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

[Adam]

Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Arab Christians also call God Allah.

I suppose this is a rather incomplete answer.

Here is the complete answer:

Genesis 11:1-9
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

In fact, this ties into exactly what I said in my first post, Jung and his theory of the collective unconscious. People from all around the world, even isolated tribes that had no outside contact for thousands of years, all have similar ideas, they believe in God, a soul, an afterlife, judgement of the dead, a global flood, etc. Think about how different modern day Egypt is from King Tut's Egypt, or Ozymandias' egypt, of which nothing remains. Think about how different Egypt is from the Aztecs or Chinese. There is no cultural explanation possible for this. Mankind has imprinted on its very essence, certain ideas.

This is a proof FOR God, rather than against God. In fact, it even has a name, the Trademark argument, formalized by Descartes as an ontological proof.

 

[Romanov2488]

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.

And Brahman is also considered to be God and the creator by Hindus. So why don’t Christians consider Allah and Brahman to be the same God as their own then?

Since Allah is nothing more than the Arabic Name for God, then that means you could pray to Allah without any issues, correct? Jesus is therefore Allah because of the Trinity. That means we can also say one nation under Allah as opposed to God since Allah is nothing more than the Arabic name for God. I’m curious to see how many Christians are willing to get on board with that. And if there’s many tribes which share similar beliefs with Christians, then why is their religion still considered inferior by Christians?

 

[Adam]

And Brahman is also considered to be God and the creator by Hindus. So why don’t Christians consider Allah and Brahman to be the same God as their own then?

Since Allah is nothing more than the Arabic Name for God, then that means you could pray to Allah without any issues, correct? Jesus is therefore Allah because of the Trinity. That means we can also say one nation under Allah as opposed to God since Allah is nothing more than the Arabic name for God. I’m curious to see how many Christians are willing to get on board with that.

It's a matter of cultural interpretation of God. The point of my quoting the Tower of Babel was that mankind was intentionally divided, because Man is too proud to have the full revelation of God. Having this, Man would begin to think he was God, like what New Age claims. New Age has the right idea, of studying ideas of God across culture, but came to a blasphemous conclusion.

I identify myself as a Christian and maintain the primacy of the Bible because of my belief in the Son of God as being the crucial intermediary between Man and God.

 

[Romanov2488]

It's a matter of cultural interpretation of God. The point of my quoting the Tower of Babel was that mankind was intentionally divided, because Man is too proud to have the full revelation of God. Having this, Man would begin to think he was God, like what New Age claims. New Age has the right idea, of studying ideas of God across culture, but came to a blasphemous conclusion.

I identify myself as a Christian and maintain the primacy of the Bible because of my belief in the Son of God as being the crucial intermediary between Man and God.

As for Descartes’ trademark argument, it has its issues. Nearly all theological arguments can be dismissed based on the nature of the arguments. In most cases, these arguments proceed as deductive arguments. That is, they start with some premises, make logical arguments about the premises, and reach some conclusion. For the conclusion to be valid, two conditions must both be met:

1. the premises must be sound, i.e. they must be true
2. the reasoning must be valid, i.e. free from fallacies

If either condition is not met, any conclusion is invalid (i.e. not justified). But here is the clincher, which does not require demonstrating that any particular premise is unsound, or identifying a specific logical fallacy: valid deductive argument never yields new information; at best it can only confirm what is included in the premises. Therefore, any such argument that concludes that a deity exists either uses invalid reasoning, or the presumption of the existence of a deity is included in the premises, which a) makes the premises unsound in the absence of separate relevant, credible, verifiable, publicly-accessible evidence of that deity, and b) is the logical fallacy of a circular argument (i.e. presuming true what is to be shown). It doesn't matter whether the premises are unsound or the reasoning is invalid (or both); the conclusion is not valid.

Therefore, one way to counter such a deductive argument is to point out that problem and insist on relevant, credible, verifiable, publicly-accessible evidence before any argument will be entertained. Such evidence has never been presented (because it doesn't exist), and that is why theologians resort to twisty arguments; they have nothing else.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Incorrect. Ask a Catholic and they will agree Protestants are heretics. Saying I speak from a position of ignorance is your own projection.

Incorrect about WHAT, exactly?
I gave you the dictionary definition of what a Protestant is.

If I’m incorrect about Catholics “worshipping” saints and statues – I OPENLY CJALLENGE you to show me ONE official Catholic teaching that promotes this abomination.
The Catechism is online – so this should be ab easy task for you.

I’ll wait right here for your response.
Happy hunting . . .

 

[Romanov2488]

I see nothing wrong with man thinking he is God. Existence is a mystery at the end of the day and “man” is just a label. Think about the most intimate fact of your experience or most essential: your consciousness. Without consciousness, you can forget about god, earth, etc.

 

[Adam]

On the contrary, famous and influential philosophers like Descartes almost never make logical errors in their deductions. It is, after all, their job, and their works are heavily studied and can be translated to symbolic notation for logical verification. When their ideas are attacked, it is always on the basis of the axioms (the initial premises which are taken as self-evident).

