Why belief in a god is an unfalsifiable claim that serves no purpose
- Thread starter Romanov2488
- Start date
-
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!
Aristotle solved the problem of proving God millenia ago with the prime mover argument. The physical universe could not exist without the metaphysical.
Plato and his theory of Idealism explained the metaphysical nature of our world (and Jung later expanded upon it with his theory of the collective unconscious) thus proving that the mind is itself a metaphysical thing.
St. Anselm both proved the existence of (again) and explained the properties of God (borrowing from Idealism) and later on, mathematician Godel formalized them into a logical proof.
So yes God can be proven to exist through the exercise of logic, and also His qualities can be understood.
Why can't the metaphysical be measured by the physical? Because it exists outside the physical by its very definition. If it were measurable, then it would not be metaphysical at all but merely a physical phenomenon. Or in other words, it is logically impossible to measure the metaphysical with the physical and therefore completely pointless to complain about. If you lived inside a sealed metal box your whole life and never saw the outside world, how would you be able to prove it existed using only your natural perceptions?
Plato and his theory of Idealism explained the metaphysical nature of our world (and Jung later expanded upon it with his theory of the collective unconscious) thus proving that the mind is itself a metaphysical thing.
St. Anselm both proved the existence of (again) and explained the properties of God (borrowing from Idealism) and later on, mathematician Godel formalized them into a logical proof.
So yes God can be proven to exist through the exercise of logic, and also His qualities can be understood.
Why can't the metaphysical be measured by the physical? Because it exists outside the physical by its very definition. If it were measurable, then it would not be metaphysical at all but merely a physical phenomenon. Or in other words, it is logically impossible to measure the metaphysical with the physical and therefore completely pointless to complain about. If you lived inside a sealed metal box your whole life and never saw the outside world, how would you be able to prove it existed using only your natural perceptions?
Your comment about the pagan Greek philosophers interested me because the Greek Apologists also appealed to them in their defense of Ante-Nicene Christianity. For example,
”Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there is no God at all; ... But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things; but then they maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God.”
(Theophilus, To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 4)
Theophilus (a second century Christian) is using the concessions of some of the Greek philosophers in conversation with his “very good friend” Autolycus, a pagan idolater.
Because you pervert the very meaning of empirical evidence by mixing it up with magical thinking. You masquerade as a false scientist with religion in your back pocket.
Empirical evidence…proceeds to spew things such as “evidence of faith”. More like evidence of irrationality. I wish you could speak up in front of the entire science community to see the reaction you’d get. Let’s see how many people you’d convince. That wacko Ken Ham tries doing exactly that and constantly gets dunked on.
Last edited:
Incorrect. Ask a Catholic and they will agree Protestants are heretics. Saying I speak from a position of ignorance is your own projection.
Because if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. I find it odd that many Christians try to weasel themselves out of this. All of this “overwhelming evidence” and so many non-believers such as myself. Does that make us lost of confused? Of course not. Only to a bigot it would.
And what do you say to any of the arguments I have put forward? I have already explained the limits of empiricism in that post.
Alright, let's examine a claim. You claim to have a mind, a consciousness, a subjective personal experience, free will, etc. This is an implicit claim because you expect us to debate with you and there is no purpose in changing the mind of a being that does not have these things.
So can you first prove to me, using only physical measurements, that you are not in fact an automaton of neurological chemistry? That you are not a being which appears alive and has all the characteristics of a human, but is purely driven by natural physical laws, by purely mechanistic cause and effect, and has no actual consciousness?
I can know from my own experience, "I think therefore I am", that I exist, but your personal experience is completely unmeasurable by me, so is it right then for me to dismiss all you say because, given the lack of empirical evidence, I can only conclude you are an automaton?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Pure fiction. The geometric analysis of the shroud, which shows numerous images through time, including movement of the foot, chest, and coins has nothing to do with magic.
The DNA informational content being 4D, whereas humans can only communicate code in 2D has nothing to do with magic.
The probability that Jesus fulfilled 246 prophecies has nothing to do with magic. And much more, like the Big Bang Theory.
All this is undeniable scientific evidence.
You being closed-minded turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence you are drowning in because the implications, the causes of this evidence is to awesome for you to contemplate.
I assure you that I am a real scientist, with 2 degrees in science + 30 years experience. You are the one wearing a false mask.
I'm up for the challenge. You do know that there are religious scientists, right? Sad but obvious that you put your faith in man, specifically those who rationalize a paradigm based on something came from nothing.
The evidence is there. It's just the paradigm secular scientists are willing or not willing to view the evidence from, e.g., determining the age of things via a decay rate that is assumed to be constant over time.
Your basic failure is continuing to make an argument when I and others have lived experience. Imagine how silly it would be for others to claim aliens do not exist when you experienced them coming to you, taking you to their ship and showing you their technology. You have set yourself a false standard of judgment, denying the legal evidence and standard of more likely than not (civil trial) that billions of people throughout history testify and witness to the truth of God in their lives is why their lives were transformed.
Dude, you shared a video by Ken Ham who fleeced an entire town to build an ark in Kentucky via millions in subsidies and going from non-profit to for-profit. A grade A grifter and snakeoil salesman.
You’re also strawmanning that I somehow believe something came from nothing which is false. When Christians assume that either everything came from a god or from nothing, is a false dichotomy.
