Proof of God

[BillyJoe]

Billy - have you read anything about Falsifiabilty? This is really what "You can't prove a negative" boils down to...

You have reached the heights
Three wrongs in one short post.

"You can't prove a negative" is a false statement.
Falsifiability does not equal "You can't prove a negative".
Falsifiability supports my argument.

I will leave it as an exercise in clear thinking.
Back later.

 

[volatile]

"You can't prove a negative" is a false statement.

I guess you didn't see Mobyseven's post in which he explained in very, very clear detail that you really, really can't prove a negative.

Falsifiability does not equal "You can't prove a negative".

Ummm... it really does, in so many words.

Falsifiability supports my argument.

No. From the Wikipedia page, if you'd care to have read it:

"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation. The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God. On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

 

[kurious_kathy]

Which so-called god, or if you like, which so-called christian god.

Paul

The one that knows and looks at the truth of what's in your heart. If I were you ph I would start considering a serious change of heart. Why is it everytime I hear your comments they seem totally hostile toward God?

You and some others have said in the past they were once believers, so what happened to harden your hearts? Could it be you just missed heaven by 18 inches? Heres a link that sums it up quite nicely... http://shop3.gospelcom.net/epages/a...a9004e0d88271e45579e7b0685/Product/View/20090

 

[Herzblut]

"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation. The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God. On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

A very suble reasoning.

I'm confident everybody has fully understood it but just to make sure: would you please explain?

Anyways, it doesnt lead nowhere. The assertion "If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence" is equivalent to "If God is..., then one could not prove his non-existence". Which means "God does not exist" is not verifiable.

So, where are we now?

Herzblut

 

[volatile]

A very suble reasoning.

I'm confident everybody has fully understood it but just to make sure: would you please explain?

Anyways, it doesnt lead nowhere. The assertion "If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence" is equivalent to "If God is..., then one could not prove his non-existance". Which means "God does not exist" is not verifiable.

So, where are we now?

I can't put it any simpler than this: a falsifiable statement is something that it is impossible to prove right but is possible to prove wrong. Negative statements are necessarily falsifiable, in that you can prove them wrong by proving a counter-example.

Verifiability and falsifiability are different things.

In the current context, Billie -Joe suggests we should all be agnostic about God (but not about faeries or unicorns, for reasons he has yet to logically explain). However, if we pose the God hypothesis in a falsifiable form - "God does not exist" - then instead of agnosticism, we are necessarily lead to consider that, given the lack of evidence *for* God, it is sensible to believe more strongly that he doesn't exist.

Dawkins talks about this at some length in The God Delusion, but the thrust of his argument is precisely upon these lines - just because something might be possible (yes, God *might* exist), the probability of it occurring is not equal to it not occurring.

Science "believes" that, for example, the speed of light is a constant. This is a falsifiable, testable hypothesis, and as such there always remains the possibility that it might not be. The evidence, of course, points in the opposite direction, and thus it is sensible and rational to conclude that the speed of light is indeed a constant. We can never say we have "proven" that the speed of light is *always* a constant, but the evidence allows us to preclude taking an agnostic position.

Falsifiability is resolutely NOT about remaining on the fence. It is about producing more certain, and not less certain, hypotheses. As long as you know what will prove your theory false, you can always know what evidence makes your hypothesis stronger (though never "proven correct").

 

[kurious_kathy]

So, where are we now?

Herzblut

Well I know where I am, waitng for Jesus to return.

We only know God through Jesus! There is only one true God and each of us can have a personal relationship with Him, so what are you waiting for?

 

[volatile]

Well I know where I am, waitng for Jesus to return.

We only know God through Jesus! There is only one true God and each of us can have a personal relationship with Him, so what are you waiting for?

Evidence!

 

[Paulhoff]

The one that knows and looks at the truth of what's in your heart. If I were you ph I would start considering a serious change of heart. Why is it everytime I hear your comments they seem totally hostile toward God?

One can not be hostile toward something that is not there. Also the heart is a pump, the brain is where thought is, so please get that fact straight.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

I can't put it any simpler than this: a falsifiable statement is something that it is impossible to prove right but is possible to prove wrong.

A falsifiable statement can be proved wrong. Whether it can be proved right is not specified.

Negative statements are necessarily falsifiable, in that you can prove them wrong by proving a counter-example.

No. The statement "There is no unobservable God" cannot be falsified. Only statements about observables can be proved either true or false at all.

Verifiability and falsifiability are different things.

Right. Verifying A falsifies not-A, to be more precise.

However, if we pose the God hypothesis in a falsifiable form - "God does not exist" - then instead of agnosticism, we are necessarily lead to consider that, given the lack of evidence *for* God, it is sensible to believe more strongly that he doesn't exist.

Maybe you and I. But by far not everybody.

Dawkins talks about this at some length in The God Delusion, but the thrust of his argument is precisely upon these lines - just because something might be possible (yes, God *might* exist), the probability of it occurring is not equal to it not occurring.

Unless the probability of existence of an entity is zero cause it is contradicting laws of nature, it may exist according to science. Improbability is a difficult argument, since arbitrarily improbable - however possible - events are happening all the time.

Science "believes" that, for example, the speed of light is a constant. This is a falsifiable, testable hypothesis, and as such there always remains the possibility that it might not be.

Speed of light is independent from the velocity of its source, you mean. This is considered a law of nature.

Falsifiability is resolutely NOT about remaining on the fence. It is about producing more certain, and not less certain, hypotheses. As long as you know what will prove your theory false, you can always know what evidence makes your hypothesis stronger (though never "proven correct").

Thats why "I believe in God" is a declaration of faith and independent from evidence.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

Well I know where I am, waitng for Jesus to return.

