Transcending Proof

[Fundagelico]

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?

[Fundagelico]

No, Christianity is not falsifiable. It is not falsifiable because each believer has a unique definition of Christianity as well as a unique methodology for dealing with any point that may appear to refute his belief. So, the way Christianity might be falsified is up to each individual believer. (One Christian I knew felt that the creation account in Genesis was largely accurate; as he studied science and the facts evolution in college over many years, he began to understand that biblical creation was a myth, and after several more years he dropped his belief. His version of Christianity was falsifiable, but most Christians do not have a type of Christianity that can be falsified except through faith that it is wrong because faith is the only consideration when they consider it to be nonfalsifiable).

Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that every Christian has a unique definition of Christianity. In that case would you concede that Christians are not nearly as given to mindless conformity as, say, a typical university student enrolled in an evolutionary biology course?

I wouldn't propose to falsify Christianity. All I can do is point out its stupidity and contradictions. The believer must decide how and whether to continue to believe through faith despite silliness and contradictions. Most Christians are pretty good at figuring out way to beat any criticisms because they're already so adept at utilizing faith.

I believe Christianity to be false because it has not demonstrated its viability.

I'm not sure what a demonstration of viability would involve – presumably an inference based on evidence of some sort. But even on the generous concession that there is no evidence for Christianity, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Otherwise we would have to believe that General Relativity was actually false in the 19th century and then became true in the 20th.

There are no measurements that can be made to demonstrate the Christian dogma to be accurate. It has what other nonprovable belief systems have, but nothing that they don't (as far as being demonstrable or "true" or viable). Since Christianity relies upon faith the way all nondemosntrable belief systems do, and because many of its ideas are so stupid as to assault reason, there are no reasons to believe it is true beyond brainwashing by authority figures--and that's not enough for me.

Ahh, yes. There's one thing I can always count on when I post here: Respectful, civil dialogue.

[Fundagelico]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In your paper you conclude: "To the degree that the repudiation of Christian theism depends on rational objections to omnipotence, then, we are left with no objection to the truth of Christian theism at all."

So any argument begins with what is presumed to be a fact. Example: The existence of God.

I wasn't really arguing for the existence of God, rather rebutting the claim that the nonexistence of God can be easily proven. If and when I do argue for the existence of God my argument does not begin with the existence of God as a premise.

When you begin asking, "where is he?" "was he falsifiable" etc., and you have to answer with, he is a paradoxical implied liar and he can't be found, because is is ineffable, omnipotent and works in mysterious ways, you have lost your argument. Period. The fact is now wrong.

You have used an unverifiable, and more importantly you have used an assumption to prove your fact.

No, I never claimed that the existence God is an empirical fact – though I did suggest the possibility that belief in God is properly basic for some of us. Basic beliefs (such as belief that all unverifiable claims are false) cannot be verified. Thus to assert, rather than verify, that all unverifiable claims are false is self-defeating.

It is made worse that the assumption is the only way to prove your argument, with no reason AT ALL to make such an assumption to begin with, and certainly no way to prove it.

Well, it's true that many of my beliefs (like many of yours) can be neither proven nor disproven. But that's not to say that there is no reason AT ALL for my beliefs. See endnote 6 of my paper, where I list various sources of evidence for the existence of God.

Just how many times must man reach the next heaven and say, "I don't see any God up here." Before we acknowledge, there is no God there?

About the same number of times man makes the very same journey and says, "I don't see any subatomic particles up here," or "I don't see any memories up here,� etc., for all sorts of equally invisible realities.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by Fundagelico]

So you concede the fact then?
Because there are sub-atomic particles there (and you do see them), and there are memories there, that you do have, and you used an unverifiable and irrational assumption to "prove" your fact, and because there is no god up there.

(?)

Believe without basis is delusion, or worse. Right?

Your tone says one thing, your words say 180 degrees different.

[Fundagelico]

[Replying to post 42 by Fundagelico]

So you concede the fact then?
Because there are sub-atomic particles there (and you do see them), and there are memories there, that you do have, and you used an unverifiable and irrational assumption to "prove" your fact, and because there is no god up there.

1. I have never seen a subatomic particle.
2. I have never seen a memory.
3. I did not try to "prove" a fact. I have argued at length that in terms of observability the existence of God (along with subatomic particles, past events and other things) cannot be proven.

Now the last assertion, "…and because there is no god up there," is far from self-evident. Indeed, whether God exists is the question at hand. To suggest that theism is false because there is no god is to beg that question – or as you put it, to use an unverifiable assumption to prove a fact.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 44 by Fundagelico]

Light is a subatomic particle. Subatomics cascade off of spaceships and so on.
You see memory everytime you have one, and if necessary you could hook up to an MRI to "see," a memory, etc..

They are no unicorns up here.
I don't see any dragons either.

The point is, that without irrational assumptions, you shouldn't expect God anywhere either. There is no logical reason to assume god exists.

[Fundagelico]

[Replying to post 44 by Fundagelico]

Light is a subatomic particle. Subatomics cascade off of spaceships and so on.

