Most believers within most extant religious traditions conceive of, or relate to, "God" as a person (or in polytheistic traditions "gods as persons"). Consider personalism ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalism and also early Christian trinitarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism_in_the_Church_Fathers ... As Pascal says 'the God of Abraham, not the (abstract) god of the philosophers' and Buber's "Eternal Thou" (I-Thou relation in contrast to I-It).

The problem with the word god is that it is used with cavalier imprecision and, as a concept, often becomes blurry as believers realize how problematic and inadequate the idea of god is. I've lost count of the amount of people who have told me god is 'energy' or 'love' or 'nature' or 'meaning' or 'transcendence'.... there are endless creative and pointless definitions that really get us nowhere. Best to leave the term 'god' to personalism and to scriptural accounts, and use more precise terminology to describe other categories of meaning.

I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. — Gnomon

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!!
lol no Atheism is the rejection of a specific belief....not a belief at all!

-"It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept."
-Not quite. If a specific dogma makes knowledge claims about the role of its god in the world(ID, cosmology, morality,theodicy etc etc) then the claim is rejected for scientific reasons.
But to be precise all know god claims are rejected due to the absence of Objective and Sufficient evidence. "Physical" are just one type of evidence that are included in those two major categories.
You can provide non physical evidence and I will accept them if they manage to meet the above criteria. So don't feel limited to the physical realm...
Btw I don't know how you can be sure about the ontology of a metaphysical concept. Metaphysical means beyond the physika(beyond our current knowledge/ science) .....not beyond the physical realm. You should check basic definitions and etymologies before making unfounded ontological claims.

BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. — Gnomon

The problem is that philosophy on supernatural principles is not real philosophy. there is no wisdom to gain from unfalsifiable conclusions that do not advance our understanding of the world.
Wisdom is contingent to Knowledge...and we know nothing about undetectable realms.

I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. — Gnomon

-I don't know what you mean. Not being a theist doesn't guarantee rational thinking. There are atheists who are spiritualist, or supernaturalists and accept all kind of weird and unfounded claims.

IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. — Gnomon

-I get what you are saying....but there is objectively bad and good art. No...to be more precise, there is art on the canvas, or an audio track, on marble, on a piece of paper etc...and art that one claims he has on his head and haven't find the time to express it on a medium.
This is more suitable for the case of Philosophy and Pseudo philosophy.
Again I am not here to argue in favor of science. I am here to help people understand how to recognize philosophy from pseudo philosophy.

So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. — Gnomon

-Nobody did that. The demanded standards are based on Logic. Objectivity and Sufficiency is what your evidence need to have.
Btw.....how do you know that the "holistic" nature of your concept agrees with the actual nature of what it tries to describe....do you have evidence?

what indications and facts do you have for a god to be possible?
I mean..... we can talk about me owning a giant diamond on Jupiter under all those gases....but is there any real value in such discussions...especially in a Philosophical forum?
I would agree that talking about god(s) is an interesting topic in social sciences.

So, we assume no connection between God and existence (H0) and then try to disprove that assumption i.e. prove that there's a connection between God and existence. — Agent Smith

-Actually we don't have to assume it . We just acknowledge that we can not demonstrate any connection between god and existence so we reject the claim(god is found not guilty of existing until the evidence meet the criteria to overturn the judgment!).

What does "connection between existence and God" mean? — Agent Smith

It means that those who make the claim must demonstrate the connection between an entity and a state of existence. They should be able to point to characteristic properties that are displayed by entities that exist.

