Why are all theistic claims untestable?

[Justin108]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

[1213]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

Here is one claim that can be tested:

"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself."
John 7:16-17

[McCulloch]

Here is one claim that can be tested:

"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself."
John 7:16-17

How would we go about testing that?

[Jagella]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

Simply put, theistic claims cannot pass any tests. That's probably why we are told in Luke 4:12:

Do not put the Lord your God to the test

If I was God, then I'd be eager to take tests because I'd know that I was real and that my powers are real. Taking tests would give me a great opportunity to let people know my reality.

[bluethread]

Selection bias. Once something is tested it isn't called a theistic claim anymore. Prayer is an example of this. It has been tested and has been shown to have positive physical effects. Therefore, it is called meditation, because, since we have determined it has positive effects, that must be inherent in the activity. No deity required. Of the five claims you presented only two of them are directly theistic, i.e. need a deity.

There are nontheistic mystics who make the following claims.

"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Is it true that all theistic claims are cannot be tested?

For example, the bible says that Jesus said some things to his followers about doing something in faith which would produce something in fact.

Jesus said that one didn't have to worry about not having any money as the heavenly father would provide food and clothing and shelter.

This appears to be something which can be put to the test by the individual to see if it is the case.

[Mithrae]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

The underlying premise of your thread seems to be flawed, largely because (as Bluethread mentioned) once a claim is tested it is no longer considered theistic. For example, as I noted in another thread the biblical religion presented the claim of a consistent, ordered reality in contrast to its contemporary polytheisms:

• The worldview in which we find Zeus - like most if not all other polytheistic worldviews of the bronze and early iron ages - depicted an essentially chaotic reality in which gods fought and rose up or were deposed, each governing their own domain of seas or crops or weather as capriciously as they pleased. The worldview in which we find Yahweh is one with a single God who created an order for the world and then rested, his work done: He "appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth" (Jer. 33:25); "He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down" (Ps. 104:19); and his alleged interventions into that natural order were considered the exceptions rather than the norm.
  
  Of course, there is no prior reason whatsoever that reality should behave in an ordered, consistent manner rather than chaotically. But since most early Western scientists were believers in that God, they were entirely comfortable with calling the consistent observational patterns they encountered "laws" of nature. Ironically, it is belief in those very "laws" which has since become the very centrepiece of many nontheists' worldview: Not just that there is a fairly high level of consistency in most of the 1 or 2% of this planet's surface that we happen to observe - albeit even then with numerous anomalous reports of observed 'miracles' and the like - but in fact that these very limited observations are representative of actual universal constraints, an imposed order to reality. And this belief in universal order has become so strong that it is then used as the philosophical basis on which to deny that observations to the contrary, those so-called miracles, could be possible at all!

If scientists of future decades unanimously confirmed that human brains somehow attracted/generated a field of, say, dark matter which could somehow be demonstrated to remain coherent and retain most memory and personality traits after death of the ordinary matter body, we can all too easily recognize the probability of folk calling it a natural phenomenon and nothing to do with any kind of deity.

Likewise when rapid, medically-unexplained cures of serious illnesses are confirmed to occur through a process of careful documentation and professional medical evaluation (later dubbed 'miracles' by the church): The assumption is simply that these must be 'natural' events, even if currently unexplained.



Nevertheless, could you define what you mean by 'testable'?

Do you mean testable by all scientists at any moment they choose (ie. unconstrained repeatability)?
Do you mean potentially subject on a case-by-case basis to professional empirical evaluation?
Do you mean confirmable as a plausible and best hypothesis through empirical and logical analysis?

Is my claim to own a cat testable in the sense you have in mind?
Is the claim that our significant others love us testable?
Are economic or socio-political theories testable?
Or if claims like those three are not 'testable,' what value or merit does that criterion have for most people, most of the time?

[Justin108]

Selection bias. Once something is tested it isn't called a theistic claim anymore. Prayer is an example of this. It has been tested and has been shown to have positive physical effects. Therefore, it is called meditation, because, since we have determined it has positive effects, that must be inherent in the activity. No deity required.

There is a difference between prayer and meditation, and you already pointed it out. The physical effects one gets from prayer can also be found in meditation. Evidently, the physical effects of prayer are psychological in nature rather than divine. If it wad divine in nature, meditation would not be effective.

Furthermore, prayer is often a request for certain things other than simply inner strength or better health. While prayer has been shown to have health benefits, prayer seems utterly useless when it comes to praying for things one would normally have no control over. If one were to pray for rain in a drought, for example, these prayers can never be shown to be particularly effective.

Of the five claims you presented only two of them are directly theistic, i.e. need a deity.

There are nontheistic mystics who make the following claims.

"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Fine, I'll be more specific

"Praying to Jesus/God works"
"Miracles from Jesus/God happen"
"There is a Christian heaven"

Better?

[Justin108]

Is it true that all theistic claims are cannot be tested?

For example, the bible says that Jesus said some things to his followers about doing something in faith which would produce something in fact.

To be more precise, by "theistic claims" I mean exclusively theistic claims. That is, claims only made by theists. Claiming Jesus, a historic figure, said something is not an exclusively theistic claim. It is also an historic claim.

Jesus said that one didn't have to worry about not having any money as the heavenly father would provide food and clothing and shelter.

Very true. But, like the Bible itself, the results are usually vague and open to interpretation (at least according to the theist).

Just as if one were to point out the scientific flaws in Genesis, a theist will come along and make all sorts of excuses involving metaphors and selective interpretation. Similarly, if I were to point out that believers often die from starvation, thereby disproving what Jesus said, I promise you a theist will come up with various excuses for why Jesus was actually right.

[Justin108]

"God exists"
"The Bible is the word of God"
"Prayer works"
"Miracles happen"
"There is an afterlife"

Why are all theistic claims untestable?

The underlying premise of your thread seems to be flawed, largely because (as Bluethread mentioned) once a claim is tested it is no longer considered theistic.

See my response to bluethread (post 8)

Nevertheless, could you define what you mean by 'testable'?

Do you mean testable by all scientists at any moment they choose (ie. unconstrained repeatability)?

Not necessarily "at any moment they choose". Testing the effects the moon has on tides, for example, cannot be done at any given moment. But it is, nonetheless, testable.

Do you mean confirmable as a plausible and best hypothesis through empirical and logical analysis?

This would also suffice, though I do stress the word "confirm".

Is my claim to own a cat testable in the sense you have in mind?

Yes. Show me your cat.

Is the claim that our significant others love us testable?

That depends on your definition of "love"

Are economic or socio-political theories testable?

That depends on the specific economic or socio-political theory. The theory of supply and demand is certainly testable.

Or if claims like those three are not 'testable,' what value or merit does that criterion have for most people, most of the time?

The OP is not asking what the value of testable claims are, the OP asks why theistic claims are untestable.