We only know God through Jesus! There is only one true God and each of us can have a personal relationship with Him, so what are you waiting for?

Not a good way to spend your one and only life, waiting for a dead man, but then it is your life to waste.

Only know so-called god through so-called Jesus, that is funny, it sounds like many other religions that are the only way too.

Do yourself a big favor, read some real books on the universe, you have such a limited idea of this world. My wife has finally gotten that so-called god monkey off her back and the world has opened up to her.

Paul

 

[thaiboxerken]

...unless you are saying that something DOES NOT exist.
Then you need evidence that it DOES NOT exist.

Only if it's been established, scientifically, that the object does exist.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Not a good way to spend your one and only life, waiting for a dead man, but then it is your life to waste.

Only know so-called god through so-called Jesus, that is funny, it sounds like many other religions that are the only way too.

Do yourself a big favor, read some real books on the universe, you have such a limited idea of this world. My wife has finally gotten that so-called god monkey off her back and the world has opened up to her.

Paul

My life has been quite eventful thank you very much. See what you don't see that I do now is that with God it's a win win situation. We don't lose anything we don't need to lose to follow Christ. He gives me freedom to study and learn just like you, but I choose to test things I learn in this secular world in light of scripture. If it doesn't pass the test of testing it against scripture then I disreguard it as just another false teaching from the god of this world. I will choose Gods truth over Satans lies any day of the week!

 

[Herzblut]

So you believe that:

• God did not create the universe, or the earth, or any living creatures.
• Any suggestion that god was somehow involved in the creation of the OT or NT is rejected.
• Either Jesus did not exist, or he had a human biological father - either way he could not have been the son of god.
• You reject the notion that Jesus died and then came back to life three days later. Related to this, you reject the idea that he then ascended to heaven.
• You reject the notion that god can answer prayers.
• You reject the idea of the rapture, or any heavenly end-times scenario.

Yes.

Does the list of ideas above accurately represent the Christian (Hebrew / Mulsim) god in any way, shape or form?

No.

Whats the point?

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

My life has been quite eventful thank you very much. See what you don't see that I do now is that with God it's a win win situation. We don't lose anything we don't need to lose to follow Christ. He gives me freedom to study and learn just like you, but I choose to test things I learn in this secular world in light of scripture. If it doesn't pass the test of testing it against scripture then I disreguard it as just another false teaching from the god of this world. I will choose Gods truth over Satans lies any day of the week!

Really, how old is the earth, how many stars are there.......

The bible says nothing against slavery, and women are second class.

Paul



Also there is no so-called Satan, so there goes your lies idea.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes.


No.

Whats the point?

Herzblut

I thought you were attempting to describe the god of the "big three" religions. I must have misunderstood?

I suppose the point is that if one believes in god, but that god doesn't actually DO anything and can't be found ANYWHERE, not only is one's belief unfalsifiable but it is also pretty useless. Not saying that you hold those beliefs, mind you.

 

[Herzblut]

I thought you were attempting to describe the god of the "big three" religions. I must have misunderstood?

I think there is only two really big religions. But, yes, you understood me right. The comprehension problem is on my side. I dont understand your response, to be honest. Dont worry though.

I suppose the point is that if one believes in god, but that god doesn't actually DO anything and can't be found ANYWHERE, not only is one's belief unfalsifiable but it is also pretty useless.

I dont see any evidence for the value judgement that beliefs are useless. I also think that being unfalsifiable is quite a benefit for a belief, because ..well.. it cannot be falsified!

Herzblut

 

[Mobyseven]

I think there is only two really big religions. But, yes, you understood me right. The comprehension problem is on my side. I dont understand your response, to be honest. Dont worry though.

No problems, I know that you're trying your best. Ed knows you speak better English than I do German.

I dont see any evidence for the value judgement that beliefs are useless. I also think that being unfalsifiable is quite a benefit for a belief, because ..well.. it cannot be falsified!

If I tell you that there is an immortal man living inside Mount Everest, and that he never leaves, and that you will never be able to dig far enough to find him, is there any benefit in believing in him?

 

[Herzblut]

Ed knows you speak better English than I do German.

Thanks alot. Who's Ed?

If I tell you that there is an immortal man living inside Mount Everest, and that he never leaves, and that you will never be able to dig far enough to find him, is there any benefit in believing in him?

Why dont you ask those believers, if you find any?

Seriously, your caricatures are unable to give any evidence to your claim that believing is useless. Regarding the undisputable fact that most people actually do believe you'd have to understand first of all why they do so. You seem to be unaware.

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

We only know God through Jesus! There is only one true God and each of us can have a personal relationship with Him, so what are you waiting for?

You say it constitutes a promise to believe this promise has been made?

Herzblut

 

[BillyJoe]

Through your investigations you have revealed the structure of the entire universe and discovered that the aether does not exist? Well, you appear to be quite godlike. It's a good thing that my belief system is flexible because otherwise I would have been closed to this new evidence. Your godlike powers have opened the window of doubt in my soul.

There is no god.
There is no aether.

The only way you can say that the aether still exists is if you steal the label and apply it to something entirely different. In the mean time, the substance to which the label was originally applied has been proven to not exist.

Definition; Aether: the medium hypothesised to exist specifically for the propagation of light.

Disproof:
1) Light has been proven conclusively not to require a medium because it self-propagates. Hence the need to hypthesise the aether has evapourated into thin air.
2) The characteristics that this medium would be required to have to propagate light is incompatible with the characteristics is cannot have without having other effects which we straight forwardly observe it does not have.
3) The aether was conclusively shown not to exist by the MM experiment.

There is no aether.
Now try disproving god.