It seems like you're saying it isn't the claim "God exists". If so, the Null Hypothesis method is pointless, oui?
Since the Null Hypothesis seems to be about correlations, it's mostly got to do with causal hypotheses and isn't suitable for proving/disproving existence. Existence, causation, two different things! — Agent Smith

-The Null hypothesis can be applied on any claim without sufficient evidence to assist our conclusions.
You seem to be desperate to find excuses for dismissing rules of Basic Logic, but I don't get what your point is. Of course the Null Hypothesis is not pointless. Its a great way to identify the Default position in any claim.
You don't have objective evidence for the existence of this concept labeled as god....so your job is to provide a connection between those two points in your claim...only then your claim will be sound.
The statistical application of the hypothesis is pretty similar. We accept any value that is available to us and we don't assume the existence of any statistical significance until such a prospect is verified.
The available value(evidence) in the case of god is zero(non existent) so we don't assume that statistical significance exists until we have the data.
Can you see the irrationality of accepting statistical significance before having the data in our hands???

Those who accept a claim as true need to provide justification for it. — Nickolasgaspar

Only if they wish to convince others that their beliefs are true.

So we wont find any of those in philosophical forums debating their beliefs.......oh wait!
lol.

independent of their intentions,from the moment they share their views we have to inform them that they hold irrational beliefs.

So we wont find any of those in philosophical forums debating their beliefs.......oh wait!
lol. — Nickolasgaspar

Of course you will find many who feel compelled to argue that their beliefs, although neither logically entailed by anything, or empirically evidenced by anything; are nonetheless rationally justifiable. Others may just present their ideas (whether they count as beliefs or merely entertainments) in case someone may find them interesting or inspiring or whatever. You know...like poetry...

independent of their intentions,from the moment they share their views we have to inform them that they hold irrational beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

We all hold irrational beliefs; or at least beliefs which are not strictly rationally supportable. If you think you are exempt from that, then there's an irrational belief right there.

— Janus

Of course you will find many who feel compelled to argue that their beliefs, although neither logically entailed by anything, or empirically evidenced by anything; are nonetheless rationally justifiable. Others may just present their ideas (whether they count as beliefs or merely entertainments) in case someone may find them interesting or inspiring or whatever. You know...like poetry... — Janus

-yes people don't react well to criticism and they are not interested to be reasonable or to hold true beliefs....what is your point? When they go public they will get their critique either they are interested or not...period. Those who make the claim have the burden independent of their intentions and goals.

We all hold irrational beliefs; or at least beliefs which are not strictly rationally supportable. If you think you are exempt from that, then there's an irrational belief right there. — Janus

-red herrings is your A game?
I hold irrational beliefs,but in contrast to those who you defend, I am interested in identifying and correcting them.
Try addressing the points made by your interlocutor...don't' construct accusations out of thin air mate.

As far as I can tell, you're mistaken about the Null Hypothesis. It's a statistical tool applied to populations and is designed to assess causality.

connection between god and existence — Nickolasgaspar

This statement makes zero sense. I can understand a connection between prayer and cure, between smoking and cancer, but between existence and god, what does that even mean?

what is your point? — Nickolasgaspar

That people have different motivations for presenting their ideas.

I hold irrational beliefs,but in contrast to those who you defend, I am interested in identifying and correcting them.
Try addressing the points made by your interlocutor...don't' construct accusations out of thin air mate. — Nickolasgaspar

The points you make are based on a narrow conception of both people's motivations for presenting ideas and the epistemological status of the ideas they present. Don't worry; if I think that people are incorrectly imagining that the beliefs they are presenting are rationally justifiable, I will be the first to let them know,

No need to be defensive; what are you trying to defend? I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of.

Just out of interest, what is the assumption upon which you base your belief that it is necessary or desirable to identify and correct all your irrational beliefs?

As far as I can tell, you're mistaken about the Null Hypothesis. It's a statistical tool applied to populations and is designed to assess causality. — Agent Smith

lol no...its a logical standards that has an application in statistics and in any hypothesis.
well since no one today seems to be able to google a statement before criticizing it I will chip in a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMTUsOd9IuE

This statement makes zero sense. I can understand a connection between prayer and cure, between smoking and cancer, but between existence and god, what does that even mean? — Agent Smith

-it means that god doesn't exist is the null hypothesis and through investigation we need to provide the evidence for the rejection of the default position.

:up: Thanks!

