Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 206
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    It doesn't follow that because there is a test that could falsify the existence of God that God is not a "necissary being".
    To believe that God is a necessary being is to believe that God cannot fail to exist.

    To believe that God's existence is falsifiable is to believe that God can fail to exist.

    No one can rationally believe at the same time that God both can fail to exist and cannot fail to exist.

    If you want your belief about this to be rational then you need to decide whether you believe that God's existence is necessary or is falsifiable. Rationally speaking, you cannot have it both ways.


    Rodriguez wrote: As a consequence of your beliefs as quoted above, you two disbelieve the claim that God is a necessary being.

    Scotsmanmatt wrote: I don't think this follows.
    But it does follow, SMM.

    To believe that God's existence is necessary is to believe that God cannot fail to exist. To believe that God's existence is falsifiable is to believe that God can fail to exist. Rationally speaking, you cannot believe that God both can fail to exist and cannot fail to exist at the same time.

    Logically, both p and ~p cannot be the case and this is what you say you believe when you say you believe both that God cannot fail to exist and that God can fail to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by SMM
    Answered above.
    I'm sorry but you didn't answer this question above. Again, the question is:

    If you believe that God is omnipotent (that is, that God can do anything that God desires to do which is logically possible to do) then how is it that at the same time you say you believe that it's possible that there is something God cannot do that God desires to do (that is, that you believe it is possible for God's existence to be falsified)?

    For example, you cannot believe both that God is omnipotent and desired to create the world AND that it's possible that God did not create the world. This is because whatever an omnipotent being desires to do is necessarily done if the desire is logically possible.

    IOW, if you believe that the existence of God is falsifiable then you must believe that it is possible that there is something that God did not do that God desired to do. But if you believe that God is omnipotent then you must believe that it's impossible for God not to do something that he desired to do.

    Again, you cannot rationally believe both propositions at the same time because they are contrary propositions.
    Last edited by Rodriguez; October 12th, 2012 at 07:19 AM.

  2. #62
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    The God concept is falsifiable on the proposal of the truth of philosophical naturalism, on the proposal of the scientific pursuit of a theory of everything, on the proposal of atheological arguments that have the conclusion, 'therefore God does not exist', on the proposal of a combination of these things or taken together. All this information is contained in the OP.

    Consider an individual at present, today, right now who does the following:

    Considers the arguments and evidence offered in support of philosophical naturalism.
    Considers the basis of the current thinking by leading scientists on their pursuit of a theory of everything
    Considers atheological arguments

    On such consideration they are persuaded that there is a stronger case for the truth of each than the converse thus resulting in them forming the belief that no God exists.

    That is a scenario for today, right now, in the present and a scenario that any individual can engage upon, test and observe. It demonstrates clearly that in principle the concept of God is falsifiable for if such were not the case then no individual could be persuaded that God does not exist.

    Now consider that if that be true right now, today, in the present that it must be the case that if philosophical naturalism were confirmed as a sound argument and if the theory of everything were scientifically established as a theory and if a sound atheological argument were established beyond reasonable doubt that the concept of God would not only, in principle be falsified but would in fact have been falsified for:

    a) The truth of philosophical naturalism permits no supernatural entities to exist or supernatural events to occur.
    b) A theory of everything admits of no supernatural creators of the universe nor supernatural explanations of any event at all.
    c) The conclusion of any sound atheological argument is certainly true and the conclusion of any strong inductive argument most probably true this where applied to establishing the non-existence of God such would be the case, i.e. it would have demonstrated the God concept false.

    That factual falsifiability exists right now in potentiality just as the factual falsifiability of evolution or the Big Bang theory exists right now in potentiality. None are currently falsified. All are capable of being falsified or potentially falsifiable on the establishment of current hypothesis or events.

    To exclude God from the criteria of falsifiable but include those theories is special pleading.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Well, first, thank you for taking the time to detail your response. I do appreciate the effort and time it takes to compose a post of this length.

