Then why mention it?

I'm not sure.. I don't think I have the authority to speak for them.

He did state a specific belief in the possibility that the universe had an intelligent designer.

That would be the key word. But they did contradict themselves, and I understand both of yours' arguments.

Apologies for thread derailing.

This is less citation humping and more "what is your reasoning?" It is perfectly reasonable to ask for someone's reasoning if it is not made clear.

Ok, understood.

To be entirely fair, I don't necessarily believe in anything, but I share all sorts of points of view. There can be a purpose behind sharing opinions you don't necessarily hold.

There can be. But not when unsupported. I've argued for and against the death penalty, both arguments were supported and explained.

I'm agnostic. I don't know what's true or what to believe in, so I choose a possibility that I think is interesting. I'm not advocating for it, and I'm not saying it's true, so I don't feel I need any evidence.

It would be nice if all the answers of the world were clear and then I could just accept that, but it's not. So, as I've mentioned in another thread, I choose to think of possibilities that make life more interesting for me, while not necessarily believing in them.

I brought it up because I had something relevant I could say to the topic.

Also, there's a difference between saying something is possible and arguing for something.

By saying you believe in it, you argue for its truth. If you don't know what is true, then you should not have a belief. That doesn't mean you get to pick one, it means you have to abstain until enough evidence is gathered for you to make a decision. Science does not operate on guessing the answers to questions we don't know the answer to.

Belief doesn't operate on science, however, and the rules of science need not necessarily apply.

If your belief doesn't operate on the scientific method, you're doing it wrong. The scientific method is the only consistently improving, self-correcting, and demonstrably successful means of determining truth.

If you had to be scientific, creationism wouldn't exist at all.

I didn't even say I believed in anything but a possibility. Which literally means I haven't ruled it out, but I don't necessarily believe in it. And, no, it doesn't argue for its inherent, universal truth. I'm arguing the fact that possibilities exist, yes, but possibilities are based on a lack of evidence. There's no way of knowing the real truth, therefore there are possibilities to what that could be.

I can choose whatever I want to believe in for whatever reason I want. I do get to pick one. And I have, and that is what I will do until evidence proves something and then I will reconsider it, and you don't get to tell me how I'm allowed to process the world around me.

By the way, deductive science starts with a guess and then edits itself based on evidence it finds.

Yes, but it doesn't assume that guess to be true. It gathers evidence, draws the best possible conclusion, and then changes it if new evidence arises. You aren't doing that. you're drawing a conclusion on [i]no[/i] evidence. So you do get to choose what to belief in a human rights sense, but not in a being-correct sense.

The most fundamental foundations of all knowledge is based in belief which cannot be tested with the scientific method. Period. Some people don't see the difference in assuming sense data is correct and assuming there's a God.

But I never said I wanted to be right, or that I was, with what I have chosen.

Science is supposed to be open-minded and accepting possibilities that still exist within its current frame of knowledge. Not accepting them as true, but accepting them as a possibility.

What's the point of shooting down possibilities just because you don't agree with it?

Then they're morons. The difference is obvious: utility. Assuming that there is a God gets us nowhere. Assuming that things are as we measure them is necessary for any advancement. And it works, it demonstrably works. His assumptions are not epistemological necessities, they're just assumptions.

Anyways, I never said it was impossible, just that there's no reason to believe in it at all, and thus its "possibility" is irrelevant. And you cannot believe something you think is wrong. That's a contradiction.

Assuming there isn't a God gets us exactly as far as assuming there is a God. Neither is inherently inclusive or exclusive to rational progress.

Science is based on skepticism, it is also based purely on hard fact, not speculation, whether or not there is a god is irrelevant to scientific theories.

Which is rather my point: we shouldn't make any sort of assumption. I don't believe in God not because I think that it's most probable that no God exists, but because I have no reason to believe in God.

So it's therefore fine for somebody to believe in God not because he/she believes God exists, but because he/she has no reason to believe God doesn't exist. Which is exactly that for which you criticized him/her. And is exactly the same thing you're doing in terms of gains and losses.

No, because assuming existence isn't the null hypothesis. Not assuming existence is the same as not taking a stance. Assuming existence is taking a stance, it is holding a belief.

I don't understand what this means. "Assuming there is a God[s] gets us nowhere" . . . with what? Where are we supposed to be getting to that Theism is preventing us getting to? How does Atheism "demonstrably work"?