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar

In your prejudicial imagination. :cool:

FWIW, see my reply to :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622

That people have different motivations for presenting their ideas. — Janus

nothing new...why are you saying this obvious fact to us?
If one is not interested in convincing people ...good for him...the idea remains fair game for dissection

The points you make are based on a narrow conception of both people's motivations for presenting ideas and the epistemological status of the ideas they present. — Janus

-you are seriously confused. I never made any points on people's motivations mate.
You were the one who tried to let people beliefs off the hook by presenting their motivation as an excuse to go around posting their beliefs without accepting any critique.

Don't worry; if I think that people are incorrectly imagining that the beliefs they are presenting are rationally justifiable, I will be the first to let them know, — Janus

-So your innervation had no other goal just to play the wise guy on an obvious matter?

No need to be defensive; what are you trying to defend? I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of. — Janus

-You are the one being defensive when you bring up subjective intentions to protect people's irrational beliefs.

-" I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of."
-only red herrings...Why should we care what people want or don't want to achieve in a forum? The rule of the burden of proof applies independent of their intentions. We are free to point out the side burying the burden...why is this so difficult for you?

Just out of interest, what is the assumption upon which you base your belief that it is necessary or desirable to identify and correct all your irrational beliefs? — Janus

-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful.

-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar
In your prejudicial imagination. — Gnomon

-No that is a fact. Supernatural presumptions leading to supernatural conclusions do no provide wisdom that we can act upon inform our actions and expand our understanding!
Its by definition pseudo philosophy...since zero wisdom is produced.

FWIW, see my reply to ↪Agent Smith
:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622 — Gnomon

-I just read the first line and my eyes glazed over !

-"Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. "
So you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is..????

We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books — Tom Storm

I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists.

Maybe there's a political need to stamp out those peculiar literalists, but the weakness of their position is so obvious, it's not clear why a philosopher would expend much time defeating them.

If one is not interested in convincing people ...good for him...the idea remains fair game for dissection — Nickolasgaspar

Of course you can dissect whatever is presented. If you criticize ideas for not being rationally justifiable, however, when they were not presented as such; then you are merely sniffing up the wrong trail.

-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful. — Nickolasgaspar

Helpful for what?

don't fool yourself...I am not posting in these forums because I want to convince people for the validity of my personal preferences...I just believe they are objective and true and I don't need other people to challenge them....lol

Good for you! You sound very similar to a recently disappeared poster: @Garrett Travers; I think you would get on very well with him.

I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists. — Hanover

People are often snooty about Dawkins (even in humanist circles), nevertheless I've found that atheists I have met over the years were once Catholics or observant Jews or Baptists and came to their atheism largely through reading Dawkins as a first step towards secularism. I've not read much of his stuff to be honest and I'm not a big one for atheist manifestos.

You sound very similar to a recently disappeared poster — Janus

:lol:

You sound like any other magical thinker you tap dances in an effort to avoid challenging his faith based beliefs....

What beliefs are you referring to?

those beliefs people are eager to share in public.....but they are not interested in convincing others for their rationality.

Oh, you were referring to the beliefs of others? I had thought

you tap dances in an effort to avoid challenging his faith based beliefs.... — Nickolasgaspar

referred to some beliefs of my own that you knew of. The combination of "you" and "his" there is somewhat ambiguous I suppose.

I was referring to those beliefs you were eager to let off the hook by trying to make the burden of proof appear irrelevant IF the believer doesn't have specific intentions mate.

The burden of proof is irrelevant if the person presenting the ideas is not trying to prove anything. It's not difficult to see.

of course it is relevant. Principles of logic apply on every claim independent of the intentions of the "author". People can dissect irrational claims independent of his wishes or intention. Rules of logic are not suspended just because people hate to see their beliefs being challenged. Why is this so difficult for you?
When I stated "those who make the claim have the burden"...I am not saying they are obliged to participate to the deconstruction of their irrational claims. I am only pointing out to the side responsible for providing soundness to their arguments. ITs a simple case of the Null Hypothesis.