Not sure if anyone is still reading, but I thought I owed it to answer that last post I referred to earlier:
Take it or leave it.
That you don't get it is no fault of mine, nor does it make your argument correct.
That was unnecessary.
I was coming half way to acknowledge that it could be the case that your view is correct and that I am just not getting it.
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!
What definition? Where is there a definition in the following:
"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.
I am saying that, if it is impossible to prove that
god exists, then it is impossible to disprove that
god doesn't exist, because the only way to disprove that
god does not exist is to prove that
god exists.
Where is the logical error?
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!
I did not define god as being unobservable, that is the part of the definition of the deistic god. But, no, it doesn't change the fact that
demonstrating the existence of god one would falsify the claim, "There is no god". But that doesn't mean that
"There is no god," is a falsifiable claim that will never be falsified. What it means is that
"There is no god," is a falsifiable claim that CAN never be falsified.
Again, show me the logical error.
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.
Call it semantics if you will, you still haven't shown that what I have said is not logical.
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:
Stop making all these alterations to my words, dammit!
You must understand that I am rebutting your statement BY restating them. Here are the two versions again:
Mobyseven's Version:
"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.
BillyJoe's Version.
"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
There, I hope that's better.
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.
I believe that statement (in bold) to be incorrect.
Here is the correct version, in my opinion:
If god exists and he created the universe, but is undetectable, then there is will never be a natural scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.
There will be no scientific explanation, for example, for the existence of the laws of physics, the physical constants contained therein, or for why there is something rather than nothing. There will also, of course, still be no proof that god actually exists.
On the other hand, if there is no god, a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe remains as a possibility. It is also possible that the universe will end before we get there, or that the human brain may not be capable of understanding the answer to this question.
So, to ask that oft repeated question: Do you understand yet why you are wrong?
I really think you need to stop asking that presumptious question.
Rather show me the illogic in my responses.
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?
Do you really mean that I am presuming the existence of god?
That would be an absurd thing to say, because I have stated many times that it is impossible to prove that
god exists (that is part of my argument), so you must mean something else. What is it, then, that I am presuming the existence of?
(And, yes, I understand "begging the question")
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.
I'm sorry, but there cannot be evidence for an undetectable god.
It is a "contradiction in terms".
(And I won't presume to ask you if you know what that means
)
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.
I have offered an explanation for what happened here. I took you at your word and imagined a scenario where god exists, as invited to do so by your statement that began "If god is exists.....". Your conclusion ignored the fact that we were looking at a scenario where god exists. That is the error that you made and which I pointed out.
It was a bit like "
denying the question".
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.
I have already stated that I cannot prove the tooth fairy exists. And I have also stated that I do not consider it a serious question because the tooth faerie does not fill any gaps in our knowledge. The gaps in our knowledge that you listed, I do not consider to be serious either.
It's like that million dollar cheque. You put out your bare hand and say "There is a million dollar cheque in my hand". I reply "There is no million dollar cheque in your hand". You say "prove it". Really, I look at your bare hand and walk off. You want to give me a list of reasons why I could be wrong, I continue walking. There is no million dollar cheque in your hand. I am not 3 metres tall.
Don't play games.
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?
Seriously, it's called a knowledge gap.
It is very likely that we may never know how the universe came into existence or why there is something rather than nothing (how something comes from nothing). Quantum physical explanations of reality (and I reject your suggestion that I know nothing about quantum physics) are every bit as weird, bizarre and shocking.
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'.
Several times I have stuck my neck out with statements that I have made that sound logically sound to me, challenging you to demonstrate the logical flaws. But you have not done so. You have referred to one of my logical arguments as shoddy but failed to demonstrate where the logic failed. Another one you just became defensive about me altering your carefully thought up comsummate prose.
regards,
BillyJoe
