A question for Athiests.

by new hope and happiness 101 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  opusdei1972

  Viviane

  I said nothing about the truth of your speculation, simple that you don't have a hypothesis.

  According to the definition I have given above, in Logic, a hypothesis is the antecedent of a proposition. The antecedent is a premise. It can be false or true. It is what we may assume. If I assume that "God exists", it is a valid hypothesis in Logic, though it could not be scientific. Read examples of hypotheses in a book of Logic.

  "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )
• 

  Viviane

  According to the definition I have given above, in Logic, a hypothesis is the antecedent of a proposition. The antecedent is a premise. It can be false or true. It is what we may assume. If I assume that "God exists", it is a valid hypothesis in Logic, though it could not be scientific. Read examples of hypotheses in a book of Logic.

  And you gave no proposition. "God exists" alone, even in logic, isn't a hypothesis. "God exists and doesn't interfere" STILL doesn't have a proposition according to your own definition. It's still just speculation.

  I do find it humorous that you've retreated into cut-n-paste jobs from websites that you think may support the that your speculation may in some way be a logical rather than scientific hypothesis (it's not, of course) and, to bolster your claim, quote Dawkins talking about a scientific hypothesis. It makes me wonder, with all the inability to explain, in your own words, any of this logic or science stuff, if you actually understand it or whether you are just google searching for anything that sounds like it may somehow support you.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Viviane What I see is you are unable to understand the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic. Did you take lectures of Logic?
• 

  Coded Logic

  the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic

  Yes, it is a PREMISE! Not a CONCLUSION. In logic you use/assume a premise in order to draw or support a hypothetical conclusion. But you don't use the premise asa conclusion!
• 

  opusdei1972

  May be my English is not good, because it is not my native language, but it is clear that if I say "If God exists, then....", "God exists" is the hypothesis.
• 

  Viviane

  What I see is you are unable to understand the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic. Did you take lectures of Logic?

  What Coded Logic said. A premise alone, even in logic, cannot and does not formulate a hypothesis and your own cut-n-paste jobs show. It appears you didn't actually understand the stuff you posted attempting to support yourself.

  What is a "lectures of Logic" and how does it support your position? If you are asking if I've taken classes on logic and work with it as a part of my daily life, then yes, I do.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Coded Logic "If God exists , he does not interfere in our life". It is a good example of P=>Q in Logic, where P is called "hypothesis". That's all.
• 

  Viviane

  May be my English is not good, because it is not my native language, but it is clear that if I say "If God exists, then....", "God exists" is the hypothesis.

  It's your understanding that is flawed, not your English. You don't have a hypothesis without the "... then ..." part. "God exists" is the premise, the antecedent of the proposition.
• 

  opusdei1972

  Is it false that Dawkins wrote the following ?:

  "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )

  If Dawkins said that, it means that he regards the existence of God as a hypothesis. yes or no?
• 

  opusdei1972

  Viviane you said :

  "God exists" is the premise, the antecedent of the proposition.

  Now read the following taken from Wikipedia:

  A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

  So, in formal logic hypothesis denotes the antecedent, yes or no?