Proof of God

[Belz...]

So what's "ethics", Herz ?

 

[BillyJoe]

Time COULD have a beginning and STILL there could be something remaining.

WHAT?
Remaining when???

Or better yet, time could have a beginning, which makes the whole "something from nothign" question pointless.

That's why I said EITHER/OR !!!


Looks like you need spoon feeding:


My original statement was:

EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.

And here is my logical proof of this statement expanded out a little:

If it is not something from nothing, then there was never nothing.
If there was never nothing then it is time without beginning.
If it is something from nothing, then there was once nothing.
If there was once nothing then it is not time without beginning.
Therefore...
EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.


When you finally get your head around this logical argument, then you might give some thought to the implications of this statement:


If science is ever to explain the ultimate questions of our existence, it must explain EITHER how we can get something from nothing OR how we can have time without beginning.
This is what is required of science for the deistic god to be displaced from his so called gap.

 

[BillyJoe]

MobySeven, if that doesn't do it, then I'm going to eat my hat.

Who would have thought you could catch the clap in a circle jerk!

 

[volatile]

Who would have thought you could catch the clap in a circle jerk!

You're being rude again, smiley or none.. It doesn't help your 'argument', such that it might be.

 

[BillyJoe]

Mobyseven,

There is a lot to reply to in that post of yours.
However, first of all, I must address this:

Italicising mine, to show where the bits you quoted are. I've just about had it with you, BillyJoe - you have actually starting quote-mining and cherry picking my posts to deliberately try and misrepresent my position. I would appreciate an apology.

I did not "deliberately try to misrepresent your position" by "quote-mining" or "cherry picking", I summarised your post and corrected one logical error.


Here is what I said:

"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

Here is what you said:

"If god created the universe, but left absolutely no trace of himself, then if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god. As such, god would not be a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

You posit an unfalsifiable deity who is not necessary for the universe to exist. As such, you can remove god from this equation entirely, and you are left with an unfalsifiable god that does nothing. The excuse that you used to grant god a superior status to the tooth fairy (or the atom-fairy) disappears in your own definition of such a god. "



In the underlined bit of your first paragraph, you said "if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god."
Therefore, the underlined bit of your second paragraph is only true if and when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen. Only then can we remove god from this equation entirely.
This is why I said "You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"


So I didn't try to "deliberately misrepresent your position". In my opinion, I was only summarising your two paragraphs and correcting a logical error contained in your second paragraph.

 

[BillyJoe]

You're being rude again, smiley or none.. It doesn't help your 'argument', such that it might be.

It's no fun to be completely serious all the time.
Also, you had a chance to be the "hero" here, but you left it to Mobyseven.
Now all you are left to do is clap.

 

[volatile]

Pass the ketchup, lads...

 

[volatile]

It's no fun to be completely serious all the time.

There's a difference between "funny" and "rude".

Also, you had a chance to be the "hero" here, but you left it to Mobyseven.

Now all you are left to do is clap.

That's all I've got the energy to do, after you ignore all the carefully crafted, clearly explained and concisely argued refutations we put together and return to "BUT GOD MIGHT HAVE DONE IT!" over and over and over again...

 

[BillyJoe]

Regarding Dawkins' Categories:

So you are not an athiest then? Or are you - you place yourself in category six, and yet you still call yourself agnostic...interesting.

Agnostic? Atheist? Sort of depends on the definition of both.
I said I was in category 6 regarding god:

Category 6: Very low probability, but short of zero: De facto atheist, "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he does not exist"

I would like to point out that on Dawkins' scale from 1-7, I will never be a 7. Ever. For someone to be a 7, they have to dogmatically accept that there is no god, rather than accepting it on the basis of reason and understanding that there is always a possibility that they may be wrong.

So, if you do not "dogmatically accept that there is no god", when you said:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

you must have been engaging in hyperbole, because the above statement, which you made on many occasions in several posts, looks suspiciously like category 7:

category 7: Strong Atheist: "I know there is no god".

 

[BillyJoe]

There's a difference between "funny" and "rude".

Well, it was meant to be funny.

That's all I've got the energy to do, after you ignore all the carefully crafted, clearly explained and concisely argued refutations we put together and return to "BUT GOD MIGHT HAVE DONE IT!" over and over and over again...

I was talking about this logical error, which you left to Mobyseven to try to explain it away:

Volatile:
"If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation.