    Unfortunately, I was after something more specific, or perhaps specific in a different way; something akin to fossilized rabbit's bones in the Pre-Cambrian layer (which is contrary to what we can predict to find in that layer given our existing base of knowledge). Maybe if you picked a single characteristic (timelessness, immateriality, or extra-universal), and give an example of some evidence that would challenge the natures of these things. What evidence would should that immaterial things are possible or impossible, for example? How do we test the characteristics of things that exist outside our universe? How do we observe a timeless thing?

    I appreciate that IF the things you mention in the OP are verified, then the God concept might be falsifiable. But you still haven't explained how the "if" could come about or why we should expect that if any of those things are verified, how they would challenge the proposed existence of a timeless, immaterial and extra-universal being.

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, first, thank you for taking the time to detail your response. I do appreciate the effort and time it takes to compose a post of this length.

    Unfortunately, I was after something more specific, or perhaps specific in a different way; something akin to fossilized rabbit's bones in the Pre-Cambrian layer (which is contrary to what we can predict to find in that layer given our existing base of knowledge). Maybe if you picked a single characteristic (timelessness, immateriality, or extra-universal), and give an example of some evidence that would challenge the natures of these things. What evidence would should that immaterial things are possible or impossible, for example? How do we test the characteristics of things that exist outside our universe? How do we observe a timeless thing?

    I appreciate that IF the things you mention in the OP are verified, then the God concept might be falsifiable. But you still haven't explained how the "if" could come about or why we should expect that if any of those things are verified, how they would challenge the proposed existence of a timeless, immaterial and extra-universal being.
    I believe what you request has already been presented in response to you in a previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by scotsmanmatt
    If we live in a bounded universe then there is no extra-univeral entity or causes. The universe is self-contained. This is, as I understand along the lines of what Stephen Hawkings proposes as a hypothesis in his The Grand Design and which if true falsifies any proposition of an extra-universal entitiy existing that created the universe. Further, on the OP defeater of philosophical naturalism only the natural exists and an immaterial, timeless and extra-universal entity would not come under the description of a natural entity but a supernatural entity. Add to this all the currently existing atheological arguments that to posit an existing entity with the properties of God, i.e. timeless and immaterial is incoherent then we have a situation where it can be said no such entity exists. That is a conclusion based on what I have referred to above, the combination of logic with empiricism and is in line with #4 in the OP which posits a combination of the defeaters or all of them take together.
    Thanks
    Matt

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    To believe that God is a necessary being is to believe that God cannot fail to exist.

    To believe that God's existence is falsifiable is to believe that God can fail to exist.

    No one can rationally believe at the same time that God both can fail to exist and cannot fail to exist.

    If you want your belief about this to be rational then you need to decide whether you believe that God's existence is necessary or is falsifiable. Rationally speaking, you cannot have it both ways.




    But it does follow, SMM.

    To believe that God's existence is necessary is to believe that God cannot fail to exist. To believe that God's existence is falsifiable is to believe that God can fail to exist. Rationally speaking, you cannot believe that God both can fail to exist and cannot fail to exist at the same time.

    Logically, both p and ~p cannot be the case and this is what you say you believe when you say you believe both that God cannot fail to exist and that God can fail to exist.



    I'm sorry but you didn't answer this question above. Again, the question is:

    If you believe that God is omnipotent (that is, that God can do anything that God desires to do which is logically possible to do) then how is it that at the same time you say you believe that it's possible that there is something God cannot do that God desires to do (that is, that you believe it is possible for God's existence to be falsified)?

    For example, you cannot believe both that God is omnipotent and desired to create the world AND that it's possible that God did not create the world. This is because whatever an omnipotent being desires to do is necessarily done if the desire is logically possible.

    IOW, if you believe that the existence of God is falsifiable then you must believe that it is possible that there is something that God did not do that God desired to do. But if you believe that God is omnipotent then you must believe that it's impossible for God not to do something that he desired to do.

    Again, you cannot rationally believe both propositions at the same time because they are contrary propositions.
    Do you accept that beliefs are not facts?