So let's start with a very simple axiom: people have the idea of God.

These are your demands:
" separate relevant, credible, verifiable, publicly-accessible evidence of that deity,"

I have an idea of God, you have an idea of God, many historical documents from other cultures have ideas of God. This is so common I don't think I need to waste time by posting examples here. The names or cultural interpretations may vary, but records of this fact date back to the dawn of writing.

So we have observable proof that people have the concept of God, yes? Is this the axiom that you find so indefensible?

 

[Adam]

I see nothing wrong with man thinking he is God. Existence is a mystery at the end of the day and “man” is just a label. Think about the most intimate fact of your experience or most essential: your consciousness. Without consciousness, you can forget about god, earth, etc.

You talk about consciousness now? What instrument do you use to measure it?

 

[Romanov2488]

Incorrect about WHAT, exactly?
I gave you the dictionary definition of what a Protestant is.

If I’m incorrect about Catholics “worshipping” saints and statues – I OPENLY CJALLENGE you to show me ONE official Catholic teaching that promotes this abomination.
The Catechism is online – so this should be ab easy task for you.

I’ll wait right here for your response.
Happy hunting . . .

Catholics claim they pray -through- Mary and the saints. They say that only the living are in heaven and so that fits the bill as far as saints go. Protestants will consider this heresy as only Jesus should be worshipped. In the end, they both view each other as heretics. But then again I’m not surprised because that’s what religion does to people: gives them a spiritual ego.

 

[Romanov2488]

You talk about consciousness now? What instrument do you use to measure it?

I don’t think consciousness can be measured due to being formless by nature. It perceives change and phenomena. The only time I would ever use the word God is if I am referring to consciousness. The word “God” has been perverted and is a loaded term. Consciousness is a more accurate term. And what is consciousness other than what I simply refer to as myself? I am the consciousness with which I perceive everything. My body, my name, my thoughts, everything appears within consciousness.

This is why the eastern religions are miles ahead of the Abrahamic ones: they investigate the nature of self. The self exists without a doubt. You truly are that which you seek. When the Buddha was asked about the existence of God, he remained silent.

 

[Adam]

I don’t think consciousness can be measured due to being formless by nature.

Then this is my answer to you on the topic of God.

It perceives change and phenomena. The only time I would ever use the word God is if I am referring to consciousness. The word “God” has been perverted and is a loaded term. Consciousness is a more accurate term. And what is consciousness other than what I simply refer to as myself? I am the consciousness with which I perceive everything. My body, my name, my thoughts, everything appears within consciousness.

So then, everything that you can perceive, exists solely within your conception? I agree completely! And if God exists within the conception, then this is the basis for St. Anselm's proof and Descartes' proof! By accepting the idea that consciousness exists, this is the foundation for accepting the idea that things within the consciousness also exist!

 

[-Phil]

Science is empirical.

Science is theoretical. It’s a belief. You believe there is, “science”.

The scientific method can only be applied to that which can be observed, within space-time.

Space-time is a paradigm. Also a belief. You believe there is, “space-time”.

God by definition is outside of space-time.

Thus, you believe that God is outside of, what you believe. Of course, as anything & everything you believe is, belief.

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.

There’s also no understanding of a universe, whatsoever. That’s also a belief. The word universe is a parable in & of itself. One, verse. Like a punchline that is also the set up.

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.

Science discovered the truth over a hundred years ago, and the truth is there’s no observation. That’s another belief.

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.

The term existence is used both ways. Dualistically, it’s applied as ‘that which stands out’, such as form, implying there is nonexistence. But nonexistant actually means does not actually exist. Nonexistence… does not actually exist. Therein existence is not a duality. Anything that comes to mind as it were which could fit the bill of nonexistant - actually doesn’t exist.

You’re not “wrong” about anything. A belief just isn’t true by definition. More relevantly, a belief is felt as untrue.

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.

Un as a prefix is just like the word existence. Un means one, and un also means not.

Falsifiable means can be proven false.

Unfalsifiable means can not be proven false.

But one is not two; one is not a duality.

One can not prove to there-isn’t-something-else, that there Is - one.
Or more clearly; not two.

 

[-Phil]

Descartes didn’t inspect enough. “I think” is already false.

 

[Romanov2488]

Science is theoretical. It’s a belief. You believe there is, “science”.

Space-time is a paradigm. Also a belief. You believe there is, “space-time”.

Thus, you believe that God is outside of, what you believe. Of course, as anything & everything you believe is, belief.

There’s also no understanding of a universe, whatsoever. That’s also a belief. The word universe is a parable in & of itself. One, verse. Like a punchline that is also the set up.

Science discovered the truth over a hundred years ago, and the truth is there’s no observation. That’s another belief.

The term existence is used both ways. Dualistically, it’s applied as ‘that which stands out’, such as form, implying there is nonexistence. But nonexistant actually means does not actually exist. Nonexistence… does not actually exist. Therein existence is not a duality. Anything that comes to mind as it were which could fit the bill of nonexistant - actually doesn’t exist.

You’re not “wrong” about anything. A belief just isn’t true by definition. More relevantly, a belief is felt as untrue.

