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?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 50 by Justin108]

Can we agree that intelligent sensible people can hold reasonable differences of opinion on this?

It is purely because of that presumption that I don't consider your shifting goalposts to be unfair or disingenuous. I mean, you went from saying that the existence of my alleged cat is testable by your criteria to implying that a miraculous healing has to be personally verifiable/repeatable for you! But I figure you've simply been looking for your personal criteria by which you'd consider naturalism falsified or 'miracles' undeniably confirmed.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 50 by Justin108]

Can we agree that intelligent sensible people can hold reasonable differences of opinion on this?

Yes but how does that address the OP?

I mean, you went from saying that the existence of my alleged cat is testable by your criteria to implying that a miraculous healing has to be personally verifiable/repeatable for you!

Strictly speaking, you never showed me your cat. You showed me a picture of a cat. I have no way to verify if the cat is indeed yours. I'm not exactly skeptical about it, because the claim of owning a cat is a rather mundane claim. Regardless, how is you showing me your cat comparable to you showing me a miracle? Did you show me a miracle? Or did you tell me about an instance of something that happened that you personally believe to be a miracle?

But I figure you've simply been looking for your personal criteria by which you'd consider naturalism falsified or 'miracles' undeniably confirmed.

I asked for an exclusively theistic claim that can be tested. You have not given me a theistic claim that can be tested. By "tested" I do not mean "investigated", I mean tested as in "X is claimed, I will now do Y to see if X is factually true". If you do not like these "personal criteria", then by all means... you don't have to participate in the debate.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 50 by Justin108]

Can we agree that intelligent sensible people can hold reasonable differences of opinion on this?

Yes but how does that address the OP?

It helps keep the vague generalization of the OP in context.

I mean, you went from saying that the existence of my alleged cat is testable by your criteria to implying that a miraculous healing has to be personally verifiable/repeatable for you!

Strictly speaking, you never showed me your cat. You showed me a picture of a cat. I have no way to verify if the cat is indeed yours. I'm not exactly skeptical about it, because the claim of owning a cat is a rather mundane claim.

Even if I paid for a plane ticket over here and showed you a cat, how would you know it's mine? If I can't show you my cat, then its existence is not 'testable' and it's a different criteria than your original response. (For the record, that picture was of the cat I had several years ago.)

But I figure you've simply been looking for your personal criteria by which you'd consider naturalism falsified or 'miracles' undeniably confirmed.

I asked for an exclusively theistic claim that can be tested. You have not given me a theistic claim that can be tested. By "tested" I do not mean "investigated", I mean tested as in "X is claimed, I will now do Y to see if X is factually true". If you do not like these "personal criteria", then by all means... you don't have to participate in the debate.

Those are your new criteria, sure. Your initial criteria were met, in that the fact of those rapid and medically-unexplained cures of serious illnesses were confirmed to have occurred, and they match the theist (NT) claims of the kind of 'miracles' that occur.

And while you declined to answer the final question in my original post, I think it's an important point to reiterate before I exit the thread. My questions/examples involved
- claims objective facts which are not personally accessible to the enquirer (eg. do I own a cat),
- claims about the attitudes or feelings of other people (eg. do our significant others love us) and
- claims about broader political and socio-economic concepts which drive our communities.

These categories cover probably something like 99% of the things which we believe, including most of the things which are most important to us, yet they are not subject to a particularly high level of testability. The highest criteria of testability are certainly important in the hard physical sciences... but when it comes to existential/philosophical worldviews, whether those held by religious folk or those held by non-religious folk?

We could just as validly point out that all specifically-atheistic claims are untestable by those kind of criteria, and for that matter all specifically-naturalistic or -humanistic or -secular claims But I don't think it's a particularly valuable observation to make either way. The important point to note is whether or not a view is reasonable.

[Justin108]

Strictly speaking, you never showed me your cat. You showed me a picture of a cat. I have no way to verify if the cat is indeed yours. I'm not exactly skeptical about it, because the claim of owning a cat is a rather mundane claim.

Even if I paid for a plane ticket over here and showed you a cat, how would you know it's mine? If I can't show you my cat, then its existence is not 'testable' and it's a different criteria than your original response. (For the record, that picture was of the cat I had several years ago.)

Ownership is a man-made concept. Establishing whether you own the cat cannot be compared to establishing whether miracles happen. Your cat is a poor comparison.

I asked for an exclusively theistic claim that can be tested. You have not given me a theistic claim that can be tested. By "tested" I do not mean "investigated", I mean tested as in "X is claimed, I will now do Y to see if X is factually true". If you do not like these "personal criteria", then by all means... you don't have to participate in the debate.

Those are your new criteria, sure.

Those were clarifications to my original criteria. Fault me for not having a clear enough OP by all means, but clarifying what I meant by "theist claim" and "test" are not new criteria.