    If so, then what I am saying is that whilst it is my belief that God necessarily exists that I am not closed to the possibility that the fact of the matter might be that God does not exist. I do not see that as a contradictory position to hold but rather recognition the limitations of belief and that they can be incorrect.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Matt

    You can only observe those things within the laws of the Universe. How are you going to exclude that there may exist a God who isn't subject to these laws as he's the one who created them? How can you come up (given TODAY'S technology) with empirical observations to support this claim?

    ---------- Post added at 01:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 AM ----------

    Not that this solves the problem. The question of "what specific evidence would you expect to see if this anti-hypothesis were true" remains unanswered.

    And given that you've now conceded that God Hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, why do you continue to argue that it is? :-/
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  5. #65
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    If we live in a bounded universe then there is no extra-univeral entity or causes. The universe is self-contained. This is, as I understand along the lines of what Stephen Hawkings proposes as a hypothesis in his The Grand Design and which if true falsifies any proposition of an extra-universal entitiy existing that created the universe. Further, on the OP defeater of philosophical naturalism only the natural exists and an immaterial, timeless and extra-universal entity would not come under the description of a natural entity but a supernatural entity. Add to this all the currently existing atheological arguments that to posit an existing entity with the properties of God, i.e. timeless and immaterial is incoherent then we have a situation where it can be said no such entity exists. That is a conclusion based on what I have referred to above, the combination of logic with empiricism and is in line with #4 in the OP which posits a combination of the defeaters or all of them take together.
    Well, again, I appreciate that IF the universe is self-contained and there is nothing else, then the God concept would have to be modified or assumed to be false. But what piece of evidence would show that it is self-contained and that there is nothing else? Again, bear in mind something like the rabbit's bones challenging the ToE.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, again, I appreciate that IF the universe is self-contained and there is nothing else, then the God concept would have to be modified or assumed to be false. But what piece of evidence would show that it is self-contained and that there is nothing else? Again, bear in mind something like the rabbit's bones challenging the ToE.
    Whatever evidence leading scientists like Professor Hawkings postulate as required for the substantiation of his hypothesis to theory. The existence of the hypothesis and it's serious pursuit in science shows that God as an extra-universal entity is in principle falsifiable.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by SMM
    Do you accept that beliefs are not facts?

    If so, then what I am saying is that whilst it is my belief that God necessarily exists that I am not closed to the possibility that the fact of the matter might be that God does not exist. I do not see that as a contradictory position to hold but rather recognition the limitations of belief and that they can be incorrect.
    Q1: Do you agree that to believe that God's existence is necessary means to believe that God cannot fail to exist?

    Q2: Do you agree that to believe that God's existence is falsifiable means to believe that God can fail to exist?

    If the answer to each question is "Yes," then you also believe that no one can rationally believe both that God's existence is necessary AND that God's existence can be falsified. As a consequence, you yourself must believe EITHER that God's existence can be falsified OR that God's existence is necessary, but not both.

    Yet you say that you do believe both propositions are true even though the two propositions are plainly contrary. That is an irrational position to hold.

    Just because you admit that you may be mistaken to believe that p doesn't mean that you can believe both that p and that ~p at the same time.

  8. #68
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Whatever evidence leading scientists like Professor Hawkings postulate as required for the substantiation of his hypothesis to theory. The existence of the hypothesis and it's serious pursuit in science shows that God as an extra-universal entity is in principle falsifiable.
    I don't see how. I've read Hawking and what he proposes, if anything, is that God is not necessary for the universe to come about. That is not the same as him saying that God cannot exist. So I don't see how Hawking's theories make the God concept falsifiable.

  9. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, again, I appreciate that IF the universe is self-contained and there is nothing else, then the God concept would have to be modified or assumed to be false. But what piece of evidence would show that it is self-contained and that there is nothing else? Again, bear in mind something like the rabbit's bones challenging the ToE.
    Whatever evidence leading scientists like Professor Hawkings postulate as required for the substantiation of his hypothesis to theory. The existence of the hypothesis and it's serious pursuit in science shows that God as an extra-universal entity is in principle falsifiable.

