Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Navigator]

But you don't seem to know that it's possible to have consciousness verified some time in the future by utilizing the scientific method.

I have mentioned on occasion in this thread that it may be possible that tools for this might be invented.

 

[Tassman]

As navigator has said, god and cyborgs, (or AI) are all equivalent (indistinguishable) when they have the technology to generate universes.

The word Supernatural is meaningless in discussing existence and little better at any other time. As all it is doing is describing a natural event which is not as yet understood by humanity. When an event is understood it ceases to be supernatural, for example lightning.

Agreed! When an event is understood it ceases to be "supernatural" and is considered a component of the natural universe. Therefore, ALL reality is open to scientific investigation.

This is all irrelevant and clumsy in this debate. We are discussing intellectual hypotheticals, not the state of our local universe. Nothing we have found out about our local physical universe tells us anything about existence other than the small set of "natural laws" we are exposed to. As I have already pointed out this set is not complete, the degree of incompleteness is not known, or what other natural laws there would be in the set if it were complete.

True. But it’s important to reinforce that ALL reality is natural. It is therefore subject to the laws and constants of nature and available for scientific research.

Yes, the belief of the people who have (apparently) been contacted directly by this god.

It is credible that such people were delusional, NOT that they were contacted directly by a god. There is no evidence of the latter except the subjective beliefs of those making the claim. Psychiatric hospitals are full of such people.

Agreed, the impression I get is that the majority of instances and the majority of mental interpretations of epiphany's are fanciful. But there are a few which are more convincing. But certainly not any kind of scientifically testable evidence.
It may be god or its correlate in communication. For example some phenomena of consciousness akin to what you are considering when you suggest that consciousness may continue after death. Essentially some spiritual phenomena.

But you have claimed above, correctly in my view, that ALL phenomena are natural. Therefore ALL phenomena are subject to scientific testing. Indeed the neural basis of spirituality HAS been investigated by the likes of Cosimo Urgesi, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Udine and his colleagues. And it continues to be examined by neuroscientists. It is evident that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas and can be artificially replicated at will in subjects.

 

[The Norseman]

I have mentioned on occasion in this thread that it may be possible that tools for this might be invented.

Then I'm confused when you stated that it "cannot be verified". That's why I asked how you know -- not believe -- that it cannot be verified.

 

[bruto]

Sky.

Oh dear oh dear. Welcome to the forum, and I know it's not your fault, but your comment reminds me of a long and tortuous discussion with a now-banned participant here (Probably Davidjayjordan), who had a number of odd ideas, one of which was an inability to conceive that the route north stops at the north pole and does not continue up, which is why when we point north we point to the pole, not at a vanishing point infinitely high above the earth's northern axis.

pardon the diversion....

 

[Navigator]

Then I'm confused when you stated that it "cannot be verified". That's why I asked how you know -- not believe -- that it cannot be verified.

Should I have put 'at the present time as far as I am aware"?

 

[Tassman]

I am unconvinced that there is any BoP resting on me. I am making no statement of claim for a start, nor am I convinced that the convention of BoP extends to those who think it is important enough in the first place to mention anything which they think might be possible. Certainly it is not answering to anything science has to say on the subject as far as can be shown. I am skeptical about your spin here as it appears you are attempting to use it outside its intended invention.

In relation to god, convention while convenient, isn't very convincing and teapots, flying or not, are trivial.

Your technique is to raise certain absurd or unverifiable notions as “possibilities” and then demand that your opponent refute them. It’s a cheap trick. And, whether or not you are “convinced” about where the burden-of-proof rests is irrelevant. Russell’s Celestial Teapot concerns precisely the sort of unlikely “possibility” you are raising. His analogy was intended to refute the idea that the burden-of-proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove such unlikely possibilities.

So okay we are making progress in relation to what you would define as being a god.

A god by definition is 'supernatural.'

So this is helpful. What tools of science are able to be applied to supernatural investigation in order to be able to make claims that 'god does not exist' given the statement has been said by some to be a statement of science?

I can think of none off hand, but then i am not the one making such claims and just because I know of none does not signify that there are none.

“God does not exist” is a falsifiable claim and as such is scientific. If it can’t be ‘falsified’ then it stands until such time it is refuted (if ever) by substantiated evidence of gods existing. The burden-of-proof rests with those making the positive claims – whether of god "possibly" existing or celestial teapots.

