Is Atheism unfalsifiable?

[McCulloch]

The principle he [the philosopher Karl Popper] came up with was a falsification principle. Any doctrine that made assertions about the world that cannot be falsified was not a science. This principle is a cornerstone of science.

Popper's point was that some doctrines were themselves unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence was promoted the doctrine provided an interpretation to fit the circumstance.

Theism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, none of it could ever show that there is not some sort of supernatural being. Specific actions attributed to God can be falsified, but the principle that there is a supernatural being cannot be falsified.

Does that mean that the negation of Theism is also unfalsifiable? I don't know.

[Goat]

The principle he [the philosopher Karl Popper] came up with was a falsification principle. Any doctrine that made assertions about the world that cannot be falsified was not a science. This principle is a cornerstone of science.

Popper's point was that some doctrines were themselves unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence was promoted the doctrine provided an interpretation to fit the circumstance.

Theism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, none of it could ever show that there is not some sort of supernatural being. Specific actions attributed to God can be falsified, but the principle that there is a supernatural being cannot be falsified.

Does that mean that the negation of Theism is also unfalsifiable? I don't know.

That depends.. if God is proven, then atheism is falsified. Can God be proven is the question.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi goat

V quick response

You say

That depends.. if God is proven, then atheism is falsified. Can God be proven is the question.

But if atheism is non falsifiable then God cannot be proven! At least to an atheist.

[Goat]

Hi goat

V quick response

You say

That depends.. if God is proven, then atheism is falsified. Can God be proven is the question.

But if atheism is non falsifiable then God cannot be proven! At least to an atheist.

If God can not be proven, then atheism is not falsifiable. However, the principle stands, if God can be proven, then atheism is falsifiable. The question is what constitutes proof of God.

I know fancy ontological proofs and word games only convince those that are already convinced.

[McCulloch]

If God can not be proven, then atheism is not falsifiable. However, the principle stands, if God can be proven, then atheism is falsifiable. The question is what constitutes proof of God.

To me the question is, "Can there be something which could be proven but cannot be disproven?"
For instance, it could be proven that there are pink unicorns. The proof would consist of pointing out an example. Therefore, disbelief in pink unicorns is falsifiable. However, it cannot be proven that there are no pink unicorns. Therefore, belief in pink unicorns is unfalsifiable.
So, is it possible that one could imagine a collection of evidence that would prove the existence of God, beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. Therefore, disbelief in God is falsifiable. Is it possible that one could imagine a collection of evidence that would disprove the existence of God? No. Therefore, belief in God is unfalsifiable.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi goat

I look at this way. Some doctrines like astrology, Freud and Marxism cannot be falsified by evidence or logic. There are self fulfilling prophecies if you wish. However an individual might once be a marxist and then give up on the doctrine because the explanations marxism give eventually feel wrong, or prove unsatisfactory. Maybe the process of rejection is gradual or they undergo an epiphany. Maybe they've seen one too many massacres or are just tired of the language, or the bread queue or whatever.

So there is rational proof, and then there is an existential change of attitude. I feel atheism at least my brand of atheism is existential.

Now things like Darwinism I sign up to and can agree can be falsified by evidence. However for me not to be an atheist would require an utterly different world view, which in turn would require an utterly different me.

So God will never be proven without some kind of change in me. Not psychological change. I think it will have to go deeper than that. I'd have to start thinking in an utterly different way and with a different tone to how I do at present.

goat says [quote]If God can not be proven, then atheism is not falsifiable. However, the principle stands, if God can be proven, then atheism is falsifiable. The question is what constitutes proof of God.[quote]

But would I accept the proof until I've changed the way I think and feel? I'd have to do logic different that's for sure. And I'd have to look at evidence in a different way. The colour green I used to hate will suddenly have to become appealing.

