Falsifiability (page 3)

BB

The exercise is not to prove that witches exist, but that gods exist.

BB

Edited by - BB on 24 November 2002 16:19:9

IslandWoman

BB,

From time immemorial where there are "gods" there have always been "witches".

And people who hunt them both.

IW

Rational Witness

Donkey,

You said:

I pose this challenge to believers: What would it take for you to stop believing in God?

I will first answer this question, then I will ask you one.

I would stop believing in God if science could answer the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? ... and do so in a provable, reproducible manner that provides purely material efficient, necessary and sufficient causes of the universe (i.e., without resorting to any metaphysical theory of origin).

Now that I have answered your question, I'm sure you will answer mine. You said:

This is an interesting challenge. Why? Well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

For that statement itself to be true, it would have to be falsifiable, otherwise it is self-refuting and hence incoherent. So my question to you is, How would you falsify your statement?

RW

Satanus

Donkey

At present, my impression of what 'god' is, is something between the last and second from last definitions you supplied. Sort of an amorphous ground of being. I doubt it has the motive force to give a sign of it's existence.

SS

gsx1138

I don't think the question is loaded at all. It is only loaded to those who have a half assed answer and choose to close their brain in favor of their particular opiate (religion). I think RW did a good job of answering (much better than I could have). The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts and science (while not perfect) has presented evidence for its assertions. Faith is not evidence and neither is "belief". These things can only reinforce the convictions of the individual not make a logical argument for your beliefs to anyone else. This does not mean we can't have logical theological debates but none of us can say that we are in possession of the one true belief. And now I'm rambling.

This is a good essay for Christians: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

Edited by - gsx1138 on 24 November 2002 22:40:2

PopeOfEruke

The material universe "exists" as far as our senses permit us to define "existence". I can touch a rock, hug my kid, drink red wine, look at the sky.

How did it get here? I don't know. Was it created? I don't know. So how does it help for me to "invent" another colossal mystery, God, to be the "creator" of what reality I see around me, just to satisfy my instinct that all things need a creator. I then end up with the same dilemma, Who created God?

If people can happily believe in a Creator, God, whom they have NEVER SEE, and believe he has no beginning or end, and he has no Creator, then whats the difference in believing the material universe has no beginning or end or Creator. ITS THE SAME THING. At least I can see the world, it EXISTS! God is simply an invention for people who can't face reality.

We are born, we live, we die. Thats its folks. Believe what you want in the middle.

Pope

PS And if God exists and comes down to visit, I would kick his butt for letting all the children die of starvation and war. What a gutless wonder he must be to idly sit by and watch these terrible deaths occur......

comforter

rw ast a good question. if all true beeliefs are falsifiable, then the belief that all true beliefs are falsifiable is falsifiable, if it is true. whut you say to that, donkey?

the nameless wunderkind

PopeOfEruke

Rational Witness,

I would like to ask you why you need to believe in an unsolvable mystery called God in order to understand another unsolvable mystery, the Universe.

How does ADDING an extra level of unsolvable mystery satisfy you? Isn't one enough?? Doesn't it then bug you that God doesn't have a creator? If you were logical, you would then have to extrapolate to infinity, constantly adding new "creators"...If you are happy to stop at 2, why not stop at 1. Its the same thing....

Respectfully,

Pope

Edited by - popeoferuke on 24 November 2002 23:19:32

Edited by - popeoferuke on 24 November 2002 23:20:17

Mum

Pope:

Do you believe in the universe? Is your concept of the God others believe in "Creator" and nothing else? Is your definition of God (or the concept) very narrow?

Puzzled,

SandraC

PopeOfEruke

Mom

I was really addressing Rational's comment

I would stop believing in God if science could answer the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? ...

Most people start looking towards belief in a God to explain the presence of life whatever. They think it NEEDS someone to have made it. WHY? Thats the first false step. Inventing something that doesn't have a creator (God himself) to help explain something that doesn't have a creator (the universe) is simply false logic.

There may be other reasons to believe in God, but I get frustrated when I hear people say God must exist because something must have made the Universe. Well then who made the something??

Carl Sagan used this argument on his famous TV program..........and I agree with him a million per cent....

Pope

Falsifiability

Share this