 

[John Jones]

The context of my posts say otherwise bruto (in relation to the idea of god) that idea can be defined and as I have said, and you know - the idea of god and gods are defined by those who believe in them and as I said - if there is a god which created this universe, we are unlikely to be able to define it very accurately at all.

This does not mean that it doesn't exist. and in the context of this latest argument, I don't have to define what god is as has been asserted I should.

My position is that it is unknown that god and/or gods do exist, and that the continuation of consciousness after the death of the body is also unknown
but it might be the case and until evidence certain and irrefutably confirms either way, I remain skeptical and resist the temptation to believe either way or argue for or against.
My position is a logical one.

HAHAHA! As logical as arguing with a stop sign.

 

[John Jones]

Your technique is to raise certain absurd or unverifiable notions as “possibilities” and then demand that your opponent refute them. It’s a cheap trick. And, whether or not you are “convinced” about where the burden-of-proof rests is irrelevant. Russell’s Celestial Teapot concerns precisely the sort of unlikely “possibility” you are raising. His analogy was intended to refute the idea that the burden-of-proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove such unlikely possibilities.


“God does not exist” is a falsifiable claim and as such is scientific. If it can’t be ‘falsified’ then it stands. The burden-of-proof rests with those making the positive claims – whether of god "possibly existing" or celestial teapots.

You are at least the 4th person to patiently explain that concept to Navigator, who has nothing but empty and increasingly lengthy gain-saying as a rejoinder. He hasn't offered a single citation for his tedious rendition of the scientific method or the logic and philosophy of science.

But hey, punnsh agrees with him, so life isn't all bad.

 

[Tassman]

No. This does not give me cause to believe therefore that they are all products of human fancy but it does tend to get me thinking that god as an idea is beyond the ability of any consciousness in human form to explain what god is in any detail. Metaphorical renderings and superficial definitions are as good as it gets.

The "idea" of god is just as easy to explain as the idea of pixies and all the other inventions of human fancy. You admit yourself that there is no other credible evidence. Thus, until such time as there is, then god is not a concept to be taken seriously. A nice "idea" perhaps. OR perhaps not given the terrible history of religious belief over millennia.

 

[punshhh]

Agreed! When an event is understood it ceases to be "supernatural" and is considered a component of the natural universe. Therefore, ALL reality is open to scientific investigation.

Yes, in principle. But not by humanity due to our inherent limitations. To illustrate by example, an ant investigates a mobile phone, is the ant likely to discover the use of this object, or rather accept it as a lump of some kind of inert resinous material and as such not a food source?

Likewise humanity might examine an atom or an apparent singularity and not discover its use, but determine its utility for humanity and leave it at that.

True. But it’s important to reinforce that ALL reality is natural. It is therefore subject to the laws and constants of nature and available for scientific research.

Perhaps, but not with myself or Navigator.

It is credible that such people were delusional, NOT that they were contacted directly by a god. There is no evidence of the latter except the subjective beliefs of those making the claim. Psychiatric hospitals are full of such people.

Of course, but it happens non the less and science labs, parliaments and corporations are full of such people too.

But you have claimed above, correctly in my view, that ALL phenomena are natural. Therefore ALL phenomena are subject to scientific testing. Indeed the neural basis of spirituality HAS been investigated by the likes of Cosimo Urgesi, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Udine and his colleagues. And it continues to be examined by neuroscientists. It is evident that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas and can be artificially replicated at will in subjects.

Yes, it's interesting work, but it is focussing primarily on the biological component of epiphany. It's not surprising that their results will show up a biological cause for the sensations involved in such an experience. This sounds familiar, rather like our recent discussion about the brain and the mind.

 

[punshhh]

Navigator made claims of what "possibly" exists (including gods), and demanded I make a case that they did not. Thus Russell's Celestial Teapot argument applies. It is intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove such claims.

The burden of proof here is in relation to what may be possible or what may not be possible.

Navigator is saying that X may be possible.

You are saying that X is not possible.

Or are you saying that X may not be possible?

"may" does not require proof, "is" does require proof.

A tea pot may be orbiting in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because someone might have put one there by launching one in a rocket and placing it in orbit.

A tea pot may not be in orbit in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because there would not be one there unless someone put one there.

