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
-
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 #13[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 #14[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 #15
[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
Post #16
[Replying to post 15 by DanieltheDragon]
I think that the media has diffused a huge misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does not mean that something has multiple states. The different states is only our way of understanding the universe because we cannot observe a single state accurately enough. We must use probability to identify it, yet every quantum particle in the universe most definitely has only 1 state at 1 given moment.
It's analogous to counting cards in blackjack. You eliminate possibilities and find probabilities to find the most probable information to act upon.
By the way, I didn't mention before, I really enjoyed your article, Fundagelico.
I think that the media has diffused a huge misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does not mean that something has multiple states. The different states is only our way of understanding the universe because we cannot observe a single state accurately enough. We must use probability to identify it, yet every quantum particle in the universe most definitely has only 1 state at 1 given moment.
It's analogous to counting cards in blackjack. You eliminate possibilities and find probabilities to find the most probable information to act upon.
By the way, I didn't mention before, I really enjoyed your article, Fundagelico.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Transcending Proof
Post #17[Replying to post 14 by SnpM]
- Create your own usergroup
- Have your own custom title
- Give a MPG donation
- Donate tokens to another user
- Have your own email address
Which actually makes them more tangible then invisible friends after all, when you come right down to it.
Tokens are make believe. They are much like invisible friends in that sense. Well actually, tolkens CAN actually be cashed in for a few special favors on the forum.SnpM wrote: What are tokens for? If they're not that useful to me, I can give you guys the tokens I earn.
- Create your own usergroup
- Have your own custom title
- Give a MPG donation
- Donate tokens to another user
- Have your own email address
Which actually makes them more tangible then invisible friends after all, when you come right down to it.
Let's just go right to the heart of the matter. Billions of humans have lived over the course of time, and billions have died. Our experience with dead human corpses is that they are unable to do anything other than to return back into nature by decaying away. Stories of corpses which have returned to life abound, and they are quite popular as entertainment. They are purely fictional however, which is to say, make believe. Because all observation, experience and common sense indicate to us overwhelmingly, that in reality a corpse is incapable of returning to life and no actual reanimated corpses can actually be produced. Corpses do not return to life without fail. Stories of corpses returning to life are therefore fictional without fail. The well known story of a corpse that comes back to life and ultimately flies away has all of the aspects of make believe and none of the aspects of what is overwhelmingly observed to be true in nature. In what way has the story of a flying reanimated corpse NOT thoroughly been proven to be false beyond all reasonable doubt? And if all common experience does not represent proof, then what exactly is the nature of the concept of "proof?"SnpM wrote: 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.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Re: Transcending Proof
Post #18[Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Interesting. A common theme in the human race is that the fiction of yesterday is often the truth of today (i.e. the thing I'm typing on right now). Now you're reversing this concept and saying the truth of yesterday is the fiction of today, which is often true as well.
Now, what about when today is no longer today, but yesterday? Be wary with your truths. Also, I'm going to assume that your comment about flying reanimated corpses is a gross exaggeration and not your actual understanding of the Resurrection.
Interesting. A common theme in the human race is that the fiction of yesterday is often the truth of today (i.e. the thing I'm typing on right now). Now you're reversing this concept and saying the truth of yesterday is the fiction of today, which is often true as well.
Now, what about when today is no longer today, but yesterday? Be wary with your truths. Also, I'm going to assume that your comment about flying reanimated corpses is a gross exaggeration and not your actual understanding of the Resurrection.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Transcending Proof
Post #19If you are saying that it is wise to be skeptical of possible nonsense, especially when it has all of the earmarks of nonsense, then I am with you, brother.SnpM wrote: [Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Interesting. A common theme in the human race is that the fiction of yesterday is often the truth of today (i.e. the thing I'm typing on right now). Now you're reversing this concept and saying the truth of yesterday is the fiction of today, which is often true as well.
Now, what about when today is no longer today, but yesterday? Be wary with your truths. Also, I'm going to assume that your comment about flying reanimated corpses is a gross exaggeration and not your actual understanding of the Resurrection.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.Re: Transcending Proof
Post #20[Replying to post 19 by Tired of the Nonsense]
I am saying to be skeptical. Nonsense is subjective. For example, your argument against Christianity was nonsense to me but may not have been nonsense to you, thus we would have differing things to be skeptical of.
I am saying to be skeptical. Nonsense is subjective. For example, your argument against Christianity was nonsense to me but may not have been nonsense to you, thus we would have differing things to be skeptical of.