Religious scientists are nothing more than people attempting to subvert science so they can have a place to sneak their religious doctrine in which is why they are frowned upon by the mainstream scientific community. They are experts of pseudoscience.
You should really watch that debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. When asked about what it would take to change their mind regarding the existence of God, Nye said he just needed some evidence. Ken on the other hand said “nothing could change my mind.” You cannot have a constructive debate with an absolutist. Absolutists have no humility.
And lived experience is a poor argument. Someone taking LSD also has lived experience of making contact with a god. Experiences differ from person to person.
Last edited:
This is the type of bigotry you promote, Wrangler. Sticking your nose in other people’s bedroom business is a favorite past time of fundamentalists such as yourself. Let’s talk about what really matters: your homophobia.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Pure fiction: the geometric analysis of the shroud, which shows numerous images through time, including movement of the foot, chest, and coins.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
1st, did I reference this?
2nd, the reference to this has nothing to do with what I posted.
3rd, have you taken up my 30-day challenge? If not, don't ever talk about science on this forum again.
The point is the title. Claiming there is a god is an unfalsifiable claim, it cannot be tested via the scientific method or anything. This is also the NON-Christian section. I find it funny that some Christians come into this sub forum wondering why something being posted isn’t Christian. If you go into the Christian section, you’re going to find the homophobic tendency of many upholding that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible and if you go into the non-Christian section, you’re going to find someone saying that the Bible is homophobic. It’s just the way it is
Did you know that there is an entire school of thought called Rationalism, which uses reason rather than observation to prove things?
There is a major flaw with pure empiricism. I call it the headless chicken fallacy. Imagine a chicken on a farm. Every day, the farmer comes and cleans the coop, provides fresh food and water, fixes the fence that provides security from foxes. This goes on for months, so the chicken concludes, based on observation, the farmer is my benevolent friend and guardian. Then one day the farmer comes and chops the chicken's head off and turns him into a stew.
Had the chicken been wrong about the farmer? Is observation fallible?
What do homosexuals have to do with the topic?
Science is empirical. The scientific method can only be applied to that which can be observed, within space-time. God by definition is outside of space-time. Just because observation is fallible, does not automatically give leeway to shove in God in order to fill the gap. Mind you, empirical science is the most effective tool we know of for gaining understanding of the universe. If you default to inserting God at every turn, you effectively seize moving forward.
Your argument is essentially boiling down to, “Science isn’t perfect, therefore God” which is a grave mistake. Science can admit when it’s wrong and is ever-changing. Religious absolutists already have their mind made up, there is not one thing that could convince them otherwise. If science was to actually discover a god, the religious would dismiss it.
I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God. But would a Christian fundamentalist also be capable of doing the same? Not even close, for he is too high up on his horse.
Besides, God isn’t the only unfalsifiable claim. You also have Allah and others. But yet you have a bias for the Christian God whilst dismissing Allah. They’re both unfalsifiable claims.
You posted that video of Ken Ham. I think it’s worth looking into the background of these people who you listen to/promote. Why would I listen to a grifter?
Let me ask you this one very simple question, different from what we’ve been talking about. Do you agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and that heaven has no place for homosexuals? Because I’d love to hear you try to respond with “no” to that question and still proclaim to be a Christian.
I'm not talking about science, I am talking about Rationalism. Science is not the be-all end-all. Another name for science is "Natural philosophy". It is a branch of philosophy, a method for arriving at knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself.
Now, I will add a footnote that there is scientific evidence for God, but I won't get bogged down in that because empiricism is secondary to reason. Reason is a superior method to observation for arriving at knowledge.
Yes, this is why it is nonsensical to try to use science to try to measure the metaphysical and one must exercise reason instead.
What gap? I have never referred to any gap in knowledge, but rather a certainty arrived at by logical deduction.
Are you trying to shoehorn in some sort of a "God of the Gaps" argument here? It is a complete nonsequitur as I never used any gaps in knowledge as part of my argument.
I am not inserting God into the universe at all, but rather outside of it.
My argument is the same as Aristotle's, Plato's and St. Anselm's. It has nothing to do with science being imperfect.
If you can deduce something logically, for example, that all males are human and all humans are mammals, therefore all human males are mammals; then we can know this for a fact. If you were born on an shipwreck island and have never seen another human male, then you wouldn't have to observe any other men to know that you are a mammal. You are essentially arguing, "it doesn't matter if we can deduce something logically, I have never seen another man so I can't be convinced men are mammals" when in fact you can.
Science logically cannot measure God.
You can't prove to me that your subjective experience exists using science. I challenged you to it but you had no answer. By whatever means you choose to prove you have a consciousness, we can take it and apply it to the universe to prove the universe has a higher consciousness. However, you cannot do this. In fact, you intrinsically continue to insist by debating me that you are a real person, yet are utterly unable to prove it scientifically. Am I expected to take it on faith alone that you are a conscious being? Isn't it hypocritical that you ask this of me? Either - admit you are not a conscious being, or admit that science cannot ever possibly prove subjective qualia because that is outside of its realm.
Godel's ontological proof has even been machine-verified as logically correct. So, unless you can disprove logic itself, it would be a hard task to disprove God.
Don't suppose you are the first person in all of history to say "wait a minute, why should I believe in something I can't see?" - there is a philosophical tradition over 3000 years old which is comprised of mankind's greatest scholars, which maintains the existence of God through formalized logic.
Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Arab Christians also call God Allah.
Similar threads