    ADDITIONAL EDIT: I am doing some exploration of this whole thread and in doing so was providentially led to the following video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKsdED_bV3M

    In this video, and beginning at 0:26:28, Quentin Smith presents a scientific theory as falsifying evidence to theism and confirming support for atheism. Since it goes into more specifics than I have thus far been able to and presents the evidence and reasoning supporting that falsification I thought it'd more aptly fit what you have been requesting.

    Why does such a presentation not show that God is at least, in principle, considered to be a falsifiable proposition?

    Thanks
    Matt

    ---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I don't see how. I've read Hawking and what he proposes, if anything, is that God is not necessary for the universe to come about. That is not the same as him saying that God cannot exist. So I don't see how Hawking's theories make the God concept falsifiable.
    It is an integral part of nearly every definition of God that I am aware that he is the creator of the universe. If that is so, and an integral part of the definition of God is invalidated, say for example by Hawkings hypothesis, then what is left of that God where it is being used in a meaningful sense? Add to that the second part of my response to you which speak of if PN was established as true you would then have not only no creator God but no supernatural God capable of supernatural activity. On that, consistent with what was proposed in the OP in #4 what value is left to the word 'God'?

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  10. #70
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Whatever evidence leading scientists like Professor Hawkings postulate as required for the substantiation of his hypothesis to theory. The existence of the hypothesis and it's serious pursuit in science shows that God as an extra-universal entity is in principle falsifiable.

    ADDITIONAL EDIT: I am doing some exploration of this whole thread and in doing so was providentially led to the following video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKsdED_bV3M

    In this video, and beginning at 0:26:28, Quentin Smith presents a scientific theory as falsifying evidence to theism and confirming support for atheism. Since it goes into more specifics than I have thus far been able to and presents the evidence and reasoning supporting that falsification I thought it'd more aptly fit what you have been requesting.

    Why does such a presentation not show that God is at least, in principle, considered to be a falsifiable proposition?

    Thanks
    Matt

    ---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------



    It is an integral part of nearly every definition of God that I am aware that he is the creator of the universe. If that is so, and an integral part of the definition of God is invalidated, say for example by Hawkings hypothesis, then what is left of that God where it is being used in a meaningful sense? Add to that the second part of my response to you which speak of if PN was established as true you would then have not only no creator God but no supernatural God capable of supernatural activity. On that, consistent with what was proposed in the OP in #4 what value is left to the word 'God'?

    Thanks
    Matt
    Matt...

    How is the statement "there is a God" falsifiable? How? Saying 'if so-and-so is right' or 'if such-and-such is true' tells us absolutely nothing about how the statement "there is a God" is falsifiable, even in principle.

  11. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Matt...

    How is the statement "there is a God" falsifiable? How? Saying 'if so-and-so is right' or 'if such-and-such is true' tells us absolutely nothing about how the statement "there is a God" is falsifiable, even in principle.
    Well, according Quentin Smith it is falsifiable based upon the scientific theory he expounds upon in the video link I provided for you above. On that evidence, theism is not only falsifiable but would be false and atheism true.

    Do you deny that what Quentin Smith is presenting is a falsifiable criteria from science against the proposition that God exists and for the proposition that atheism is true?

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  12. #72
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Well, according Quentin Smith it is falsifiable based upon the scientific theory he expounds upon in the video link I provided for you above. On that evidence, theism is not only falsifiable but would be false and atheism true.

    Do you deny that what Quentin Smith is presenting is a falsifiable criteria from science against the proposition that God exists and for the proposition that atheism is true?
    I neither confirm nor deny it. With respect, I should not have to view a link and assess its contents in order to see whether you've solidified your point. This is why I've said that saying 'if so-and-so is right' or 'if such-and-such is true' tells us absolutely nothing about how the statement "there is a God" is falsifiable, even in principle.

    With this in mind, HOW is the statement 'there is a god' falsifiable?

