I haven't posted here in a while, but for anyone interested, the Secular Web just published a paper of mine, a rebuttal to Richard Carrier's argument that the nonexistence of God can be easily proven:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... proof.html
I realize that many atheists and skeptics do not believe theism to be falsifiable. For those who do believe theism to be falsifiable, I'll try to stick around and answer any serious or substantive counterarguments.
Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that theism (particularly Christian theism) is falsifiable?
2. If yes, how would you propose to falsify it?
3. If no, why do you believe it to be false?
Transcending Proof
Moderator: Moderators
Post #7
Christianity is 100% falsifiable. In fact, it has already been falsified many, many times. Everyone nowadays knows that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Obviously, we shouldn't burn someone for being Jewish or a bit of a social outcast. Assassinations - those are wrong, right? In morality, Christianity has been horribly, horribly falsified.
God though - he can't be falsified. Maybe praying to him doesn't do anything because he's not conscious like you and me, but there will always be a God. There has to be. Humanity without God - Nietzsche's humanity - will make use all end up like Nietzsche. What a terrible world he must have lived in, one we can choose not to live in.
God though - he can't be falsified. Maybe praying to him doesn't do anything because he's not conscious like you and me, but there will always be a God. There has to be. Humanity without God - Nietzsche's humanity - will make use all end up like Nietzsche. What a terrible world he must have lived in, one we can choose not to live in.
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Transcending Proof
Post #8We were done before we started.Fundagelico wrote: I think we're done here!
1. Do you believe that theism (particularly Christian theism) is falsifiable?
It already has been falsified countless times over.
2. If yes, how would you propose to falsify it?
I don't need to since this has already been done.
It has been falsified by its own claims.
1. It has made claims about reality that simply aren't true.
2. It contradicts the character traits of its very own fictitious God character.
3. *It makes clearly false accusations and claims about human individuals.
*Note: Number three may not be readily apparent to people who are less than decent humans. But for the rest of us number three stands out as clear proof of the fallacy of the Bible.
3. If no, why do you believe it to be false?
Inapplicable. The Christian Bible has already been sufficiently falsified beyond any reasonable doubt.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #9
My answer to the first question depends on what standards 'falsifiable' is held to.
For all intents and purposes, yes, if we want to maintain that any claim is falsifiable if not false, it would be inconsistent to believe Christianity isn't.
It is stupendously easy to make a "logically consistent", ridiculously untrue claim.
It is reasonable to believe that "Christianity is false" by application of Occam's razor, namely with regards to: indeterministic free will (and the additional belief that such free will is not randomness), ill-defined supernaturalism (a contextual "logically consistent" rejection of any real world claims you wish), substance dualism and the soul (including identifying only humans as aware), support of the cosmological argument ( A Theory & literal dependence; an additional dimension to save itself), numerous beliefs that require "you don't know this isn't an ideal world" as a response, moral inconsistency, Biblical inconsistencies and claims of metaphor, etc.
For all intents and purposes, yes, if we want to maintain that any claim is falsifiable if not false, it would be inconsistent to believe Christianity isn't.
It is stupendously easy to make a "logically consistent", ridiculously untrue claim.
It is reasonable to believe that "Christianity is false" by application of Occam's razor, namely with regards to: indeterministic free will (and the additional belief that such free will is not randomness), ill-defined supernaturalism (a contextual "logically consistent" rejection of any real world claims you wish), substance dualism and the soul (including identifying only humans as aware), support of the cosmological argument ( A Theory & literal dependence; an additional dimension to save itself), numerous beliefs that require "you don't know this isn't an ideal world" as a response, moral inconsistency, Biblical inconsistencies and claims of metaphor, etc.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #10
From Post 6:
Really, if you must worship a god in order to display some semblance of humanity, I pray to your god that you never stop.
Evidence here being how a world full of theism is Osama Bin Laden's world.SnpM wrote: ...
Humanity without God - Nietzsche's humanity - will make use all end up like Nietzsche. What a terrible world he must have lived in, one we can choose not to live in.
Really, if you must worship a god in order to display some semblance of humanity, I pray to your god that you never stop.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #11
@Jashwell
I'm a video game programmer and developing games has infinitely changed my perspectives on the world. Actually, other Christians in my field sometimes humorously describe God as the great programmer in the sky and that is a very valid description, I think.
From my experience, I have derived this specific perspective: everything in the world is deterministic. In lockstep real time strategy games, if you have the exact same input at the same times, you will turn up with exactly the same games. there are, however, a specific set of circumstances you need to design your lockstep game with, the first being determinism.
The world is so immensely random because we do not know. When working with floating-point math, much of the time computers turn up with different results. The same computer isn't even guaranteed the exact same result of a calculation. Though I don't specialize in this study, I have faced its dire effects.
When a physics calculation turns up with different positions on different clients over a multiplayer lockstep game, the differences add up and eventually result in a game completely out of sync. That's our endeavor right there: control. We can control them like by using double-precision math which has accuracy of up to some 32 digits, more than enough for a lockstep game. Extending the analogy. we have been doing the same thing in our technological and scientific developments.
Albert Einstein once said "God does not play dice." Well, on the contrary, I believe that God does play with dice. Key factors including the initial force, initial position, rotation, torque, temperature, humidity, and fingerprint structure all determine the dice roll and recent experiments have been able to consistently roll the same side with a special robot.