Neither of these maybe's requires proof, because they are discussions of the possibilities, not discussions of what actually is or is not in that region of space.

If someone were to state that there is a tea pot orbiting in the asteroid belt, no one would believe them, unless they could prove it, either by seeing it through a telescope, or testimony and evidence of the rocket launch with a tea pot as a cargo etc.

Therefore there is only a burden of proof required if someone says there is a god.

 

[tsig]

You are at least the 4th person to patiently explain that concept to Navigator, who has nothing but empty and increasingly lengthy gain-saying as a rejoinder. He hasn't offered a single citation for his tedious rendition of the scientific method or the logic and philosophy of science.

But hey, punnsh agrees with him, so life isn't all bad.

There are certain posters that if they agree with me I will immediately reassess what I posted.

 

[tsig]

The "idea" of god is just as easy to explain as the idea of pixies and all the other inventions of human fancy. You admit yourself that there is no other credible evidence. Thus, until such time as there is, then god is not a concept to be taken seriously. A nice "idea" perhaps. OR perhaps not given the terrible history of religious belief over millennia.

The idea of god always gets special treatment.

 

[tsig]

Y

Quote:
True. But it’s important to reinforce that ALL reality is natural. It is therefore subject to the laws and constants of nature and available for scientific research.

Perhaps, but not with myself or Navigator.


.

You have you own private reality?

 

[punshhh]

You have you own private reality?

Oh dear, you should check that you've read something properly before posting.

Tassman was saying, "its important to reinforce all reality is natural", I was saying that with myself or Navigator, this is not necessary, it is understood.

 

[Aridas]

“God does not exist” is a falsifiable claim and as such is scientific.

I'm curious about what tests that you would propose that would validly address the issue, incidentally. Yes, it's potentially falsifiable, but, even if one or more gods did exist, there's no particular reason to believe that any particular test or set of tests would be able to realistically be able to detect it or any of them, unless you're going to specifically target a subset of god concepts, rather than the category as a whole.

If it can’t be ‘falsified’ then it stands until such time it is refuted (if ever) by substantiated evidence of gods existing.

If counted as the null hypothesis, sure. It's the option that the evidence points to, regardless, such as it can.

The burden-of-proof rests with those making the positive claims – whether of god "possibly" existing or celestial teapots.

As I noted before, "possible," when dealt with in the sense that it's being used by punshhh and Navigator, should be treated as not being impossible based on the less than complete knowledge at one's disposal. That really leaves only things that are logically impossible as impossible. The burden of proof, for that level of claim, can be reasonably considered to be on the one trying to say that something's impossible. The Russell's teapot argument is far more useful when applied to rather stronger claims, namely, whether one should accept something to actually be the case, rather than merely "possible." After all, the teapot postulated is already "possible," just not reasonable to accept as actually the case. That's actually one of the reasons why the argument is viable when applied to unfalsifiable god claims.

The idea of god always gets special treatment.

Well... not really with me. I'm fine with saying that lots and lots and lots of things are possible, regardless. I'm generally far more interested with what reasons there are for why I should accept things as the case, though.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

The burden of proof here is in relation to what may be possible or what may not be possible.

Navigator is saying that X may be possible.

You are saying that X is not possible. Or are you saying that X may not be possible?
"may" does not require proof, "is" does require proof.

A tea pot may be orbiting in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because someone might have put one there by launching one in a rocket and placing it in orbit.

A tea pot may not be in orbit in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because there would not be one there unless someone put one there.

Neither of these maybe's requires proof, because they are discussions of the possibilities, not discussions of what actually is or is not in that region of space.

If someone were to state that there is a tea pot orbiting in the asteroid belt, no one would believe them, unless they could prove it, either by seeing it through a telescope, or testimony and evidence of the rocket launch with a tea pot as a cargo etc.

Therefore there is only a burden of proof required if someone says there is a god.

You go wrong as early as the highlighted portion, by completely misunderstanding the nature of the discussion. The question is not whether any given person believes X is possible, impossible or flurblegurble, but that Navigator is attempting to introduce it into the discussion without even the most basic prima facie case to support it, and then expects everyone to treat it as a possibility on a par with any other. As Russell's Teapot demonstrates, that not how it works.

