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]

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.

It is if the only reason you believe it's been proven to be the best model is because someone else tells you it's been proven to be the best model. And that is precisely why a considerable majority of university students believe evolution to be 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.

Okay, but that still leaves untold millions of irrational persons who agree that evolution represents the best model but refuse to even consider a better model because they already consider evolution a fact of science beyond rational dispute.

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."

Agreed.

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?

Not sure. Is asking me whether I've done the best I can do the best you can do?

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

Perhaps, but an assertion that Christianity is "silly" is not itself evidence of silliness.

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.

Right. Given that General Relativity is true, at one time General Relativity was true, even though there was no evidence for it. This implies that belief in unproven truth is not irrational.

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.

I certainly didn't say you were always respectful and civil, but... I'll allow this.

[Willum]

[Replying to Fundagelico]

Right. Given that General Relativity is true, at one time General Relativity was true, even though there was no evidence for it. This implies that belief in unproven truth is not irrational.

This is a good rationale, but there was never a reason to suspect Galilean Relativity was the be all end all. Unless you were the Church at the time. Sigh.

Although unproven truth is not irrational, you have no leads or reasons for the next step(s) in the search for these truths.

There is a basis-set, but what experiments, leads, etc. do you have to perform to find these truths?

[FarWanderer]

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.

Spoken like someone who can't actually show why the distinction is anything but arbitrary, and who would like to dismiss the fact.

[Fundagelico]

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.

Spoken like someone who can't actually show why the distinction is anything but arbitrary, and who would like to dismiss the fact.

The distinction is clearly valid, and what you think I like or dislike is irrelevant.

Unicorns, leprechauns and the other creatures mentioned (with the possible exception of ghosts), are purely imaginary by design. That is, their "existence" depends entirely on one’s willingness to imagine them. This may explain why most of us have never met any devoted unicornists or leprechaunists. There appear to be no serious historical accounts of such creatures, because pretty much everyone understands that recorded history does not include the activities of purely imaginary creatures.

By contrast, Jesus Christ seems to have been born into the world and publicly acted within it as an external, objective reality quite apart from anyone's particular imagination. The distinct and well-attested claim of Christianity is that divinity and humanity intersected in the person of Jesus at a specific time and place in human history.

[Goat]

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.

Spoken like someone who can't actually show why the distinction is anything but arbitrary, and who would like to dismiss the fact.

The distinction is clearly valid, and what you think I like or dislike is irrelevant.

Unicorns, leprechauns and the other creatures mentioned (with the possible exception of ghosts), are purely imaginary by design. That is, their "existence" depends entirely on one’s willingness to imagine them. This may explain why most of us have never met any devoted unicornists or leprechaunists. There appear to be no serious historical accounts of such creatures, because pretty much everyone understands that recorded history does not include the activities of purely imaginary creatures.

By contrast, Jesus Christ seems to have been born into the world and publicly acted within it as an external, objective reality quite apart from anyone's particular imagination. The distinct and well-attested claim of Christianity is that divinity and humanity intersected in the person of Jesus at a specific time and place in human history.

Are they ?? We look at them now as imaginary, but did they back in the day?

And can you show that the supernatural claims about Jesus are more than imagination? For that matter, can you show that stories about Jesus are more than just stories?

Can you show that your 'seems to be' has a basis in reality?

[Zzyzx]

.

Unicorns, leprechauns and the other creatures mentioned (with the possible exception of ghosts), are purely imaginary by design.

When the bible mentions unicorns many times was that purely imaginary by design?

Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.

That is, their "existence" depends entirely on one’s willingness to imagine them.

Exactly the same can be said for all of the thousands of proposed "gods" (biblical God included)

This may explain why most of us have never met any devoted unicornists or leprechaunists.

Many young girls are "unicornists" (and many also believe in gods).

Leprechauns were evidently taken quite seriously by some folks a century or two ago. The same can be said about those who took seriously many of the "gods" that are now considered fictional and/or imaginary.

There appear to be no serious historical accounts of such creatures, because pretty much everyone understands that recorded history does not include the activities of purely imaginary creatures.

Likewise there appear to be no serious historical accounts of gods that do not involve purely imaginary creatures.

If there are serious historical accounts of gods, kindly identify sources that can be shown to be historically accurate and truthful.

By contrast, Jesus Christ seems to have been born into the world and publicly acted within it as an external, objective reality quite apart from anyone's particular imagination.

There may well have been a person fitting some of the tales about Jesus. Kindly identify "external, objective" sources that verify the religiously reported "miracles" and conversations attributed to him.

The distinct and well-attested claim of Christianity is that divinity and humanity intersected in the person of Jesus at a specific time and place in human history.

Attestations are nothing more than unsubstantiated testimonials and opinions. Whether Jesus was the person depicted in religious promotional literature is debatable by scholars and theologians.

[rookiebatman]

I'd have to put my answer in the "yes and no" category. I don't believe the Christian God is falsifiable in the sense that you can't ever truly prove a negative, but I do believe that there is a lot of strong evidence against it (various Biblical contradictions which I'm sure have already been discussed at length, the lack of real meaningful difference in the average Christian's life, etc.).