BillyJoe:
But also:
If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not prove his existence by observation.

Volatile:
The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God.

BillyJoe:
But also: The assertion 'God exists' would be unverifiable because of the nature of God.

Volatile:
On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

BillyJoe:
But, if the existence of God is unverifiable, then you cannot "demonstrate the existence of God" and therefore the assertion "god does not exist" is not falsifiable.


Volatile:
We can thus discard 'God exists' as our base hypothesis, as, being unfalsifiable, is useless in determining the 'truth' of God's existence. "God does not exist", however, is falsifiable, and thus useful as a hypothesis to start our investigations with.

BillyJoe:
I disagree because "god does not exist is not falsifiable

Here is Mobyseven's reponse:

Your argument is essentially that, because you define god as unobservable, one can never provide proof for god, and therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable claim.

To put it bluntly...again: You're wrong. The statement, "There is no god," is and will always be a falsifiable claim, falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god. The fact that you define god as undetectable is immaterial to the matter of falsifiability - the same argument would apply were god to genuinely not exist. To put the arguments one after the other:

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god is undetectable, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.​

...and...​

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god does not exist, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.​

Your argument that, "There is no god," is unfalsifiable simply because providing proof for the existence of god is impossible is nothing less than absurd. I hope my explanation has helped you understand why it is absurd

 

[volatile]

To put it bluntly...again: You're wrong. The statement, "There is no god," is and will always be a falsifiable claim, falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god. The fact that you define god as undetectable is immaterial to the matter of falsifiability - the same argument would apply were god to genuinely not exist. To put the arguments one after the other:

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god is undetectable, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.

...and...

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god does not exist, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.​

Your argument that, "There is no god," is unfalsifiable simply because providing proof for the existence of god is impossible is nothing less than absurd. I hope my explanation has helped you understand why it is absurd.

I was talking about this logical error, which you left to Mobyseven to try to explain away:

He got there before I did. In any case, the salient point is quoted, again, above. You've already shown that you can't follow when the gaping holes in your argument, particularly when falsifiability is concerned.

 

[BillyJoe]

Mobyseven,

I read my response to volatile and your response to me side by side and I just don't get it.

Your argument is essentially that, because you define god as unobservable, one can never provide proof for god, and therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable claim.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

To put it bluntly...again: You're wrong. The statement, "There is no god," is and will always be a falsifiable claim, falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.

As I said, seems pretty straight forward to me.

The fact that you define god as undetectable is immaterial to the matter of falsifiability - the same argument would apply were god to genuinely not exist. To put the arguments one after the other:

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god is undetectable, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.​

...and...​

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god does not exist, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.​

Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.

Using somewhat different phrasing:

"There is no god," would be falsifiable if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But, if god exists but is undetectable, it would be impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement if god exists and is undetectable.​

...and...​

"There is no god," would be falsifiable if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But if god does not exist, it would be impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," would be an unfalsifiable statement, if god does not exist​

So what?
I agree with both these sets of statements.
But, the situation in which god exists but is undetectable is different from the situation in which god does not exist. In the latter, science may one day discover the natural explanation for the existence of the universe. In the former, science will never discover a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

Your argument that, "There is no god," is unfalsifiable simply because providing proof for the existence of god is impossible is nothing less than absurd. I hope my explanation has helped you understand why it is absurd

Where is this set of statements absurd?

"There is no god," would be a falsifiable claim, if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But, if god exists but he is not detectable, the existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not a falsifiable claim, if god exists but cannot be detected.
​

 

[BillyJoe]

The point of my post was that the god you posit is by definition undetectable, which means that we can never reach a point in our understanding where we would require god to explain something. This means that the hypothetical universe created by an undetectable god is identical in every way to a universe that was not created by an undetectable god. Introducing god into the equation to 'explain' the creation of the universe is wholly unnecessary.

There is a very small difference.

Consider two scenarios:
1) There is no god and the universe arose naturally.
2) There is a god who created the universe, but he is undetectable.

In scenario (1), science may one day discover the natural explanation for the existence of the universe. In scenario (2), science will never discover a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

As I/you said previously, and to come full circuit:
"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

 

[BillyJoe]

Just because you say that there is no gap in our knowledge for the tooth fairy does not automatically make it so. Did you not even consider that perhaps the only reason your parents gave you money rather than the tooth fairy was because the tooth fairy doesn't visit the place where you grew up? Never considered that there really is a tooth fairy that visits people, and that the parents of children who the tooth fairy didn't visit 'fill in' for the tooth fairy so to speak?

