Why belief in a god is an unfalsifiable claim that serves no purpose

[atpollard]

Evidence that I will accept for God’s existence is obviously the existence of God as any other object.

God is not an object.
Even if we redefine the term "object" to include "God" ...

Prove DARK MATTER EXISTS ... but you must do so using your criteria for "God": "Evidence that I will accept for DARK MATTER’s existence is obviously the existence of DARK MATTER as any other object."

I await you to produce a lump of DARK MATTER that we can [see, smell, touch, hear, taste ... experience empirically].
(If that is too hard, then what about a QUARK? A BIG BANG? The EXPANDING UNIVERSE?)

Are you prepared to claim that all of these are no more real than God?

 

[Romanov2488]

That's right. Christianity is an exclusive religion.


You have your moral poles reversed. It is hate that wants to equate the path of destruction with the path of life.

It's your choice and your consequence. We don't hate your for your choice. We pity you.


Agreed and besides the point.


LOL. The version of education that led the world in every measurable way - in business, scientific, technical advancement, invention and discovery.

• Do you know who went to the moon? Christians.
• Do you know who put men on the moon? Christians.
• Do you know who invented the machines, methods and techniques to put men on the moon? Christians.
• Do you know who financed the project to put men on the moon? Christians.

Honestly, the deck is so fully stacked against your indoctrinated, fact-free, evidece-free, hate-filled, world view it makes this exchange laughable.

So you admit that religion is exclusive. Therefore, much of it is responsible for division and alienation.

Christianity was definitely not solely behind the advancement of mankind, this is coming from an arrogant place. Much of mankind has been slowly moving away from Christianity and Christianity is on the decline in America. Why? Because people are fed up with the hate-driven homophobia, misogyny, and the control of women’s bodies. It is simply antiquated thinking holding back humanity as it’s trying to progress. Just look at the recent midterms with the so-called “red wave” promised by the right wing.

Pity is indirect hate by the way.

 

[atpollard]

There is a flaw in your initial premise. Europe was not more technologically advanced than the rest of the world. It had military technological advancements that the Mesoamericas did not have. However, they were more advanced than Europeans in many areas such as astronomy, math, and agriculture specifically irrigation.

Technology doesn't move like a tech tree in video games. A civilization leader doesn't say, "wouldn't it be great if we had bronze?". It moves more haphazardly. Cultures & nations will excel in some areas but not in others. Sometimes it is due to culture but more often than not it is due to other factors such as geography, environment, available resources, or even population size. A lot of technological advancements are due to a long trial and error process involving a lot of chance and luck.

However, when compared to the Africans and the Mesoamericans, the Europeans had superior military technologies. Why? The likeliest reason for this is that the peoples of these continents were more isolated from one another than the Europeans. By the late fifteenth century how many wars had been fought between the between the Inca and the Aztecs? Compare that to the number of wars fought between the French and the English? Or between Catholic European powers and Islamic powers? The close proximity of all of these kingdoms lead to a lot of warfare, which led to more improvements in military technology. The Chinese invented gunpowder as an example. For a long time, it was China was at the center of civilization.

The belief that the Christian West was simply ahead of everyone else and more sophisticated is nothing but a belief rooted in colonialism and imperialism.

non sequitur.
The question was ... "Why did the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION begin in Europe (Christian) rather than Asia (non-Christian) when Asia had every Darwinian advantage?"

@Wrangler suggested that "Christianity" was the reason.
I am still waiting for you to give an alternative reason that favors Europe over Asia. As you pointed out, ASIA had a lead, but never achieved the "Scientific Method" and the revolution that thinking brought about ... WHY?

 

[Wrangler]

There’s also billions of Muslims who have publicly talking about the evidence of their loved experience.

Ahem. Muslims are not Atheists.

 

[Wrangler]

So you admit that religion is exclusive. Therefore, much of it is responsible for division and alienation.

Yes. Jesus said he would divide. True, huh?

Christianity was definitely not solely behind the advancement of mankind, this is coming from an arrogant place.

Have you read the book? Your fact-free, evidence free word view is showing itself again.

Much of mankind has been slowly moving away from Christianity and Christianity is on the decline in America. Why?

Read Revelation.

 

[Wrangler]

non sequitur.
The question was ... "Why did the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION begin in Europe (Christian) rather than Asia (non-Christian) when Asia had every Darwinian advantage?"

@Wrangler suggested that "Christianity" was the reason.
I am still waiting for you to give an alternative reason that favors Europe over Asia. As you pointed out, ASIA had a lead, but never achieved the "Scientific Method" and the revolution that thinking brought about ... WHY?

He calls himself an atheist but is actually a skeptic. He does not have a basis to defend any position, just rest comfortably in holding doubtful any position. Talk about luke warm.