There may be fairies at the bottom of my garden. There may be a huge dragon living at the centre of the Earth. There may be a particular species of earthworm which is actually a superintelligent alien refugee from another galaxy and could explain the whole nature of existence to us if we could only locate it and find a way of communicating. As I'm offering not the slightest hint of evidence to support this wild speculation, how seriously are you going to take it? The fairies could give you special blessings - will I find you hunting around my garden? The dragon could destroy the world - will you lead an expedition to find and kill it? The earthworm could answer all our questions - will you start collecting, categorising and testing all known worms around the world in the hope of finding the right one?

No, you won't. For all your careful tiptoeing and special pleading, you understand the distinction between having proof of a claim and having just enough evidence to demonstrate that you haven't pulled it from your nethers. There is a burden of proof on anyone making a claim - if that person chooses to soften the claim to a vague "there might be X", that burden is reduced, but it doesn't disappear. It just means that the burden is to provide a prima facie case for taking the possibility seriously.

If you want to argue that there really might be a teapot floating around in the asteroid belt, at the very least you need to provide some evidence of one being sighted, or ejected from a rocket/shuttle at some point in the past. Not proof, just a reason to take you seriously. Otherwise, we must regard any crackpot theory as on an equal footing with our entire knowledge, and consider the possible existence of every conceivable object or being. That way madness lies.

 

[Aridas]

If you want to argue that there really might be a teapot floating around in the asteroid belt, at the very least you need to provide some evidence of one being sighted, or ejected from a rocket/shuttle at some point in the past. Not proof, just a reason to take you seriously.

Not quite. If one wants the possibility considered to be worth investigation or to be taken as in any way likely, sure. If one's just pointing out that something is a possibility in the first place? Not really.

Otherwise, we must regard any crackpot theory as on an equal footing with our entire knowledge, and consider the possible existence of every conceivable object or being. That way madness lies.

This does not follow. Allowing something as possible only addresses one point among many for how reasonable it is to accept that something's the case. Saying that X is possible, but only if completely unsupported conditions A, B, and C are the case and D, despite being a more useful explanation, is wrong is still saying that X is possible. X is very likely wrong and would be an illogical position to hold, even if it were true, in that case, of course.

 

[punshhh]

You go wrong as early as the highlighted portion, by completely misunderstanding the nature of the discussion. The question is not whether any given person believes X is possible, impossible or flurblegurble, but that Navigator is attempting to introduce it into the discussion without even the most basic prima facie case to support it, and then expects everyone to treat it as a possibility on a par with any other. As Russell's Teapot demonstrates, that not how it works.

I can't comment on what Navigator is attempting to do, as I have not studied the whole thread or developed an opinion about this. The impression I do have though is that he is not commenting much on the existence of god, but rather the non existence of such beings and if it can be said logically that they don't exist.

There may be fairies at the bottom of my garden. There may be a huge dragon living at the centre of the Earth. There may be a particular species of earthworm which is actually a superintelligent alien refugee from another galaxy and could explain the whole nature of existence to us if we could only locate it and find a way of communicating. As I'm offering not the slightest hint of evidence to support this wild speculation, how seriously are you going to take it? The fairies could give you special blessings - will I find you hunting around my garden? The dragon could destroy the world - will you lead an expedition to find and kill it? The earthworm could answer all our questions - will you start collecting, categorising and testing all known worms around the world in the hope of finding the right one?

These examples of things that exist are all derived from the human imagination, it's not surprising that they are imaginary and can be dismissed as such. The concept of god is not exclusively derived from human imagination. It can be derived by both direct experience and philosophical or rational thought. Neither of these derivations are necessarily imaginary.

No, you won't. For all your careful tiptoeing and special pleading, you understand the distinction between having proof of a claim and having just enough evidence to demonstrate that you haven't pulled it from your nethers. There is a burden of proof on anyone making a claim - if that person chooses to soften the claim to a vague "there might be X", that burden is reduced, but it doesn't disappear. It just means that the burden is to provide a prima facie case for taking the possibility seriously.

You are confusing claim with rational speculation. Is anyone claiming that a certain thing exists, or doesn't exist?

Logically one cannot compare the viability or likelyhood of the existence of the unknown in the unknown, while the nature of our existence is unknown.
For example, there may be an asteroid approximating the shape of a teapot in the asteroid belt, also there may be a being producing universes as part of a conversation with another being and our universe is an expression of a word in the conversation.The relative likelyhood of these two things existing cannot logically be compared, because the being is external to our current degree of understanding of existence and the probability cannot be calculated. Whereas the probability of a teapot shaped asteroid can in theory be calculated, as the parameters of its physical existence can be measured and compared to other known physical things.