  13. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I neither confirm nor deny it. With respect, I should not have to view a link and assess its contents in order to see whether you've solidified your point. This is why I've said that saying 'if so-and-so is right' or 'if such-and-such is true' tells us absolutely nothing about how the statement "there is a God" is falsifiable, even in principle.

    With this in mind, HOW is the statement 'there is a god' falsifiable?
    In several posts you have requested of me that I am more specific of what would constitute the falsifiability of God. Despite my consideration that this had already been amply provided to you I sought to satisfy your requirement by doing the necessary research and then posting that here for your consideration. I even saved you the trouble of having to wade through the whole debate by specifying where Quentin Smith's argument from a scientific theory against God began. Now you object that you shouldn't need to look at the information in video form that meets the requirements you have been so adamant be provided. I don't see the rationality of such a response and thought you'd actually be keen to spend 10 minutes viewing and evaluating what you have been requesting. However, if you are not going to do so then I will take the time to produce a transcript of Quentin Smith's statement and produce it here to the list.

    The bottom line is that you have been presented with evidence from a scientist, speaking on science and to the SOLE purpose of rendering false the proposition that God exists and by consequence rendering true atheism. If an actual demonstration in the real world from a scientist engaging in trying to falsify God isn't proof that God is, in principle falsifiable then quite honestly I don't know what kind of evidence you would accept. Perhaps you think Quentin Smith was engaging in the venture because he didn't think it possible that God is falsifiable?

    Thanks
    Matt
    Last edited by Scotsmanmatt; October 12th, 2012 at 01:03 PM.
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  14. #74
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    In several posts you have requested of me that I am more specific of what would constitute the falsifiability of God. Despite my consideration that this had already been amply provided to you I sought to satisfy your requirement by doing the necessary research and then posting that here for your consideration. I even saved you the trouble of having to wade through the whole debate by specifying where Quentin Smith's argument from a scientific theory against God began. Now you object that you shouldn't need to look at the information in video form that meets the requirements you have been so adamant be provided. I don't see the rationality of such a response and thought you'd actually be keen to spend 10 minutes viewing and evaluating what you have been requesting. However, if you are not going to do so then I will take the time to produce a transcript of Quentin Smith's statement and produce it here to the list.
    Well first, I do sincerely appreciate the time you've taken to research your claim. I likewise appreciate that you've seen something that makes you believe your claim is supported. But given that it's your claim that's being challenged here, it's not unreasonable for me to expect you to support it, and to do so in a way that's consistent with the rules. I'm sure you don't mean to violate any rules, but expecting me to visit a link and discover for myself whether or not your claim 'God is falsifiable' is supported is beyond the reasonable expectations of this site.

    And to be sure, I don't need an entire transcript. I just need a simple statement of what makes 'there is a God' falsifiable.

    Do you how the claim 'force equals mass times acceleration' is falsifiable? It's due to the fact that when you multiply the mass of an object by its acceleration, you consistently get a number that we refer to as 'force'. This can be observed, calculated, repeated, predicted, tested and repeated with a level of precision that is positively stupefying. That's how it's falsifiable.

    That's all I'm after here. Some unambiguous statement that says how the claim 'there is a God' is falsifiable.

    Also, here's someone asking William Lane Craig "Is the existence of God theoretically falsifiable" and him answering "I think [the existence of God] is necessarily true, so in that sense, it's impossible for it to be, uh, false, because it's a necessary truth; that's what the ontological argument shows."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kl6Qv-86xQ

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    The bottom line is that you have been presented with evidence from a scientist, speaking on science and to the SOLE purpose of rendering false the proposition that God exists and by consequence rendering true atheism. If an actual demonstration in the real world from a scientist engaging in trying to falsify of God isn't proof that God is, in principle falsifiable then quite honestly I don't know what kind of evidence you would accept. Perhaps you think Quentin Smith was engaging in the venture because he didn't think it possible tha God is falsifiable?
    I have no idea why he was engaging in the venture. I'm sure he's on a track he thinks is a good one. I'd still like to see how the statement 'there is a God' is falsifiable though.

