RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 4:39 am
From my understanding of bayes theorem, if there are only two possible explanations, the plausibility of the one is the inverse of the other.
So if 2 explanations make up 100% of the pool of live options and e1=40%, e2 will have to be 60%.
Obviously, the objection can be "God has no scientific measure, therefore he isn't real". But this objection fails, because we (at least I) don't consider science the exclusive source of knowledge. I can't measure thoughts and feelings or the number three, but I think these things, nonscientific as their explanations may be- they actually exist.
So the question is, do you believe non-naturalistic, non-scientifically-measurable things really exist? Numbers, ideas, thoughts, feelings? You will have to say that they don't exist.
I'm reticent to advocate for naturalism, however. It will be rejected within the next 30-40 years.
So if 2 explanations make up 100% of the pool of live options and e1=40%, e2 will have to be 60%.
Obviously, the objection can be "God has no scientific measure, therefore he isn't real". But this objection fails, because we (at least I) don't consider science the exclusive source of knowledge. I can't measure thoughts and feelings or the number three, but I think these things, nonscientific as their explanations may be- they actually exist.
So the question is, do you believe non-naturalistic, non-scientifically-measurable things really exist? Numbers, ideas, thoughts, feelings? You will have to say that they don't exist.
I'm reticent to advocate for naturalism, however. It will be rejected within the next 30-40 years.