I have to tell you I find it very difficult to read what you have written above and keep a straight face. I really don't know what else to say about the tooth faerie that I have not said already.

The irony here is, of course, that by your 'knowledge gap' definition, the tooth fairy should be considered more likely to exist than your undetectable deistic god! There are, as I have just shown, possible gaps in our knowledge relating to dental economics - your undetectable god on the other hand automatically 'magics' into existence a non-deistic explanation for the beginning of the universe, which very neatly fills the 'knowledge gap' you were so eager to use god to explain in the first place. It is a self-defeating argument.

Oh come on, there is no knowledge gap for the tooth faerie!

And, if we ever discover a natural cause for the existence of the universe, we can dispose of god as easily as the tooth faerie.
But until then...

 

[Mobyseven]

My original statement was:

EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.

And here is my logical proof of this statement expanded out a little:

If it is not something from nothing, then there was never nothing.
If there was never nothing then it is time without beginning.
If it is something from nothing, then there was once nothing.
If there was once nothing then it is not time without beginning.
Therefore...
EITHER it's something from nothing OR time without beginning.

s: Something came from nothing.
n: There was once nothing.
t: Time has a beginning.

~s ⊃ ~n
~n ⊃ ~t
s ⊃ n
n ⊃ t
∴ s ∨ ~t​

While this is a valid argument, I dispute whether it is a sound one. Primarily I take issue with the second premise (that if there was never nothing then time has no beginning) because it is perfectly reasonable to posit a cyclical model of time whereby time has a beginning, before which it is meaningless to talk of time, but where matter may have (in one form or another) existed. On top of that, I dispute the fourth premise (that if there was once nothing then time has a beginning) because it is also perfectly reasonable to posit a universe in which time has no beginning, but where matter need not always exist. And on top of that, I dispute the entire argument, because it appears to be a false dichotomy - that is that there may be other options that you haven't considered could be true: For example, that time has a beginning, but that something did not come from nothing!

The lesson to be learned is that not only must one have a valid argument, but that the argument must also be sound. While you have a valid argument, I would suggest that you do not have a sound argument, for the reasons I listed above.

When you finally get your head around this logical argument, then you might give some thought to the implications of this statement:

If science is ever to explain the ultimate questions of our existence, it must explain EITHER how we can get something from nothing OR how we can have time without beginning.
This is what is required of science for the deistic god to be displaced from his so called gap.

The logical argument only holds if it is sound, and it certainly seems as though it is not. Moreover, science doesn't need to 'displace' the deistic god from the gap he supposedly fills - evidence for the existence of a deistic god needs to be provided to show that there is a god there to fill this gap. You know: Burden of proof?

Mobyseven,

There is a lot to reply to in that post of yours.
However, first of all, I must address this:

Yes, there certainly is a lot to reply to. I would appreciate it if you would simply post a rebuttal to my post when a rebuttal is ready, rather than posting snippets here and there which makes it rather difficult for me to reply to you.

I did not "deliberately try to misrepresent your position" by "quote-mining" or "cherry picking", I summarised your post and corrected one logical error.

You took the quotes out of context, incorrectly summarised my position, and now you have the gall that you were correcting me?

Excuse me for seeming a little bit pissed off, but when I say something I mean what I say. I don't mean the strawman argument that you put forward as an effing correction!

Here is what I said:

"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

Here is what you said:

"If god created the universe, but left absolutely no trace of himself, then if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god. As such, god would not be a necessary condition for the existence of the universe.

You posit an unfalsifiable deity who is not necessary for the universe to exist. As such, you can remove god from this equation entirely, and you are left with an unfalsifiable god that does nothing. The excuse that you used to grant god a superior status to the tooth fairy (or the atom-fairy) disappears in your own definition of such a god. "

In the underlined bit of your first paragraph, you said "if or when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen, we will be able to completely explain it without god."
Therefore, the underlined bit of your second paragraph is only true if and when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen. Only then can we remove god from this equation entirely.
This is why I said "You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

Except that that is not my argument. My argument is right there, staring you in the face, and you're still too damn stupid to see it! To absolutely spell this out for you: If god created the universe but left absolutely no trace of himself, then we can remove god from the equation entirely, making god unnecessary in the first place.

There is absolutely no requirement that we actually discover what caused the universe before we consider this god to be unnecessary. Do you understand now?