 

[ScottA]

One of the worst arguments for God is that whenever something isn’t understood or doesn’t make sense, believers will say, “God works in mysterious ways. Unless you have the mind of God, you cannot understand since you’re a limited human.” By that same token, saying things such as God is good or loving is also inaccurate because according to believers, we are limited humans. It’s a convenient copout because it involves an unfalsifiable claim i.e. ad hoc reasoning. It’s like saying there’s a dragon in my garage even though you can’t see it. I can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it either.

The word “god” can literally be replaced with any other word or entity such as a winged rabbit and believers would respond the same way an atheist would. However, that same reasoning is absent when referring to God specifically. A winged rabbit and God are both “things” that can’t be proven. Why would a believer feel otherwise about God? My guess is because to the believer, their God is superior to any other concept that’s similar in nature such as a winged rabbit. Believers and atheists are similar in that they both would not believe in the winged rabbit, but they are different because an atheist would also not believe in a god. The same logic believers apply to the existence of a winged rabbit seems to escape them when it comes to their god. And it is perfectly fine for a believer to admit that they would not believe in a winged rabbit but that they would believe in a god instead. What’s not fine is claiming that their belief is founded in sound logic and reason, which further obfuscates the difference between what’s rational and irrational.

So what is the point of claim which cannot be falsified? There’s none. It’s completely open ended because it can’t be proven nor disproven. This is why science and religion are actually diametrically opposed. God can’t be put under a microscope or test tube. The idea of a god is useless in science given the scientific method. It is also fallacious to infer that God exists by observing “his creation”. What could the creation ever know about the creator given that creation is limited? It’s a contradiction that just doesn’t get admitted to.

Your statement is obviously your rationale. That's a start. It shows you have a mind, and that you are thinking. Good.

In the same rational way of thinking, consider this: If I were tall and you were short and could not see what was on the top shelf, your statement "A winged rabbit and God are both “things” that can’t be proven." does not hold up.

You see...that is, you being short cannot see what is on the top shelf, proves rather that you cannot see what I who am taller can see. Granted, that reality does not prove anything of what is on the shelf out of your view.​

​

So, back to your point of "unfalsifiable claims" serving "no purpose"--that's just wrong. If I (being tall enough) tell you what is on the top shelf that you cannot see because you are short, the purpose is to inform you. Now, under those circumstances the response of a "reasoning" person like yourself, should rather be to simply say, "Tell me more", "I don't care." or "I wasn't asking." But that is not what you have done...which, to the contrary, does not make you the "reasoning" person you claim to be. On the other hand, offering missing information to someone who is without--is indeed reasonable, and kind, and giving, and a bunch of other good stuff.​

But here you are pointing the finger. Why don't you actually try being reasonable? Now there's a good question!

But, hey, there is already an unanswered question on the table--the one you should have asked: "What's on the top shelf?"

Want the answer?

 

[Romanov2488]

Dark

God is not an object.
Even if we redefine the term "object" to include "God" ...

Prove DARK MATTER EXISTS ... but you must do so using your criteria for "God": "Evidence that I will accept for DARK MATTER’s existence is obviously the existence of DARK MATTER as any other object."

I await you to produce a lump of DARK MATTER that we can [see, smell, touch, hear, taste ... experience empirically].
(If that is too hard, then what about a QUARK? A BIG BANG? The EXPANDING UNIVERSE?)

Are you prepared to claim that all of these are no more real than God?

Dark matter would have to exist as an object, albeit a subtle one such as radio waves which could be observed using the right instruments. Other than that, it would be a theory a lot like gravity.

 

[Romanov2488]

He calls himself an atheist but is actually a skeptic. He does not have a basis to defend any position, just rest comfortably in holding doubtful any position. Talk about luke warm.

Because you don’t know the definition of atheism, which is the lack of belief in a god or gods. You cannot be skeptical of something and also be a believer. Have you ever seen a skeptical pastor? Have you ever heard a pastor preaching in church saying something along the lines of, “I don’t know if there’s a God but if there is, here is what he wants and doesn’t want…”

Skepticism is in fact, discouraged in any religion because it leads to the loss of faith. Yeah you may think you’re being skeptical here and there but sooner or later are you accepting Jesus as your savior or not? Let’s be honest with ourselves here. Nuance is not something Christianity is accepting of. It’s very black or white in Christianity.

 

[Triumph1300]

I have just looked through his reasons and they are logically flawed. There’s a lot of “god of the gaps” involved as the basis of his reasoning which are all arguments from ignorance.

Oh, ok, so you fully checked the website?
Here;'s a scientist who went out to prove there is no God.
In the process he decided there is a creator: God.
And now we have a troller on this forum, coming out of the blue ,deciding scientist Dr. Hugh Ross is wrong.
I can see another thread developing into a 100 mile long thread, I am not wasting my time.
You made up your mind.
So we'r done.
Keep trolling. :)

 

[Romanov2488]

Your statement is obviously your rationale. That's a start. It shows you have a mind, and that you are thinking. Good.

In the same rational way of thinking, consider this: If I were tall and you were short and could not see what was on the top shelf, your statement "A winged rabbit and God are both “things” that can’t be proven." does not hold up.

You see...that is, you being short cannot see what is on the top shelf, proves rather that you cannot see what I who am taller can see. Granted, that reality does not prove anything of what is on the shelf out of your view.​

​

So, back to your point of "unfalsifiable claims" serving "no purpose"--that's just wrong. If I (being tall enough) tell you what is on the top shelf that you cannot see because you are short, the purpose is to inform you. Now, under those circumstances the response of a "reasoning" person like yourself, should rather be to simply say, "I don't care." or "I wasn't asking." But that is not what you have done...which, to the contrary, does not make you the "reasoning" person you claim to be. On the other hand, offering missing information to someone who is without--is indeed reasonable, and kind, and giving, and a bunch of other good stuff.​

But here you are pointing the finger. Why don't you actually try being reasonable? Now there's a good question!

But, hey, there is already an unanswered question on the table--the one you should have asked: "What's on the top shelf?"

Want the answer?

You would be pointing to the top shelf because you actually know the winged rabbit is there and have seen it. But in this context, you have never seen a winged rabbit just like God can’t be seen.

Or simply replace winged rabbit with all the other deities and gods of other religions. Same idea, just different names and labels. Shiva, Shakti, spirits in Shinto, Allah. None of those have been seen and the evidence is lacking. A believer would agree with me that there is no evidence of the Muslim god, but they would not say the same about their Christian god. After all, they’re both transcendent and can’t be seen. If one is to be consistent in their logic, they would say the same about both.

 

[Romanov2488]

Oh, ok.
So we'r done.
Keep trolling. :)

So instead of a rational response, you chose an emotional one without any real argument.

 

[Triumph1300]

So instead of a rational response, you chose an emotional one without any real argument.

You showed no evidence that you actually checked Hughy Ross's website.
So, why should I continue here.
Just a waste of time.

 

[Romanov2488]

It’s funny how every religious follower thinks like an atheist when it comes to every other religion but their own.

 

[Romanov2488]

You showed no evidence that you actually checked Hughy Ross's website.
So, why should I continue here.
Just a waste of time.

I mean, all you really have to go off of here is my word that I checked through your link. He is using the classical teleological argument and invoking intelligent design. The teleological argument being that the universe must have a designer whereas the alternative is no designer and completely random. This is a false dichotomy because not all other options have been ruled out. The argument rests safely in our ignorance of the universe.

 

[Wrangler]

Because you don’t know the definition of atheism, which is the lack of belief in a god or gods. You cannot be skeptical of something and also be a believer.

Your premises are wrong, which lead you to wrong conclusions. You are drowning in evidence while denying there is any.

 

[Romanov2488]

My question is how can you explain the universe coming into existence without a creator? How does science work? If you don't believe in a creator then you believe all this happened by chance?? That takes more faith to believe that nothing created everything than to know that One ultimate being created a perfectly crafted universe and all the details of each individual creation. How the body works, life is created, how the plants spin and rotate around a sun, how animals have the instinct that they have, how gravity is just right to hold us down and not crush us, I could go on and on but you have a choice to believe until He comes again and then we will all know.

I don't just believe God is real, I know and I see Him and feel Him. How great God is and when you experience His love, nothing can change that. So I hope that you will come to know Him.

The dichotomy of there either being a creator or no creator is a false dichotomy because we haven’t ruled out all other explanations. The argument rests safely in our ignorance of the universe.

It’s like saying, “I can’t explain the universe, science can’t explain everything, therefore God!” To me that’s very easy to do, which is inserting God into a gap in our understanding. But if we did that with everything from earthquakes to lightning, we wouldn’t be where we’re at today.

As much order as there is in this universe, there is also a lot of chaos which is why the intelligent design argument is flawed.

I will actually steelman your argument here and quote CS Lewis’ trilemma of Jesus being either a liar, lunatic, or lord. The problem with his argument it’s that it’s a false trichotomy. There can be a fourth option and that’s that Jesus was a legend. Maybe Jesus didn’t intend to lie, he was misunderstood. Or perhaps Jesus was totally overblown by his followers to a God-like status. Or just maybe Jesus was never real to begin with.

Many Christians make the mistake of assuming that atheists believe that the universe came from nothing and that’s how their argument of “I don’t have as much faith as an atheist” came to be. I personally don’t believe the universe came from nothing because I have no way of proving it.

 

[atpollard]

It’s funny how every religious follower thinks like an atheist when it comes to every other religion but their own.

How large is your sample size?

 

[atpollard]

The dichotomy of there either being a creator or no creator is a false dichotomy because we haven’t ruled out all other explanations. The argument rests safely in our ignorance of the universe.

Like winged rabbits?

 

[atpollard]

Dark

Dark matter would have to exist as an object, albeit a subtle one such as radio waves which could be observed using the right instruments. Other than that, it would be a theory a lot like gravity.

So that would be “NO” you cannot prove the existence of DARK MATTER to the criteria that YOU demand for proving GOD. Perhaps your criteria for proof is flawed.