Your initial criteria were met, in that the fact of those rapid and medically-unexplained cures of serious illnesses were confirmed to have occurred, and they match the theist (NT) claims of the kind of 'miracles' that occur.

List exactly which of my initial criteria is met by this?

And while you declined to answer the final question in my original post, I think it's an important point to note. My examples involved
- claims objective facts which are not personally accessible to the enquirer (eg. do I own a cat),
- claims about the attitudes or feelings of other people (eg. do our significant others love us) and
- claims about broader political and socio-economic concepts which drive our communities.

These categories cover probably something like 99% of the things which we believe, including most of the things which are most important to us, yet they are not subject to a particularly high level of testability.

You are questioning the value of testability. The OP does not ask "what is the value of testability?", the OP asks "are theist claims testable?" If you personally wonder what value there is in testing claims, then feel free to open a new topic.

We could just as validly point out that all specifically-atheistic claims are untestable by those kind of criteria

Other than "god does not exist", a claim few atheists ever make, there are no specifically-atheistic claims (claims only ever made by atheists). Most atheists, myself included, simply state that "I do not believe in god". There's a difference between stating you do not believe in god, and stating as a matter of fact that god does not exist.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by Justin108]

Other than "god does not exist", a claim few atheists ever make, there are no specifically-atheistic claims (claims only ever made by atheists). Most atheists, myself included, simply state that "I do not believe in god". There's a difference between stating you do not believe in god, and stating as a matter of fact that god does not exist.

One thing I realize with this type of position in and of itself, not believing in GOD (as apposed to claiming GOD does not exist) is a neutral position.

Where it becomes other than a neutral position is when it is used by individuals to demand evidence that GOD exists.

When that occurs, the 'not believing GOD exists' position shifts to something else - it shifts to a reason as to why one does not believe that GOD exists, and for that is no longer a neutral position.

So while most people who say they are atheists may well indeed simple state that they 'simply do not believe in the existence of any GOD', the truth of the matter is that they have consciously decided that they do not believe because they see no evidence of that being the case, and then they are under the impression that evidence for GODs existence has to be shown to them that they can then believe that GOD exists.

So it really is NOT just a matter of not believing because one lacks belief. It is in truth a matter of NOT believing because there is no evidence to which they can say without doubt 'God Exists'.

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

And this is apparent even in relation to a theist saying that he/she can see GODs handiwork in the nature of creation. One can see and the other can not. The evidence is the same, but interpreted differently.

But the theist does not just believe on account of what is evident in nature, but also on account of what is evidence in their personal experiences but those are trashed by the atheist on account of subjective experience not being variable using science.
Be that as it may, as has been said and will continue to be pointed out, science is not a great device for the use of examining subjective experience, and therefore it is fallacy to demand such evidence from that.

What the atheist fails to understand is that they will never be able to convince the theist to abandon their belief in the existence of GOD because the theists subjective experience, counts as evidence for the theist, and no amount of argument involving science is relevant in relation to that subjective experience of the theist.

Which is why it can often be seen in the process of discussion/debate a devolving of that process into accusations of mental health problems, sarcasm, general rudeness, thinly veiled personal comments and the like, mostly from atheists towards theists on account of the theists unwillingness to become atheists. Not to say that theists cannot and do not fall into the temptation of personal attacks etc...they do, but it is far more preventable for atheist to practice such and if you disagree with that observation feel free to start a thread about it.

Theists generally do not accept that the stated position of the atheist is neutral (simply has no belief in GODs) because atheists have proven time and again that they are simply not happy to stay in that neutral position and have to make every attempt to convince the theist that GOD does not exist.

This is not to suggest of course that anyone, atheist or theist, should not challenge certain ideas about GOD that theists have. That is a different argument and should not be conflated with GOD existing or not.

[Justin108]

So while most people who say they are atheists may well indeed simple state that they 'simply do not believe in the existence of any GOD', the truth of the matter is that they have consciously decided that they do not believe because they see no evidence of that being the case

As many atheists would tell you, belief is not a "decision". At least not to us.

and then they are under the impression that evidence for GODs existence has to be shown to them that they can then believe that GOD exists.

Why on earth would anyone believe something without evidence?

So it really is NOT just a matter of not believing because one lacks belief.

Yes it is. All you did was point out that the reason we do not believe is because of lack of evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a lack of belief. That is simply the reason we have a lack of belief.

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What the atheist fails to understand is that they will never be able to convince the theist to abandon their belief in the existence of GOD because the theists subjective experience, counts as evidence for the theist, and no amount of argument involving science is relevant in relation to that subjective experience of the theist.

How then do you explain the existence of ex-theists who once professed such subjective experiences? I was a Christian. In hindsight, I can confidently attribute virtually every "divine experience" to a placebo. Contrary to your insistence that science and logic will never convince a theist to abandon their faith, that is exactly what convinced me to abandon mine. But you're right. I must be an exception because virtually every theist on this site is a lost cause in terms of listening to reason.