  15. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    This is a partial transcript from the video link I previously referred you to from Quentin Smith

    “All the theists I know they would say that if they had to make choice between saying that all science is false or that theism is false they would say that theism is false. What I want to argue today is that there is a contemporary scientific theory that is highly confirmed that, if true, entails that God does not exist and therefore that atheism is true. Now that theory is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as applied to the universe and Big Bang cosmology. Now in this universe.. I've drawn here the first three minutes of the universe. This is the first minute This may be called the Big Bang. This is the first minute, the second minute, the third minute and as you can see the first minute sufficiently causes the second minute and the second minute sufficiently causes the third minute and to the fourth minute. So what that means is that each state of the universe is sufficiently causally explained by prior states of the universe and then if that's the case then there's no room or place or possibility for there to be a supernatural being such as God to cause the universe since the universe has already caused itself in the metaphorical sense that each part of the universe is caused by another part and if that's true then there's nothing left for God to cause..........So there's left whatsoever for God to explain, no parts, no whole and since this is the currently accepted theory, Big Bang Cosmology, which is the solution to Einstein's equation, the General theory of relativity then it follow that the Universe is completely naturally caused by its parts and there's absolutely no room for God to cause anything and therefore God does not exist”.

    This is an attempt by Quentin Smith to falsifiy God as an existent being and to affirm atheism as true. Whilst you might like to suggest that a scientist of his calibre would engage in such a venture whilst thinking that God is not falsifiable I will give him more credit than that and ascribe to him that the reason he engaged in such a venture and argument is because he considers God to be falsifiable and falsifiable from a current scientific theory.

    If your response consists of no more than denial that evidence has been presented showing how God is a falsifiable concept and requesting how that can be done then I have nothing further to add to that discussion with you as I would then consider such a task fruitless with you.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  16. #76
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quenton Smith is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Smith
    Quentin Persifor Smith (born August 27, 1952 in Rhinebeck, New York) is an American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has worked in the philosophy of time, philosophy of language, philosophy of physics and philosophy of religion. Smith has published over 140 articles and of his published books, he has authored three, co-authored two, and co-authored and edited seven. He is an editor for Prometheus Books and was the chief editor for Philo from 2001 to 2007.

    I don't find his explanation as compelling. I could simply say that god existed before and outside the universe and started its chain of natural action with divine will.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Glasgow UK
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Quenton Smith is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Smith
    Quentin Persifor Smith (born August 27, 1952 in Rhinebeck, New York) is an American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has worked in the philosophy of time, philosophy of language, philosophy of physics and philosophy of religion. Smith has published over 140 articles and of his published books, he has authored three, co-authored two, and co-authored and edited seven. He is an editor for Prometheus Books and was the chief editor for Philo from 2001 to 2007.

    I don't find his explanation as compelling. I could simply say that god existed before and outside the universe and started its chain of natural action with divine will.
    Thanks for the correction on his professional field but I still think him qualified to offer such arguments from science given his work in the philosophy of physics. I do not find his argument persuasive either, and nor did Craig who responded to it but that is not the point of raising his argument but rather to show that it is not a construction of my own invention, or anything new or surprising that God is a falsifiable proposition.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Do what you can, where you are, with what you have

  18. #78
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    This is a partial transcript from the video link I previously referred you to from Quentin Smith

    “All the theists I know they would say that if they had to make choice between saying that all science is false or that theism is false they would say that theism is false. What I want to argue today is that there is a contemporary scientific theory that is highly confirmed that, if true, entails that God does not exist and therefore that atheism is true. Now that theory is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as applied to the universe and Big Bang cosmology. Now in this universe.. I've drawn here the first three minutes of the universe. This is the first minute This may be called the Big Bang. This is the first minute, the second minute, the third minute and as you can see the first minute sufficiently causes the second minute and the second minute sufficiently causes the third minute and to the fourth minute. So what that means is that each state of the universe is sufficiently causally explained by prior states of the universe and then if that's the case then there's no room or place or possibility for there to be a supernatural being such as God to cause the universe since the universe has already caused itself in the metaphorical sense that each part of the universe is caused by another part and if that's true then there's nothing left for God to cause..........So there's left whatsoever for God to explain, no parts, no whole and since this is the currently accepted theory, Big Bang Cosmology, which is the solution to Einstein's equation, the General theory of relativity then it follow that the Universe is completely naturally caused by its parts and there's absolutely no room for God to cause anything and therefore God does not exist”.