So I didn't try to "deliberately misrepresent your position". In my opinion, I was only summarising your two paragraphs and correcting a logical error contained in your second paragraph.

My apologies for stating that you were deliberately misrepresenting my position then. You accidentally misrepresented my position because you have the reading comprehension skills of a blind emu. Here's a hint: Next time you want to "[correct] a logical error" that you think I've made, try reading the damn paragraph again. That should stop you from wasting your time by arguing against a strawman version of what I said.

Regarding Dawkins' Categories:

Agnostic? Atheist? Sort of depends on the definition of both.
I said I was in category 6 regarding god:

Here is a definition: An athiest does not believe in god. An agnostic believes that there is a roughly even chance between god existing and not existing.

Now: Which category do you put yourself in?

Category 6: Very low probability, but short of zero: De facto atheist, "I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he does not exist"

That is the category to which I belong, yes.

So, if you do not "dogmatically accept that there is no god", when you said:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

you must have been engaging in hyperbole, because the above statement, which you made on many occasions in several posts, looks suspiciously like category 7:

category 7: Strong Atheist: "I know there is no god".

No, I was not engaging in hyperbole at all. For one, I have never written, "There is no god," in the manner you write it - capitalised and bolded, as though it is some sort of dogmatic assertion of knowledge. That is yet nother strawman on your part.

Furthermore, I have never, ever said, "I know there is no god." Never. Not once in this series of exchanges have I said that. I have many times now stated that I am in Dawkins' "Category Six", and I have explained why saying, "There is no god," is no more a dogmatic expression of faith than saying, "There are no fairies," or, "There is no aether." Your continual desire to label me as some sort of dogmatic (or dare I say it? - 'religious') athiest is truly wearing thin. It is nothing more than an argument ad hominem, and to make it worse I have now repeatedly stated my position on this matter.

I apologise if this post seems rude, but you have worn out my patience. To be wrong is one thing - there is nothing bad about that - but after having been shown why you are wrong it is no more than sheer arrogance and stubborness to remain willfully ignorant.

The following are the parts of my post that you have not yet addressed:

I know that what I said was similar to what you said. This is the problem: You are saying a lot of things, but you do not understand the implications your own words carry.

If you define god as being completely undetectable in any way. If god is completely undetectable, then we will never encounter a problem to which 'god' is a necessary answer, nor for that matter even a sensible one - if we ever did then we would have indirect evidence for the existence of god, something that has been defined as impossible! If god is entirely unnecessary for our understanding of the universe and how the universe was created, then a universe that was not created by god looks identical to a universe that was created by god. Ergo, god can be removed from the equation entirely - god is unnecessary.

Now, the entire reason that you object to me saying, "There is no god," is that you have given god this 'special property' in that god provides a possible explanation for the creation of the universe. However, this leaves you with two options for god - either god is undetectable, or there should be evidence of god's existence. There is no evidence of god's existence, and so you have instead gone with the other option: That god is undetectable. However, if you posit an undetectable god, you have also necessarily posited a naturalistic and scientific explanation for the creation of the universe - and one that doesn't require a god. As god is no longer the explanation for the existence of the universe, god loses the 'special property' that you have assigned it!

You cannot utter in the same breath, "God explains the beginning of the universe," and, "God is undetectable," without some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

[...]

You didn't cause confusion at all. The point of my post was that the god you posit is by definition undetectable, which means that we can never reach a point in our understanding where we would require god to explain something. This means that the hypothetical universe created by an undetectable god is identical in every way to a universe that was not created by an undetectable god. Introducing god into the equation to 'explain' the creation of the universe is wholly unnecessary, just as introducing the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the equation to 'explain' the creation of the universe is wholly unnecessary. There is nothing there to explain! Once again we reach the point where 'god' and the 'atom-fairy' are virtually identical: Both are completely unnecessary and neither can be detected. If one can say, "There is no atom-fairy," then one can just as rightly say, "There is no god."

[...]

I didn't ask for evasion, I asked you to prove a negative. Finding it impossible, are we?

Just because you say that there is no gap in our knowledge for the tooth fairy does not automatically make it so. Did you not even consider that perhaps the only reason your parents gave you money rather than the tooth fairy was because the tooth fairy doesn't visit the place where you grew up? Never considered that there really is a tooth fairy that visits people, and that the parents of children who the tooth fairy didn't visit 'fill in' for the tooth fairy so to speak?