The world is deterministic, meaning that everything you do, hear, think, eat, poop, were all decided by the initial state of the universe. It's useless to act based on this fact because there's nothing we can do. we'll never be able to record everything in a single state of the universe, much less 2 single states of the universe, so we'll never be able to interpolate or extrapolate with 100% accuracy between states. Double-precision math may be accurate up to the 32nd digit but we'll never know for sure what the 33rd digit is. God may play dice, but he plays with the dice.
I'm a video game programmer and developing games has infinitely changed my perspectives on the world. Actually, other Christians in my field sometimes humorously describe God as the great programmer in the sky and that is a very valid description, I think.
From my experience, I have derived this specific perspective: everything in the world is deterministic. In lockstep real time strategy games, if you have the exact same input at the same times, you will turn up with exactly the same games. there are, however, a specific set of circumstances you need to design your lockstep game with, the first being determinism.
The world is so immensely random because we do not know. When working with floating-point math, much of the time computers turn up with different results. The same computer isn't even guaranteed the exact same result of a calculation. Though I don't specialize in this study, I have faced its dire effects.
When a physics calculation turns up with different positions on different clients over a multiplayer lockstep game, the differences add up and eventually result in a game completely out of sync. That's our endeavor right there: control. We can control them like by using double-precision math which has accuracy of up to some 32 digits, more than enough for a lockstep game. Extending the analogy. we have been doing the same thing in our technological and scientific developments.
Albert Einstein once said "God does not play dice." Well, on the contrary, I believe that God does play with dice. Key factors including the initial force, initial position, rotation, torque, temperature, humidity, and fingerprint structure all determine the dice roll and recent experiments have been able to consistently roll the same side with a special robot.
The world is deterministic, meaning that everything you do, hear, think, eat, poop, were all decided by the initial state of the universe. It's useless to act based on this fact because there's nothing we can do. we'll never be able to record everything in a single state of the universe, much less 2 single states of the universe, so we'll never be able to interpolate or extrapolate with 100% accuracy between states. Double-precision math may be accurate up to the 32nd digit but we'll never know for sure what the 33rd digit is. God may play dice, but he plays with the dice.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Transcending Proof
Post #14[Replying to post 1 by Fundagelico]
Theism is not particularly falsifiable but any specific claims like Christianity are.
2.
Test the veracity of it's claims.
3. To theism in general I believe it is false because it has not been demonstrated to be true. If presented with evidence to the contrary I would have no problems accepting its veracity. However, I make no claims I can't prove or disprove. If I believe in something that cannot be proven either way it is out of necessity and defaulted to a most reasonable answer category.
God theism etc is not the most reasonable answer to the question of existence. It is an additional presuppositional step I am unwilling to make.
1.Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that theism (particularly Christian theism) is falsifiable?
2. If yes, how would you propose to falsify it?
3. If no, why do you believe it to be false?
Theism is not particularly falsifiable but any specific claims like Christianity are.
2.
Test the veracity of it's claims.
3. To theism in general I believe it is false because it has not been demonstrated to be true. If presented with evidence to the contrary I would have no problems accepting its veracity. However, I make no claims I can't prove or disprove. If I believe in something that cannot be proven either way it is out of necessity and defaulted to a most reasonable answer category.
God theism etc is not the most reasonable answer to the question of existence. It is an additional presuppositional step I am unwilling to make.
Re: Transcending Proof
Post #15[Replying to post 13 by DanieltheDragon]
1. What makes theism not feasible? It's feasible enough for my philosophy teacher to have come from Harvard Divinity School.
2. Perceived truth can change.
3. Here you are terribly mistaken when applying your statement to any field. Something cannot be wrong before proven right, or it will never be right because the subject would be under the assumption that it is wrong. Everything, from a belief to a scientific theory, must be assumed both wrong and right until proven one or the other. Even then, the proof itself is often a theory and can be mistaken.
As for your decision on not following God, I agree with you. If you can find fulfillment through other means, I hope you do.
Although, if you've read Life of Pi, I do recommend believing in the tiger.
1. What makes theism not feasible? It's feasible enough for my philosophy teacher to have come from Harvard Divinity School.
2. Perceived truth can change.
3. Here you are terribly mistaken when applying your statement to any field. Something cannot be wrong before proven right, or it will never be right because the subject would be under the assumption that it is wrong. Everything, from a belief to a scientific theory, must be assumed both wrong and right until proven one or the other. Even then, the proof itself is often a theory and can be mistaken.
As for your decision on not following God, I agree with you. If you can find fulfillment through other means, I hope you do.
Although, if you've read Life of Pi, I do recommend believing in the tiger.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #16
[Replying to post 10 by SnpM]
It is not necessarily deterministic but merely we observe it in this regard. When you think about quantum states existing in every possible mathematical combination simultaneously, but only 1 state is observable.We are only ever at any given point in time observing 1 possible state of an infinite slate of other possible states we could be existing in. Determinism really only accounts for the possibility that there is only 1 observable state. If the states can infinitely change given a particular observation there can be an infinite number of outcomes that are not necessarily pre-determined from the onset.
Although I think this would be leading to an off-topic discussion
It is not necessarily deterministic but merely we observe it in this regard. When you think about quantum states existing in every possible mathematical combination simultaneously, but only 1 state is observable.We are only ever at any given point in time observing 1 possible state of an infinite slate of other possible states we could be existing in. Determinism really only accounts for the possibility that there is only 1 observable state. If the states can infinitely change given a particular observation there can be an infinite number of outcomes that are not necessarily pre-determined from the onset.
Although I think this would be leading to an off-topic discussion
