I couldn't possibly disagree with that because it is a re-stating of what I just said in reply to your last post:
"Whether or not god was necessary depends on whether or not it is possible for the universe to have come into existence without god. Therefore we can only conclusively dismiss god as being necessary once we discover how the universe could have existed without him."
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 can remove god from this equation entirely" only if and "when we discover what 'caused' the universe to happen"
(The quotes are from your own post).
Correct, those are quotes from my post. Of course, they don't appear in that order. Or in the same sentence. Or even in the same paragraph. In fact, the way you have presented those quotes
completely changes their meaning.
To present the quotes in their
original context:
Mobyseven 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.
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.
What makes you think I would disagree?
If you agreed we would not still be arguing. In fact, this is the very thing we have been arguing about - this nonsensical 'special property' that you wish to apply to god so that god may be held to a lower standard than everything else.
I think I have caused confusion by saying: "That still, of course, would not exclude him from existing, just that he is not necessary." That bit only makes sense in the context of the part of your post that I was responding to. You commenced that part of your post with: "if god created the universe...". I was just coming back to that hypothetical scenario where god created the universe. Science showing how it could have been created without god, doesn't prove god did not create the universe (seeing as he did, according to this hypothetical scenario).
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."
That is not the reason I say god cannot be as easily dismissed as the tooth faerie.
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this:
There is no gap in our knowledge for the tooth faerie to occupy.
There is a gap for the deistic god - and it is the ultimate gap - and it has not and may never be filled by science.
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.
I am using another argument entirely (see above).
The "burden of proof and falsifiability" argument against the deistic god fails.
I submitted a reply to volatile which goes to the heart of why I think that is so.
I am happy to have it refuted.
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.
I cannot prove the tooth faerie doesn't exist, but I think the question of the tooth faerie's existence is unimportant and irrelevant. The tooth faerie doesn't do, has never done, and was never intended to do, anything. That gap has never existed. It's always been parents who have exchanged the tooth for money.
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.
The deistic god, on the other hand, is posited to fill the ultimate gap not yet filled by science and possibly never to be filled by science. If that gap is ever filled by science, my position of agnosticism will go from category 6 to category 7. The tooth faerie is already there, not because I can prove he doesn't exist but because there is no gap, and never has been a gap, for him to fill.
So you are not an athiest then? Or are you - you place yourself in category six, and yet you still call yourself agnostic...interesting.
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.
That you claim a naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe would compell you to dogmatically reject the notion of god is in my opinion very curious, and seemingly ingenuine.
Still, it is nice to have yet another admission that you are deliberately using the fallacious 'god of the gaps' argument.