The irony here is, of course, that by your 'knowledge gap' definition, the tooth fairy should be considered more likely to exist than your undetectable deistic god! There are, as I have just shown, possible gaps in our knowledge relating to dental economics - your undetectable god on the other hand automatically 'magics' into existence a non-deistic explanation for the beginning of the universe, which very neatly fills the 'knowledge gap' you were so eager to use god to explain in the first place. It is a self-defeating argument.

[...]

No, the "burden of proof and falsifiability" argument does not 'fail' against the deistic god - you just don't like the answer that you get!

Your argument is essentially that, because you define god as unobservable, one can never provide proof for god, and therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable claim.

To put it bluntly...again: You're wrong. The statement, "There is no god," is and will always be a falsifiable claim, falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god. The fact that you define god as undetectable is immaterial to the matter of falsifiability - the same argument would apply were god to genuinely not exist. To put the arguments one after the other:

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god is undetectable, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.

...and...

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god does not exist, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.

Your argument that, "There is no god," is unfalsifiable simply because providing proof for the existence of god is impossible is nothing less than absurd. I hope my explanation has helped you understand why it is absurd.

[...]

These comments are all based on the premise that the tooth fairy does not exist. If the tooth fairy does in fact exist, then all these claims are outright false. What I want you to do, as an exercise to help you understand why the burden of proof is placed upon the person making a positive claim, is to hold the tooth fairy to the same standard as you hold god to. I want you to try and prove the non-existance of the tooth fairy. Otherwise, I want you to admit that you are holding god to a lower standard than you hold the tooth fairy.

[...]

Still, it is nice to have yet another admission that you are deliberately using the fallacious 'god of the gaps' argument.

 

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven,

I read my response to volatile and your response to me side by side and I just don't get it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

That you don't get it is no fault of mine, nor does it make your argument correct.

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.

As I said, seems pretty straight forward to me.

It may seem straight forward but it's a shoddy argument. By your definition, the only falsifiable statements are ones that have already been falsified. God, the tooth fairy and the atom fairy all get a free ride according to this definition because you cannot demonstrate the existence of any of them!

The fact that you define god as being unobservable does not in any was change the fact that by demonstrating the existence of god one would falsify the claim, "There is no god." All it means is that, "There is no god," is a falsifiable claim that will never be falsified. In that manner it is no different again from the atom-fairy or ghosts!

In short, you have defined yourself into a corner and are trying to use semantics to get out. Here's the inside scoop: Defining god as unobservable does in no way relieve you of the burden of proof, it just means that your claims can be more easily dismissed as bunk.

Using somewhat different phrasing:

"There is no god," would be falsifiable if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But, if god exists but is undetectable, it would be impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement if god exists and is undetectable.​

...and...​

"There is no god," would be falsifiable if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But if god does not exist, it would be impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," would be an unfalsifiable statement, if god does not exist​

This is really starting to piss me off - why is it that you feel that you have the right to change my all of arguments? All you have done here is add unnecessary premises that clutter up the arguments and make them unwieldy. If you wish to agree with anything, agree with the arguments I put forward originally:

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god is undetectable, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.

...and...

"There is no god," is falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of god.
But god does not exist, so it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of god.
Therefore, "There is no god," is an unfalsifiable statement.​

Stop making all these alterations to my words, dammit!

So what?
I agree with both these sets of statements.
But, the situation in which god exists but is undetectable is different from the situation in which god does not exist. In the latter, science may one day discover the natural explanation for the existence of the universe. In the former, science will never discover a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

Incorrect: A scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is necessary in both situations. If god exists but is undetectable then there is necessarily a natural scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, because otherwise we would have evidence for the existence of god (in that god is the only viable hypothesis) and such evidence would directly contradict the definition of god as being unobservable.

So, to ask that oft repeated question: Do you understand yet why you are wrong?

Where is this set of statements absurd?

"There is no god," would be a falsifiable claim, if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But, if god exists but he is not detectable, the existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not a falsifiable claim, if god exists but cannot be detected.

It is absurd for the reasons I state above, and for that matter in pretty much every reply I've posted in this damn thread. On top of that, you are begging the question by calling, "There is no god," an unfalsifiable claim, because you are presuming the existence of the very thing that is being disputed. You understand what begging the question is, right?

There is a very small difference.