If you want to argue that there really might be a teapot floating around in the asteroid belt, at the very least you need to provide some evidence of one being sighted, or ejected from a rocket/shuttle at some point in the past. Not proof, just a reason to take you seriously. Otherwise, we must regard any crackpot theory as on an equal footing with our entire knowledge, and consider the possible existence of every conceivable object or being. That way madness lies.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there really might be a teapot and logic does not include might in its calculation(it may include probability, but only in known domains). I am quite happy for you not to take seriously anyone who claims there is a god, I won't join you though. Sifting crackpot theories is part of the process of doing philosophy and it deals quite well with the consideration of the existence of undetected things, or things elsewhere(than our little corner of this universe).
I would advise reaching a metaphysical perspective on your life and existence, if you are concerned.

 

[asydhouse]

I have already addressed this in another post answering someone else.

in short,, show me where I make any such claim. What is it about the phrase "I don't know" that you don't understand?

Saying something 'might be possible' does not constitute a positive assertion.

So you just qualify everything you say with a little phrase "might be", and then when we address the meat of your statements, you cry that we are ascribing to you statements that you haven't made, because at the end you attach "might be the case".

Got it. Everything you say is just so you can yank our legs, and then say "not me"! And then act superior because you don't take any positions on any of the fantasies you throw out.

I made the mistake of taking you at face value as actually considering the things you say as being possibilities, that when you dropped a sentence in a new paragraph saying that "Either way, no physical medium would be required", you were actually putting forth an argument that such a thing was actually possible.

My mistake for thinking you had anything of substance to address, since you make such a show of claiming that you are exercising logic.

You ask me to show you where I defined conceit: it was in the very first reply I made to you, post number 286 in this thread, in the hilited bit below, the very first time I introduced the word: I use this word quite a bit, as it's perfect to describe such little constructions of thought which idle speculation can cobble together from other bits of ideas. Conceits can be little poetic flourishes involving metaphors, or they can be speculations of varying merit put forward as speculative considerations.

For you to protest that words should only be used in their most common sense is to demand an impoverishment of the wonderful mongrel language we have at our disposal. Context should normally serve to make plain the particular sense of any word, and as one who demands such close reading as to expect us to realise that even a fresh paragraph's bald statement must always be qualified by an earlier appearance of a little phrase slipped in to disclaim ownership of a statement, I would have thought that you would return the favour and pay attention to such qualifiers as a bald definition of the word upon it's first introduction to a discourse, as well as the little qualifiers such as "this idea is a conceit".

Furthermore, you insist on using words such as "believe", 'know" and "faith" with your own special connotations, despite the protestations of other posters that you are not using them in the normal vernacular sense, and you see no reason to adjust your own use of them to accommodate the understanding of your readers. I can't see that your complaint about my use of the language should be taken more seriously than as evidence that you aren't a serious companion in dialogue.

I can't be bothered to spend any more time and energy on such fruitless batting at the airy wings of your conceits which flit about my head on their diaphanous substances, pleading special status as speculative gnats which have no basis in any continuity of ground at all.

Good day to you, Sir. I shall not return.

1. You do however continually hark to science in you arguments, claiming that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I think I have shown that that is incorrect: As Brian-M has just pointed out, no scientific statement is absolute. Every scientific "conclusion" is provisional. A hypothesis is accepted as a theory after it has met every challenge and test that we can come up with to "throw at it". But even then, it is still open to being altered or overthrown altogether if further evidence comes to light. Gravity used to be one such theory, which in relatively recent times has had to accommodate the discovery of "dark energy", which was discussed in terms of "negative gravity" when it was first coming out.

2. I demonstrated that consciousness is dependant on the activity of the brain. A person literally becomes a different person with brain damage. Ergo, the consciousness of a person cannot possibly be continued without a brain, at least not as it was before the cessation of brain existence (not "brain death" which can turn out to be very deep coma… I'm talking dissolution of the physical brain).