If I have time later, I'll try to look at the whole article and see whether there are any individual points I can probe for further discussion.

[rookiebatman]

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.

Right. Given that General Relativity is true, at one time General Relativity was true, even though there was no evidence for it. This implies that belief in unproven truth is not irrational.

I don't know if I'm breaking any rules of decorum by jumping into the middle of a discussion like this, but I had to disagree with this point. I don't agree that the fact that things can be true before there's evidence for them implies that belief in unproven truth is not irrational. I contest that if you believe something without any evidence, then your belief is irrational, whether it coincidentally happens to be true or not.

Let's try a different example, the belief in a round earth. Of course we know now that the earth was always round at every point in its existence, so by your reasoning, any person who ever held that the earth was round was not believing irrationally. But think of it this way; say there was some person who lived way back when, and this person's primary source of sustenance was oranges, so they developed an overblown appreciation for oranges. Perhaps one day this person was looking at an orange and appreciating its round shape, and said, "I love oranges. I think the world is probably shaped somewhat like an orange." Now, this person's belief would basically be true (give or take a few topographical details), so your stance is that his belief is therefore rational. But can you really honestly say that "I like oranges, therefore I think the world is shaped like one" is really a rational belief? I say that even a belief in something that happens to be true is not rational unless you have actual evidence to support it.

[Fundagelico]

.

Unicorns, leprechauns and the other creatures mentioned (with the possible exception of ghosts), are purely imaginary by design.

When the bible mentions unicorns many times was that purely imaginary by design?

Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.

From what I gather many if not most commentators believe "unicorn" to be a poor, or at least not necessarily accurate, translation for a Hebrew word whose exact meaning is still unclear. Thus alternative versions have "rhinoceros" or "wild ox," or a real animal.

So it may be that incidental reference to "unicorn" is not in fact purely imaginary by design. In that case I would be happy to revise my original statement, acknowledge that there may have been "unicorns" on earth at one time, and stick with examples of more obviously fictional characters like Spider-Man. Or consider Bacteria-Boy, a microscopic superhero I just now made up who inflicts diseases on criminals. The point remains that I did not invent Christ, and from all indications, neither did the early church.

Alternatively, it may be that incidental reference to the "unicorn" was purely imaginary by design (though context suggests otherwise). In that case the authors did not believe in unicorns, but still clearly did believe in God. The bottom line here is that theism cannot be falsified by simply comparing it with belief in imaginary creatures.

That is, their "existence" depends entirely on one’s willingness to imagine them.

Exactly the same can be said for all of the thousands of proposed "gods" (biblical God included)

Not really. God is self-existent by theological definition, and there is abundant evidence for theism. I offered a sampling of that evidence here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... oof.html#6

Given that there is evidence for God, theism does not depend entirely on imagination.

Many young girls are "unicornists" (and many also believe in gods).

I am not trying to assess the plausibility of beliefs held by children. Perhaps I should have clarified this.

Leprechauns were evidently taken quite seriously by some folks a century or two ago. The same can be said about those who took seriously many of the "gods" that are now considered fictional and/or imaginary.

Then the question is why today God is still taken seriously by most, while leprechauns are not.

There appear to be no serious historical accounts of such creatures, because pretty much everyone understands that recorded history does not include the activities of purely imaginary creatures.

Likewise there appear to be no serious historical accounts of gods that do not involve purely imaginary creatures.

If there are serious historical accounts of gods, kindly identify sources that can be shown to be historically accurate and truthful.

The Gospels are serious historical accounts of God on earth, Jesus Christ. The preface of Luke's Gospel indicates as much, as does a comparison of Luke's account with relevant archaeological findings. And the fact that the early disciples gave their lives for belief in the miraculous ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus should be enough to indicate their seriousness.

There may well have been a person fitting some of the tales about Jesus. Kindly identify "external, objective" sources that verify the religiously reported "miracles" and conversations attributed to him.

By external and objective, I meant something like "independent of any particular person's subjective imagination." I concede that it's difficult to verify historical accounts, but then again precious little can actually be known by a verificationist.

Attestations are nothing more than unsubstantiated testimonials and opinions.

Okay, but then we have to accept that the majority of recorded history and the decisions rendered in most court cases are unsubstantiated. And just how is anyone supposed to substantiate your own opinions on the matter?

Whether Jesus was the person depicted in religious promotional literature is debatable by scholars and theologians.

Agreed. Most claims are debatable.

For instance, some highly learned philosophers have suggested that you and I are actually living not in an objective world external to our sense perceptions, but in an elaborate computer simulation. And some astute scientists have compared the emergence of life from nonliving inorganic chemicals to an infinite horde of monkeys randomly banging away on word processors long enough to eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare.

[rookiebatman]

Not really. God is self-existent by theological definition, and there is abundant evidence for theism. I offered a sampling of that evidence here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... oof.html#6

Given that there is evidence for God, theism does not depend entirely on imagination.

I read that paragraph, and I found it to be quite unconvincing. Would it be okay with you if I started a new thread where I list the points given in that note, along with the question, "Is this evidence for theism?" I expect there will be many people along with myself who will be happy to explain why this evidence is not really evidence at all.