Consider two scenarios:
1) There is no god and the universe arose naturally.
2) There is a god who created the universe, but he is undetectable.

In scenario (1), science may one day discover the natural explanation for the existence of the universe. In scenario (2), science will never discover a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

Incorrect for the reasons stated above. A universe created by an undetectable god requires a naturalistic explanation, for otherwise there would be evidence for the existence of god.

As I/you said previously, and to come full circuit:
"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

Holy Mother of Saint Packer the Kidneyless! Would you kindly stop attributing that position to me? I have never said that, and attributing that position to me is one whopper of a strawman. This is an example of quote-mining at its worst, and I hate it when people take my words out of context.

Drop it.

I have to tell you I find it very difficult to read what you have written above and keep a straight face. I really don't know what else to say about the tooth faerie that I have not said already.

You stated that there was no gap in our knowledge pertaining to the tooth fairy. I showed you some possible gaps in your knowledge. That you don't wish to acknowledge that is duly noted, as is your further evasion of the issue at hand.

You may not like it, but what I just did to you in regards to the tooth fairy is exactly the same thing as you are doing to everyone else in regards to god. Do you yet understand how you are holding god to a lower burden than you are holding the tooth fairy?

Oh come on, there is no knowledge gap for the tooth faerie!

Then how do you explain the knowledge gaps I brought to your attention? You made a falsifiable claim ("There are no gaps in our knowledge of the tooth fairy") and I falsified it.

See how burden of proof works?

And, if we ever discover a natural cause for the existence of the universe, we can dispose of god as easily as the tooth faerie.
But until then...

Good to see that you still have no clue how burden of proof operates, and that you still don't understand the implications of your own arguments and definitions. The degree of idiocy you demonstrate is hard to come by these days outside of the 'truth movement'.

 

[Belz...]

WHAT?
Remaining when???

That's a nonsensical question.

Looks like you need spoon feeding:

At least I have the ability to be fed.

If it is not something from nothing, then there was never nothing.

So far, so good.

If there was never nothing then it is time without beginning.

Depends what you mean by "beginning". Time is inherent to our universe, so there may be "places" (i.e. universes) where time doesn't exist, etc.

If it is something from nothing, then there was once nothing.

Only if time had a beginning, which is not certain.

If there was once nothing then it is not time without beginning.

There's no time in a singularity, and yet there's chaos there.

When you finally get your head around this logical argument, then you might give some thought to the implications of this statement:

It's hard to get your head around something that's a non sequitur.

If science is ever to explain the ultimate questions of our existence, it must explain EITHER how we can get something from nothing OR how we can have time without beginning.

Assuming you're correct, I don't see how this is a problem. It may very well be that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply "outside" of our universe. Infinite time may exist. Or "beginning" may be the wrong term, here.

This is what is required of science for the deistic god to be displaced from his so called gap.

The problem is that your deistic god does NOT explain "something from nothing" or "time without beginning" or their respective opposites. It's just a magical construct that doesn't need to conform to logic simply because we assume that he doesn't.

Unfortunately, that simply doesn't stick. If god creates the universe, and the first law holds, he's using something to create something else. But if that's the case, then god AGAIN becomes unnecessary. There is NO GAP to fill, no matter how you look at it, precisely because you keep defining god as something that cannot explain anything.

 

[Belz...]

Moby, your efforts are truly impressive, here. My hats off.

Here's a medal.

 

[Faithkills]

"You can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"

What in the world makes you think causation holds outside of our universe? We can induce somewhere it must not apply, since even if there is a creator god something created it etc etc until we find something which causation does not apply, or else there never wasn't so there needn't be a creator at all.

Where is this set of statements absurd?

"There is no god," would be a falsifiable claim, if the existence of god could be demonstrated.
But, if god exists but he is not detectable, the existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not a falsifiable claim, if god exists but cannot be detected.
[/LEFT]

It's absurd because if god is undetectable then there is no reason whatsoever to assume it exists. And it thus follows necessarily true that he's only in the discussion because someone made him up.

If he on the other hand is detectable then any claim of the lack of existence of god is quite falsifiable.

 

[Faithkills]

Incorrect: A scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is necessary in both situations. If god exists but is undetectable then there is necessarily a natural scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, because otherwise we would have evidence for the existence of god (in that god is the only viable hypothesis) and such evidence would directly contradict the definition of god as being unobservable.

This is beautiful. Is it yours? I will totally make use of it.