[Goat]

Hi goat

I look at this way. Some doctrines like astrology, Freud and Marxism cannot be falsified by evidence or logic. There are self fulfilling prophecies if you wish. However an individual might once be a marxist and then give up on the doctrine because the explanations marxism give eventually feel wrong, or prove unsatisfactory. Maybe the process of rejection is gradual or they undergo an epiphany. Maybe they've seen one too many massacres or are just tired of the language, or the bread queue or whatever.

So there is rational proof, and then there is an existential change of attitude. I feel atheism at least my brand of atheism is existential.

Now things like Darwinism I sign up to and can agree can be falsified by evidence. However for me not to be an atheist would require an utterly different world view, which in turn would require an utterly different me.

So God will never be proven without some kind of change in me. Not psychological change. I think it will have to go deeper than that. I'd have to start thinking in an utterly different way and with a different tone to how I do at present.

goat says

If God can not be proven, then atheism is not falsifiable. However, the principle stands, if God can be proven, then atheism is falsifiable. The question is what constitutes proof of God.

But would I accept the proof until I've changed the way I think and feel? I'd have to do logic different that's for sure. And I'd have to look at evidence in a different way. The colour green I used to hate will suddenly have to become appealing.

Oh, it would have to be more basic than that. A hit to the brain , or a stroke can change that. .. it wouldn't be proof of God. I don't know what evidence would be
good enough to 'prove' god, but that doesn't mean that the evidence can't exist.

Doesn't mean it does exist either.

[QED]

So, is it possible that one could imagine a collection of evidence that would prove the existence of God, beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. Therefore, disbelief in God is falsifiable. Is it possible that one could imagine a collection of evidence that would disprove the existence of God? No. Therefore, belief in God is unfalsifiable.

It seemed rather obvious when I read the OP: God wouldn't have to go too far out of his way to make himself known to the most hardened of sceptics. I'm sure we could imagine plenty of compelling demonstrations of his ownership of the cosmos

[Confused]

The principle he [the philosopher Karl Popper] came up with was a falsification principle. Any doctrine that made assertions about the world that cannot be falsified was not a science. This principle is a cornerstone of science.

Popper's point was that some doctrines were themselves unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence was promoted the doctrine provided an interpretation to fit the circumstance.

Theism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, none of it could ever show that there is not some sort of supernatural being. Specific actions attributed to God can be falsified, but the principle that there is a supernatural being cannot be falsified.

Does that mean that the negation of Theism is also unfalsifiable? I don't know.

Well, I guess that would explain why Theism and Atheism don't fall under the category of science per se. I guess if the return of Christ happened, then one could scientifically prove theism, provided that everyone could see the angels, etc.... But even then we could likely find a scientific explaination to rule out Theism.
Form a philisophical point of view: Logic is the only thing I can put faith into right now. From a logical point of view, I can see no way to falsify atheism because there is no evidence to prove God, but I can see no way to falsify theism either because just because one can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Seeing isn't always believing and Believing isn't always seeing.

[McCulloch]

Theism is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is found, none of it could ever show that there is not some sort of supernatural being. Specific actions attributed to God can be falsified, but the principle that there is a supernatural being cannot be falsified.

Does that mean that the negation of Theism is also unfalsifiable? I don't know.

Well, I guess that would explain why Theism and Atheism don't fall under the category of science per se. I guess if the return of Christ happened, then one could scientifically prove theism, provided that everyone could see the angels, etc.... But even then we could likely find a scientific explaination to rule out Theism.
Form a philisophical point of view: Logic is the only thing I can put faith into right now. From a logical point of view, I can see no way to falsify atheism because there is no evidence to prove God, but I can see no way to falsify theism either because just because one can't see God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Seeing isn't always believing and Believing isn't always seeing.

The issue about falsifiability is not if there is evidence to prove God's existence but whether you could define what would be evidence to prove God's existence. I can show what would constitute evidence to prove God's existence. That evidence has not been produced, but I can conceive of evidence which would prove God's existence. Therefore, atheism is falsifiable. I cannot conceive, and most theists cannot conceive, of evidence that would disprove God's existence. Whatever evidence is produced, it would not shake their belief. Therefore, theism is unfalsifiable.