To say that it is not known whether consciousness continues after death is therefore to say that you are A) expecting that it's possible for some non-material something to take over the function of the physical brain, which is tantamount to saying that this new substance must replicate physical functioning, and therefore it is in fact physical, or B) that you expect a new as yet undiscovered physical medium to exist which can take over the physical function of the brain. Either way, since we have found no phenomena so far which cannot be dealt with in the realms of the four forces we know about, there does not seem to be a requirement for such speculation.

3. Here you are again ignoring the facts as we know them that the brain does indeed affect the consciousness. If altering the brain makes an actually new person, why would you expect to be the same mind after your brain has been destroyed? It is completely illogical to assign some inviolable authenticity to your current state of consciousness, flying in the face of the evidence.

I submit that there are many times in life when one can be conscious without analysing or being aware of one's body, as in dreams or in fits of creative fugue, and the transitions into and out of such states are likewise unconscious, so I can't see that if a consciousness were to survive death in some way there would necessarily be any "getting used to it" required.

4. Here is the nub of the matter: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my use of the word "assume" is not making an absolute statement, it is stating the null hypothesis, which is the scientific position to take, not a personal choice. The null hypothesis is the scientific assumption that something doesn't exist until it is demonstrated. This is because a scientific statement has to be falsifiable, and it is impossible to falsify a statement which requires proving a negative.

Surely you understand this: I can prove that unicorns exist by finding one. Therefore, the statement "unicorns do not exist" is falsifiable by the simple demonstration of finding one.

I can never prove that unicorns do not exist, because there might be one on the other side of the universe, and I can never check every place in the universe. Therefore the statement "unicorns exist" is unfalsifiable, and not a scientific position.

It's the same with gods. The scientific and logical position is that god does not exist, until some evidence comes to light to change that null hypothesis.

5. You are right that science deals with the physical universe. Now that you are defining god as an idea, you seem to be necessarily claiming that "god" has no interaction with the physical universe. I submit that if you are going to define god as having no interaction with the physical universe, then you are just talking for the sake of it, and you are not engaging with science. This tautological situation is nevertheless where you seem to be pitching your tent.

For the concept of "god" to have any meaning beyond being a meme passed on through physical means such as language, and indeed the firings of neurones (which both require physical media), it has to have some independent existence. What sort of existence there could be without either physical dependance or interaction is the realm of pure speculation. Fantasy, with no meaning or consequence. The final resting place of the god of the gaps.

For if god as an idea even once interacted with the physical world, it would be effecting a physical connection, and would no longer be able to divorce itself from the physical as an "idea", which concept is just an "ideal" conceit (an old word meaning effectively "a confection, or an idle construction, of a thought"). As to your extraterrestrials, you are abandoning the "idea" ideal you apply to god. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in our knowledge which forbids the physical existence of extraterrestrials. In fact it looks more and more likely that life will occur wherever energy exchange is possible, which is most places in the universe, so the scientific evidence makes the statement "ets are likely to exist" more justifiable than either "ets cannot exist" or "god might exist".

None of which plays into your conceit that "god is an idea". If that's all you were saying, I would agree with you: "god" is an idea.

Where we differ is that I go on to say that "god" is only an idea, and that idea exists in the physical media of our brains and in our language (in books and in speech). The consequences of the idea of god do exist, in the exalted states of consciousness mediated through the interaction of concepts and music and various tricks to induce biochemical fluxes, etc., all of which take place via physical interactions.

To sum up: to speak of "god" "existing" as an "idea" beyond any interaction with the physical universe (which includes our human consciousness) is a conceit which is forever beyond any meaningful reality. It has absolutely no relevance to existence. Your own definition of god as an idea has defined that god out of existence.

5. You are copping out of any meaningful discussion of the issue of god's existence, and you are copping out of following the logic of the discussion to it's necessary conclusion. On top of that, you do hark to science and try to claim that it is unscientific to make the statement that god does not exist. I hope you are willing to accept that, since all scientific statements are de facto provisional, it is the only valid scientific conclusion to arrive at that god does not exist.

A) Everything we know points to that conclusion.
B) It is a falsifiable statement.
C) There is nothing that requires us to even beg the question of any other force or entity to explain the state of the universe or our place in it.

I do think your position of allowing for a nonphysical ineffective entity (which by definition can have no interaction with us and the universe), and your equally disconnected concept of a non-physical survival of consciousness beyond the universe (whatever that could mean), is an illogical and pointless conceit. It is indeed irrational. And I can think of times and situations where it would be far from sensible.

Good luck. aSyd