Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Reality Salesman01]

Then inevitably we're heading towards another epistemological discussion. Is the scientific method really the only way to gain true knowledge? My answer is "obviously not". There are plenty of things that I just "know" based on pure intuition. It is important to note that I view "intuition" in an unconventional manner; I do not view it is a form of a priori knowledge based on reason and independent of experience. I believe people can gain intuitive knowledge purely from an immediate subjective experience; I view it as a modified form of a posteriori knowledge that can be attained within and beyond the sensory experience (without having to rely on reason to make sense of it).

I can appreciate what you are describing, and perhaps my issue with it is purely syntactic.

I have no issue with making an inductive inference using rational intuition. We agree here. I split ways when you call this knowledge. Inductive inference based on such intuition is an effective way to begin a hypothesis, but you have to be careful, not only to what you apply this useful tool to, but also how you qualify your assumption.

The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!

If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.

If this is applied to the universe, and God is the inference that is made as an explanation, it has no valid starting point. The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God. There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively. There is absolutely no reason to assume it to be plausible because plausibility can NEVER BE ASSUMED.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.

The subject of your hypothesis has no evididence to believe it is a real subject, you could replace God with any word you want that is equally indiscernible, and your inference would not be more or less likely. An unfalsifiable claim is not an inductive inference made by rational intuition. It is wishful thinking and blindly connecting dots to an object on a piece of paper that has been placed there by you for no other reason than-You really want it to be there.