Right, but we're talking about whether a particle is an observable entity. From that perspective visible light is a subatomic particle in about the same way that the Gulf of Mexico is a molecule of H2O. Now from what I've been told, a photon can be observed with the right instruments under the right conditions. Even then, to know that to be true I have to believe what I've been told (because I personally can't see a photon from where I sit).

Not even this much can be said for electrons, because (again from what I've been told) they cannot be observed -- with or without instruments. So I guess observability depends on the particle in question (and within the constraints suggested by the uncertainty principle).

You see memory everytime you have one, and if necessary you could hook up to an MRI to "see," a memory, etc..

Well, it's true that I can see a memory with the "mind's eye," so to speak, but I can't relive or re-observe the experience firsthand in the real world, in real time. This is the difference between direct and indirect experience. In principle the former would include observations of Jesus risen from the dead, whereas the latter would include memories of seeing Jesus risen from the dead as recorded in the Gospels.

They are no unicorns up here.
I don't see any dragons either.

The point is, that without irrational assumptions, you shouldn't expect God anywhere either. There is no logical reason to assume god exists.

I appreciate that you hold belief in God to be irrational. The problem is that you have not yet suggested any non-arbitrary way to distinguish irrational from rational. And one can only gain so much rhetorical traction from arbitrarily comparing God to obvious and deliberate fabrications of imagination like unicorns or dragons -- or leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, ghosts, goblins, Spider-Man, etc. etc.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

In that case would you concede that Christians are not nearly as given to mindless conformity as, say, a typical university student enrolled in an evolutionary biology course?

Students are expected to know the data presented in their courses, otherwise they could present any test answer as legit, so calling such "mindless conformity" is, I contend, a goofy notion.

[Hatuey]

Okay, let's assume for sake of argument that every Christian has a unique definition of Christianity. In that case would you concede that Christians are not nearly as given to mindless conformity as, say, a typical university student enrolled in an evolutionary biology course?

No. It is not "mindless conformity" to believe in that which has been proven as the best model. Every rational person who agrees that evolution represents the best theory/model that incorporates all known facts would change his position if a better model were presented to him.

Mindless conformity is finding any excuse to continue belief in that which is unprovable yet nonfalsifiable. Anybody can hold a nonfalsifiable belief; therefore, it's nearly "mindless."

I'm not sure what a demonstration of viability would involve – presumably an inference based on evidence of some sort. But even on the generous concession that there is no evidence for Christianity, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Otherwise we would have to believe that General Relativity was actually false in the 19th century and then became true in the 20th.

Is this the best you can do?

There is plenty of evidence that Christianity is silly for those who haven't been indoctrinated and brainwashed.

General Relativity was not false in the 19th century, but there was no reason to consider it true until the idea was formalized. If some babbling idiot went around describing GR in the 11th century with zero mathematics and no way to express it, a wise man would consider it idiocy, even though the babbling idiot happened to be correct.

Ahh, yes. There's one thing I can always count on when I post here: Respectful, civil dialogue.

Correct. I am always respectful and civil. You're welcome.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 46 by Fundagelico]

Ah, but to be fair, you can perceive light, it is how you see.
And so one with the rest of your contentions.

They bring us right back back to the argument of omnipotence being required to validate the fact, and irrational assumptions about this omnipotent being.

Why is this all powerful being hiding when nothing but good can come from, no pun intended, revelation?

In this case, I do not believe "the lord works in mysterious ways," etc., is a valid rational. I think based on the topic and its contributors we have presented a solid reason to disbelieve, or that it has been falsified.

[Hatuey]

Right, but we're talking about whether a particle is an observable entity.

The eye can detect one, single, solitary photon. The brain usually does not register photons, however until about nine or ten strike the receptors signaling to the brain that an event is ongoing..rather than arbitrary and solitary.

Not even this much can be said for electrons, because (again from what I've been told) they cannot be observed -- with or without instruments.

Electrons are easily detected.

Well, it's true that I can see a memory with the "mind's eye," so to speak, but I can't relive or re-observe the experience firsthand in the real world, in real time. This is the difference between direct and indirect experience.

Under certain conditions the brain can "relive" certain events or "live out" false events in as much "reality" as any that can be claimed by any one or any human brain. The brain creates reality, and it can be fooled as a whole unit and caused to experience events that are not "real." In fact, religious and "ufo abduction" events can be stimulated in the laboratory in a way that the subject defines as "real as anything else."


[quote="Fundagelico"
I appreciate that you hold belief in God to be irrational. The problem is that you have not yet suggested any non-arbitrary way to distinguish irrational from rational. [/quote]

Belief in god might be rational or irrational depending on what culture and society we discuss. In a society where brainwashing occurs from a young age, the belief in the brainwashing is as rational as any belief without direct evidence.

God should be considered irrelevant, however, since all undetectable and immeasurable ideas should be considered irrelevant until some detection or measurement can prove their relevancy.

And one can only gain so much rhetorical traction from arbitrarily comparing God to obvious and deliberate fabrications of imagination like unicorns or dragons -- or leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, ghosts, goblins, Spider-Man, etc. etc.

God is like unto those things in that none of them can be detected by any measurement; thus, there is no reason to consider any of those beings as relevant...until some measurement confirms their detection and...ergo..their relevance.