid hypothesis. "Cthulhu" would be similar, but adds that it's a creature from a early 20th century horror book which has a beard made of tentacles, can be brought down by ships ramming into its head and regularily rises to eat mankind or something. None of these add to the hypothesis, we don't understand existence better by adding that the being has a body (strange idea anyway) and a face made of octopi. There's no single point this would improve, but it includes way more "what if"s. Clear?

I agree with you on the water, but most of homeopathic medication does actually contain doses of the stuff... I'll wait for a study that actually proves things.

Please read at least the wiki entry on the potency system.

If by "contain" you mean a one in several billon chance that it contains 1 molecule, then you are correct.

There's no single point this would improve, but it includes way more "what if"s. Clear?

And "God" is not a what if?

On homeopathy, I was wrong, read the thing. You're right, I guess.

And of course, "god" is a "what if". Any hypothesis is. And there's no evidence. That's why it's a hypothesis, not a theory. And there's no real explanation (yet? But I doubt there will be an answer) for reality, so we are in need of hypotheses. Clear now?

And of course, "god" is a "what if". Any hypothesis is. And there's no evidence. That's why it's a hypothesis, not a theory. And there's no real explanation (yet? But I doubt there will be an answer) for reality, so we are in need of hypotheses. Clear now?

So you make a hypothesis that cannot be falsified.

You will never know one way or the other.

Don't you think that is a waste of time?

And of course, "god" is a "what if". Any hypothesis is. And there's no evidence. That's why it's a hypothesis, not a theory. And there's no real explanation (yet? But I doubt there will be an answer) for reality, so we are in need of hypotheses. Clear now?

So you make a hypothesis that cannot be falsified.

You will never know one way or the other.

Don't you think that is a waste of time?

If you think philosophy is a waste of time, I don't see why you are still in this thread oO

Searching for the root of everything?

The reason why "something" exists, why there is order, rule, information?

There are so many possibilities, and we keep thinking up more. What else is philosophy? Because we're a curious species. Curiosity might be our most important trait. If philosophy is a waste of time, life is.

If you think philosophy is a waste of time, I don't see why you are still in this thread oO

Searching for the root of everything?

The reason why "something" exists, why there is order, rule, information?

Because I am interessted in the truth.

But if your premise is "we will never know" you are not searching for truth.

I say "propably we will never know". Maybe we will. Or maybe we might just end up guessing correctly. Maybe we can make more educated guesses as we learn more about the universe... But where would science be today if people hadn't just guessed even though they couldn't find out for themselves? I like to think about the matter, hypotheses come by themselves.

I say "propably we will never know". Maybe we will. Or maybe we might just end up guessing correctly. Maybe we can make more educated guesses as we learn more about the universe... But where would science be today if people hadn't just guessed even though they couldn't find out for themselves?

But science works by guessing and than confirming that guess.

If you guess but can never confirm, that is not science.

I like to think about the matter, hypotheses come by themselves.

But if your hypotheses can never be confirmed or disproven, because you always shift the goalpost one step further, where does that leave you?