    This is an attempt by Quentin Smith to falsifiy God as an existent being and to affirm atheism as true. Whilst you might like to suggest that a scientist of his calibre would engage in such a venture whilst thinking that God is not falsifiable I will give him more credit than that and ascribe to him that the reason he engaged in such a venture and argument is because he considers God to be falsifiable and falsifiable from a current scientific theory.

    If your response consists of no more than denial that evidence has been presented showing how God is a falsifiable concept and requesting how that can be done then I have nothing further to add to that discussion with you as I would then consider such a task fruitless with you.

    Thanks
    Matt
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Quenton Smith is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Smith
    Quentin Persifor Smith (born August 27, 1952 in Rhinebeck, New York) is an American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has worked in the philosophy of time, philosophy of language, philosophy of physics and philosophy of religion. Smith has published over 140 articles and of his published books, he has authored three, co-authored two, and co-authored and edited seven. He is an editor for Prometheus Books and was the chief editor for Philo from 2001 to 2007.

    I don't find his explanation as compelling. I could simply say that god existed before and outside the universe and started its chain of natural action with divine will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotsmanmatt View Post
    Thanks for the correction on his professional field but I still think him qualified to offer such arguments from science given his work in the philosophy of physics. I do not find his argument persuasive either, and nor did Craig who responded to it but that is not the point of raising his argument but rather to show that it is not a construction of my own invention, or anything new or surprising that God is a falsifiable proposition.

    Thanks
    Matt
    I have only three comments at this point.

    1. Note the bolded and underlined portion in the first quote. I'm getting a bit tired of being accused of doing this thing or that when I've plainly stated something completely different than what's been ascribed to me. I don't understand why you feel so compelled, but I'll kindly ask you to stop doing it, unless you want to continue to escalate needless hostilities to the point that conversation becomes something other than fun again.

    2. I'm pretty much in agreement with Sigfried in my reaction to the philosopher's argument. I don't see that he'd rendered the God concept falsifiable.

    3. I appreciate that your argument here isn't something you've pulled from the aether. Honestly, it makes no difference to me how old or new an argument is, who said it first, where it came from, or what it's called. I'm in the discussion because I find it interesting, and that's all there is to it.

  19. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    What type of empirical observation is possible (give our currently available technology) that would allow us to conclude that he universe caused itself?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  20. #80
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is God as an existent being a falsifiable proposition?

    A new approach

    Lets say we have a proposition to that a thing called "zix" exists.

    One of the properties given for the proposed thing is this....
    - Zix cannot be proven not to exist.

    So any statement that shows Zix not to exist must be logically false since it violates the rule of identity since a non existing Zix is not a Zix at all but something else.

    I think the problem with God is that some of the properties traditionally assigned to god are functionally equivalent to "God cannot be proven not to exist". One such claim is that god is outside of time and space. Thus no test we could attempt could be used to test god as all tests we make are inside of time and space and god is outside of it.

    Another such property is God is supremely powerful. Thus if god did not want us to test him then his power is sufficient to prevent such testing from working. This property could extent to protect any other property we might make a test for so it trumps even those traits that do not yield illogical disproofs.


    So God as commonly defined possesses at least two properties that logically preclude our ability to construct a logical disproof by making any such proof in violation of the law of identity.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Existence of The Non-Existent
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: March 31st, 2012, 10:07 PM
  2. Proposition 8 Overturned: Your Thoughts?
    By Trendem in forum Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 12th, 2010, 05:42 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2006, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •