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

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
That is not accurate. You said:

… which is NOT “asking for evidence”, rather it is a clear rejection of the possibility of both God and evidence of God.
Yes and no. I said there is no evidence of a god and if there was…well then it wouldn’t be God because by definition God is outside of space and time, making God an unfalsifiable claim forever. If science actually found evidence of a God, believers would deny it…
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
WRONG.
First fall - Catholics don't see Protestants as "heretics". The actual definoition of a heretic is a CATHOLIC who redpudiates a doctriinal position of the faith. The Protestant Fathers were considered heretics because they were originally CATHOLIVCS.

Secondly - Catholics and Protestants unite on MANY things, including matters of science, care for the sick and homeless, protecting the unborn, veteran's affairs, etc. , as well as many doctrinal positions.
False. Catholics do see Protestants as heretics because Protestants cut out the middle man aka the Pope is traced all the way back to Peter who was given authority by Jesus according to Catholics.

By that same token, Protestants see Catholics as heretics for worshipping saints and statues (which Catholics claim they pray through instead).
 
Last edited:

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I already explained the "evidence" issue.

The deficit is yours. In order to receive the overwhelming amount of evidence of God, you need to be born of Him. If you are not, you are blind to the evidence--because it is on a higher plane than the one you exist on.

But let me ask you... Is this how you approach everything you never knew before, by denying it, by being critical of those that know before you know, and rationalizing your lack of knowledge?
Of course the deficit is mine regarding evidence. How else to take responsibility off yourself for failing to provide evidence? It’s a cheap victory.

What if I told you the exact same thing about my invisible dragon in my garage that you need to be born of since it exists on a higher plane than you? Convenient to say isn’t it?
 
Last edited:

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
If time and death ultimately prove Theists correct and Atheists incorrect, I hope you will still be just as BOLD in denouncing the Creator as you are in life. Hypocrisy is always so unbecoming.

When I followed Nihilism and pondered the astronomical improbability of an afterlife, I at least acknowledged that I would rightly belong in a “hell” with all of the other beings that rejected a creator so indifferent towards its creation … such a “god” should be opposed. I would not add hypocrisy to my other choices. Own your choices.
Consider the opposite possibility that atheists could be correct and theists wrong after death as well. Most nihilists assert that there is no god, without evidence either.

I don’t see the issue with me accepting a god once I have the evidence of one. I have no issue with the possibility of a god…the only problem is that God is defined as being transcendent which makes it so that there will never be evidence of one.

Now, the possibility of me going to hell because I waited too long to accept a god is a weak argument. Most religions have a consequence put into place for not believing in their deity. Is it truly “just a consequence of not believing” or is it a scare tactic to manipulate? I don’t know the answer to that question and since I don’t, then that’s ok. I don’t have to know everything nor will I know everything.
 
Last edited:

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
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.
Dark matter would also be able to be tested with consistent results, just like gravity. God can’t be tested. Prayer is inconsistent at testing for God’s existence, so that already wouldn’t count.
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Again you are wrong. You have no way of knowing if I have seen a winged rabbit or God. Your statement is without evidence and only based on your assumption--it's you projecting your own ignorance.

The fact is I have seen God.

As for evidence, again you show your ignorance. It doesn't work that way. Only those who are born of the evidence (God) can know it; and in order to be born of God one must be conceived, a two part union of which you apparently have not stepped up to. That much is evident.
You misunderstood, it was under the context of people claiming there is a god without actually seeing one.

Now to your claim of seeing God, so have many others who have taken strong hallucinogens. The problem now is that you are turning God into a subjective experience that’s very private. Since that is the case, then the existence of God is no longer something objective. Therefore you can no longer speak of God in an objective sense since you’re coming from a place of subjectivity.
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Yes. Jesus said he would divide. True, huh?



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


Read Revelation.
I thought that the devil was responsible for division. Why would Jesus say he would divide?

Revelation gets brought up in every time period. The world is always coming to an end for Christians, essentially. And if it isn’t, it will soon. Of course there is no specific date because just like everything else in the Bible, it’s more convenient to leave things up to ambiguity.
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I say this. Did you read the thread Evidence To Be Seen?

I post scientific evidence and you reply with an irrelevant quote. Willfully ignorant, you are.

I read your thread actually and despite how much you think it’s the final nail in the coffin for atheism, it’s not. You started the thread with already shifting responsibility from yourself by saying you are not required to prove that God exists. You are also misusing the argument fallacy of appealing to ignorance by assuming that an atheist would assume there is no God just because you cannot prove it. This is obnoxious as I will simply say…”you have no evidence in the end because you failed to prove God” rather than “Since you could not provide evidence, God doesn’t exist.”

You also mention how atheists move the goal posts whilst your entire thread is full of doing that exact thing.

Getting an atheist to a point of being speechless does not mean that you somehow got an atheist to somehow start believing that there is a god. The reason someone like me would be speechless is because I simply wouldn’t have an answer to a particular question due to my ignorance of the universe which is perfectly natural. At that point all I can do is honestly answer with “I don’t know.” However that is still very different from a Christian because a Christian never says they don’t know whether there’s a god or not, they are instead 100% asserting that there is one. There is no room for being wrong and since there is no room for a Christian to be wrong about God existing, then no amount of evidence could convince them otherwise.

In the debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham (the same guy you posted a video of), Bill Nye said he would change his mind at the slightest bit of evidence. However when Bill asked the same of Ken, Ken said that there was nothing, absolutely nothing that would change his mind about there not being a God. An agnostic atheist like me would be open to the possibility of being wrong whereas someone like you could never be.

Now as far as the scientific evidence you were providing suggesting a designer based off intelligent design, there is not a single shred of humility, or at least a handful of caveats to the intelligent design argument. I acknowledge there is complexity to existence and a certain order, but there are also counterarguments to it.

Your thread is ultimately religion cloaked in science involving a lot of “god of the gaps”. You said that a book or writing presupposes the existence of a writer. However, that’s a bad analogy because both a book and its writer exist within the same universe. God on the other hand, is transcendent. The more you are defining God, the more you are refuting the existence of God because God by definition cannot be defined due to being outside of space and time.
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
8,822
2,888
113
54
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now as far as the scientific evidence you were providing suggesting a designer based off intelligent design, there is not a single shred of humility, or at least a handful of caveats to the intelligent design argument. I acknowledge there is complexity to existence and a certain order, but there are also counterarguments to it.
There are counter arguments? The existence of counter arguments does not automatically mean they hold up to scrutiny.

What is the superior argument to DNA containing 4D of information but humans only write in 2D means an intelligent designer?
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2019
1,618
754
113
61
Port Richey, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dark matter would also be able to be tested with consistent results, just like gravity. God can’t be tested. Prayer is inconsistent at testing for God’s existence, so that already wouldn’t count.
Claiming to be able to prove DARK MATTER to the empirical criteria that you have demanded for proof of the existence of God … is not actual PROOF of the existence of Dark Matter. Therefore by your NEW CRITERIA, we (Christians) have encountered God and claim to have metaphysical proof of the existence of God … therefore we have proven that God exists to the same certainty that you have proven that Dark Matter exists. You must now accept or reject BOTH God and Dark Matter (Since both share the same type of proof: non-empirical).
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The main difference between Christians and atheists is this: a Christian would never change his mind, an atheist would. This is evident in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham when asked the question of what would be needed to change their mind.

Bill’s response: evidence
Ken’s response: no
 

Romanov2488

Active Member
Jul 20, 2022
382
51
28
30
Charlotte
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
LOL. That’s your strategy, define God out of existence.
If God could be defined, then that would make God exist within space and time. I am not the one defining God, you guys define God and I am simply pointing out how you contradict yourselves. You say God is the is, God is that…and then you turn around and say God is beyond space and time.

One guy in here I think mentioned dark matter or gravity as a comparison to God. You can test gravity with consistent results. A God could not be tested with consistent results.

The ultimate irony of all this is that if science proved the existence of a brand new God, existing atheists would believe, & existing believers would reject the evidence.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2019
1,618
754
113
61
Port Richey, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Consider the opposite possibility that atheists could be correct and theists wrong after death as well.
I have.
Pascal’s Wager addresses that.
The evidence FOR the existance of God indicates that the atheists are wrong.

Most nihilists assert that there is no god, without evidence either.
One might argue that a nihilist asserts “there is no god” because of the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of god, or because “the problem of evil” provides empirical evidence that there is no god. In both cases, they would be wrong because they have deliberately excluded “non-empirical” evidence … which, ironically, abounds: First Cause, Irreducible Complexity, the “transformation” of the saved, etc.

I don’t see the issue with me accepting a god once I have the evidence of one.
Then you are not an “atheist”, but an “agnostic”. However your rhetoric is not that of someone seeking evidence. Frankly, you come across as a ”hater” of religion. That you would say the above while vehemently advocating open hatred for religion makes you a hypocrite and an intellectual coward.

If you lived a life in open rebellion to ”invisible unicorns” and ultimately meet God at JUDGEMENT with the criteria being John 3:16-18, what would an HONEST DECISION be? An atheist is confident that this hypothetical is an impossibility, but should be able to render an honest answer for the hypothetical case.

If I died and were judged by Norse Mythology standards, I should not be allowed into Valhalla (because I did not die gloriously in battle). I do not need to believe that Valhalla is real to be honest about a hypothetical judgement. I just ask you to be honest with yourself.

You are not “seeking evidence”. Own it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrangler

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2019
1,618
754
113
61
Port Richey, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The main difference between Christians and atheists is this: a Christian would never change his mind, an atheist would. This is evident in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham when asked the question of what would be needed to change their mind.

Bill’s response: evidence
Ken’s response: no
Q. How would you convince a man born blind that color exists?
A. Give him the ability to see.

Q. How would convince a man that can see colors that color does not exist?
A. It would be impossible … even if you blinded him so he could never see color again, he knows what he saw.

So an atheist (blind) can ”see” and change his mind, but a Christian (seeing) cannot “un-see” and deny what he knows he “saw”. No persuasive argument from all the BLIND MEN in the world will ever convince the man THAT CAN SEE that color does not exist.
 

Angel Faith

Active Member
Nov 17, 2022
116
52
28
Left Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
God is not useless! He gives atheists something to obsess over.