Un as a prefix is just like the word existence. Un means one, and un also means not.

Falsifiable means can be proven false.

Unfalsifiable means can not be proven false.

But one is not two; one is not a duality.

One can not prove to there-isn’t-something-else, that there Is - one.
Or more clearly; not two.

Science relies on observation despite saying that it’s a belief. Without observation, without the scientist, there is no science.

Truthfully this sounds like mysticism/nonduality advaita to me which I have no issue with. In fact, I would agree with you on that. I have no issue with criticizing science so long as it’s not done with a religious agenda to all of a sudden pull out the “God” card. Because if you’re going to tell me that the word universe is a parable and just a belief, then so is God and the Bible. We would have to keep what you said consistent and across the board, otherwise you’d come off like another religious zealot trying to undermine science in favor of a religion. I was mostly pitting science against religion. Even though I’m a mystic at heart, science has gotten us a lot further than religion has.

 

[-Phil]

Without observation, without the scientist, there is no science.

Yes, and that is the case. Those are all actually beliefs.

Truthfully this sounds like mysticism/nonduality advaita to me which I have no issue with.

It’s not about what it sounds like, it’s about what ‘it’ actually is.

In fact, I would agree with you on that. I have no issue with criticizing science so long as it’s not done with a religious agenda to all of a sudden pull out the “God” card. Because if you’re going to tell me that the word universe is a parable and just a belief, then so is God and the Bible. We would have to keep what you said consistent and across the board, otherwise you’d come off like another religious zealot trying to undermine science in favor of a religion. I was mostly pitting science against religion. Even though I’m a mystic at heart, science has gotten us a lot further than religion has.

It’s not a criticism of science, science actually doesn’t exist. Universe is a belief, and so is whatever thought arises next. If it’s believed.
But it’s not about what anyone says, it’s about inspecting direct experience.

 

[Romanov2488]

Yes, and that is the case. Those are all actually beliefs.


It’s not about what it sounds like, it’s about what ‘it’ actually is.


It’s not a criticism of science, science actually doesn’t exist. Universe is a belief, and so is whatever thought arises next. If it’s believed.
But it’s not about what anyone says, it’s about inspecting direct experience.

Yes, and that is the case. Those are all actually beliefs.


It’s not about what it sounds like, it’s about what ‘it’ actually is.


It’s not a criticism of science, science actually doesn’t exist. Universe is a belief, and so is whatever thought arises next. If it’s believed.
But it’s not about what anyone says, it’s about inspecting direct experience.

Speaking of direct experience, are you familiar with Rupert Spira?

 

[-Phil]

@Romanov2488
Yes, someone just mentioned him the other day.

 

[Romanov2488]

@Romanov2488
Yes, someone just mentioned him the other day.

Rupert Spira makes more sense than any pastor or priest.

 

[-Phil]

Rupert Spira makes more sense than any pastor or priest.

He sure seems to be speaking from direct experience.
So to speak.

 

[Adam]

Here is my proof of God:

To preface, I think that many people have the vulgar idea that concepts within the consciousness are meaningless imaginations, so St. Anselm's proof, though completely ironclad, is often ignored because it is unintuitive. So I will put forward a few ideas which are not part of the proof, but will instead just pave the way for accepting the proof.

First, yes, just because you can hypothesize something, it doesn't prove it exists. I can imagine a unicorn but that doesn't make it real. However, there are things that you can prove exist via their hypothesis alone. For example, the self. The fact that you can contemplate the existence of the self, proves the self exists in actuality, because otherwise - who is doing the contemplating? For another example, the very concept of thought itself, can be proven to exist by the fact that you are using thought to contemplate thought. If you had no thought, you could not use thought to contemplate thought.

Second, I will start with a tautology. A thing that exists, is a thing that exists. A thing that exists, which is imagined, is still a thing that exists. If you can imagine a thing that exists, then it does not lose its quality of existence, it remains a real thing, that also exists within your imagination. Existing within your imagination does not diminish its existence in reality.

So now for a really simplified version of the proof. I am not a philosopher, so my explanation may not be logically sound like Godel's, but if you want Godel's proof, I can post it. At any rate, here is my clumsy aproximation (which I am sure would make any actual philosopher scream at me):

Axioms:
1. Positive qualities exist in the conception
2. The quality of being real (outside of mere hypothesis) is a positive quality
3. God is defined as a being which MUST ALWAYS embody all possible positive qualities (this is a doctrine called Divine Simplicity)
4. It is possible to conceive of the basic premise of God, as defined in axiom 3

Because it is possible to conceive of a being with all positive qualities, and the quality of existence in fact (and not just in hypothesis) is a positive quality, then God must exist. If you instead conceive of God as a being which embodies all positive qualities, but exists only in hypothesis and not in reality, then you have violated the third axiom, and you have not in fact conceived of God, but you have only conceived of something like God except for the quality of existence. If you can conceive of something like God minus the quality of existence, then you must also be able to conceive of God, with the quality of existence. Therefore, God must exist in fact and not just hypothesis.