Science vs Philosophy. I argue that the scientific method is not equipped to tackle such a question. It goes against its very nature. .
I would have to agree. I think much of this argument is about how or in what ways one values science and philosophy, and where people see the place of each as belonging. To a hard-line athiest, philosophy is never an end unto itself....alone it is merely the beginning of an inquiry. It is hypothesis...often without the means to follow up and make any sort of definitive conclusion. Viewed as one step of the scientific method, it is seen as worthless in and of itself outside of the whole of science.
.
I have two ideas, firstly we know these things to be imagined. .
The Jabberwocky? Yes, absolutely. Santa & Easter Bunny? There are actually thousands of people who believe in them, who know them to exist...most of them, of course, are under the age of 10.
They keep believing until they are told otherwise, or notice things that do not fit. The question then becomes..."how do we 'know these things to be imagined'?" Either someone we trust tells us, or we find out by some vague usage of the scientific method (a.k.a. 'self evidence').
.
However the idea of God/s, this is different. People(some at least) instinctively treat it differently and put faith in the idea. .
"Instinctive" anything is generally a hard sell to any hard-line athiest. It's generally seen as a poor shield for ignorance..."we can't explain it, so it must be instinctive," or "we know, we're certain...we just don't know how we know" which introduces too much uncertainty without any means to understand or know why/how. Again, it flies in the face of science. Or...perhaps from a different viewpoint...it frustrates one much like a child with a Rubik's cube (or me even today
)....until you decide to put in down and forget about it because you're never going to make sense of it given what you know. You just can't figure it out, so it's not worth the frustration. And anyone who does say they've figured it out must have peeled the stickers off and put them back in order.
.
The idea of God/s is a fairly concrete one, it is well established and the question has been adressed throughout history. .
I think vexing covered the "argumentum ad populum" pretty well, so I'll skip it.
Actually, I've found the idea of god to be a fairly abstract one. It means so many different things to so many different people. An athiest would say that yes, the question has been asked throughout history...but it has never been answered. And the asking of a question does not indicate a measure of existence...it indicates a measure of interest. In this case...a means of explaining the unknown.
.
Unlike the existence of a 7 foot chicken or some odd variety of swan, it is in my opinion a question worth considering. A question I should imagine is necessary to adress in order to call oneself an atheist. .
Because god/religion is so prevalent in our society, I would have to agree that it is necessary to address this. The difference then becomes, how do you justify giving the christian god any more concern than an ancient Greek, Aztec, etc god? Thrown into the same pot, one potato starts to look much like another.
.
As for living by philosophy and the supposition that you would achieve nothing, though a common sterotype(and not one I can be accused of failing to live up to) I have to disagree. .
I'll go back to agreeing with you here. Philosophy is very important, in many different ways. Historically and in the present day. Like artists, most philosophers aren't appreciated much in their lifetime...only well after they are gone do people see the true value of their work.
.
However when considering the problem philosophically(that is an attempt at establishing knowledge regarding the existence of a thing) which other method of thought are you to use? .
Very true. I think the main issue here is frustration, much like that old rubicks cube. God just isn't something we can figure out in the regular fashion that we're used to.
.
As a thought experiment, let's use radiation. We can't see, touch, taste, hear or feel it. We can observe it's effects though. What if Marie Curie discovered an element named "Irregularium", where the radiation emitted was never consistent or predictable...sometimes the radiation was there...and other times mysteriously absent. No rhyme or reason to it that our science could discern.
.
We wouldn't deny that the radiation existed, because we could see its effects. Though, because of the irregularity, we might question whether an effect was the radiation...or something else outside of the element itself as the cause. The only difference between Irregularium and god...is that we can definitively see, touch, taste, hear, and feel Irregularium. Now...if irregularium was sub-atomic and only mixed in a gaseous state...we might question its existence even more...depending on the level of our scientific knowledge. Make it small enough....irregular enough...beyond our science enough...and it comes down to blind faith as to whether it exists at all.
.
With god, you have that level of unproveability...added to the random and unpredictable sentient choice for a god to influence...or not to influence events.
.
Is it possible that god exists? Yes. Is it likely? Your opinion on that will depend on what you've experienced, and how you view those experiences through the way you value philosophy and science.
