Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God fails the Popper test

Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

It depends on how God is defined. Provability isn't necessary as long as there's evidence.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:27:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 2:19:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

It depends on how God is defined. Provability isn't necessary as long as there's evidence.

I expect most generally accepted definitions of God would work. How about something nice and simple like "An omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"?

What evidence would you accept as an indication that God doesn't exist?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:03:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

Read Larry Laudan and his views on creation science. Also, Popper isn't perfect. Look up "the Bridge Problem".
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:11:38 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:03:42 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

Read Larry Laudan and his views on creation science. Also, Popper isn't perfect. Look up "the Bridge Problem".

I am happy to read articles, etc by anyone, if they have a bearing on the subject under discussion. I'm not familiar with this person, nor how much they have written, nor why their views on creation science would address the question raised here. I'm not asking for proof God exists. If you could specify some particular article, or book chapter where he sheds light on would would constitute evidence God *doesn't* exist, I'd be glad to read it.

As far as Popper is concerned, if he is imperfect, then he has something in common with every scientist that ever walked the planet. I know he was corrected on one particular issue by Einstein (guess he must be pretty dumb then!). But my post wasn't in support of Popper, it merely makes use of a principle he proposed which seems to make a lot of sense.
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:26:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:11:38 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:03:42 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

Read Larry Laudan and his views on creation science. Also, Popper isn't perfect. Look up "the Bridge Problem".

I am happy to read articles, etc by anyone, if they have a bearing on the subject under discussion. I'm not familiar with this person, nor how much they have written, nor why their views on creation science would address the question raised here. I'm not asking for proof God exists. If you could specify some particular article, or book chapter where he sheds light on would would constitute evidence God *doesn't* exist, I'd be glad to read it.

As far as Popper is concerned, if he is imperfect, then he has something in common with every scientist that ever walked the planet. I know he was corrected on one particular issue by Einstein (guess he must be pretty dumb then!). But my post wasn't in support of Popper, it merely makes use of a principle he proposed which seems to make a lot of sense.

What I'm saying is that just because an assertion cannot be falsified, that doesn't mean it can be completely dismissed and have absolutely no value. There's a difference between the natural world and metaphysics, which can be considered "of value" to pursue. Now what Laudan says is that creationism does make empirical claims that can be tested, adding that creationism satisfies the requirements of testability, revisability, and falsifiability. He also says that something can still be a science if not testable in certain parts, and you can establish claims without exploring it because we could have not yet identified the laws of it (such as what happened with Newton and Darwin who were originally considered unscientific) (http://faculty.washington.edu...).

In sum, I think that you refusing to consider the possibility of some sort of deity existing because it can't be "falsified" is simply misguided and a bit close-minded.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 3:34:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:26:52 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:11:38 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:03:42 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

Read Larry Laudan and his views on creation science. Also, Popper isn't perfect. Look up "the Bridge Problem".

I am happy to read articles, etc by anyone, if they have a bearing on the subject under discussion. I'm not familiar with this person, nor how much they have written, nor why their views on creation science would address the question raised here. I'm not asking for proof God exists. If you could specify some particular article, or book chapter where he sheds light on would would constitute evidence God *doesn't* exist, I'd be glad to read it.

As far as Popper is concerned, if he is imperfect, then he has something in common with every scientist that ever walked the planet. I know he was corrected on one particular issue by Einstein (guess he must be pretty dumb then!). But my post wasn't in support of Popper, it merely makes use of a principle he proposed which seems to make a lot of sense.

What I'm saying is that just because an assertion cannot be falsified, that doesn't mean it can be completely dismissed and have absolutely no value. There's a difference between the natural world and metaphysics, which can be considered "of value" to pursue. Now what Laudan says is that creationism does make empirical claims that can be tested, adding that creationism satisfies the requirements of testability, revisability, and falsifiability. He also says that something can still be a science if not testable in certain parts, and you can establish claims without exploring it because we could have not yet identified the laws of it (such as what happened with Newton and Darwin who were originally considered unscientific) (http://faculty.washington.edu...).

In sum, I think that you refusing to consider the possibility of some sort of deity existing because it can't be "falsified" is simply misguided and a bit close-minded.

You're entitled to hold that view. However, if you've spent any time at all in this forum, as I know you have, you will be aware that non-believers are constantly being challenged to "prove God doesn't exist". My contention is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of such a being, because of the claims that are made about it. Furthermore, as I said, if we reject the requirement of falsifiability, then we can be required to believe anything.
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:08:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.

My concept of God is a mind that grounds all of reality.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:09:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:08:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.

My concept of God is a mind that grounds all of reality.
God is an earth strap.
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:10:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:09:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:08:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.

My concept of God is a mind that grounds all of reality.
God is an earth strap.

I wouldn't say quite so, but I can see where you are coming from there.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 11:33:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:10:25 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:09:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:08:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.

My concept of God is a mind that grounds all of reality.
God is an earth strap.

I wouldn't say quite so, but I can see where you are coming from there.

This is the third time I've thought I asked this question, but it's never shown up. Must quit drinking...

What do you mean by grounded?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

And that is what the debate is about so your thread is irrelevant.

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.

Missed my point. Most people don't just believe in a God, but believe in one with specified claims attached like in the bible. Atheists can easily read the bible and find contradictions and problems in the bible to refute the biblical God. They also try to find contradictions between the attributes of an all-powerful God to refute him.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:20:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

And that is what the debate is about so your thread is irrelevant.

Falsifiability matters. This thread claims theism is unfalsifiable. What about that makes it irrelevant?

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.

Missed my point. Most people don't just believe in a God, but believe in one with specified claims attached like in the bible. Atheists can easily read the bible and find contradictions and problems in the bible to refute the biblical God. They also try to find contradictions between the attributes of an all-powerful God to refute him.

I still miss your point. If you believe in a specific God whose existence could be disproved, then I'd be interested to know the details. If not, then you've lost me.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:41:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:25:36 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:20:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

And that is what the debate is about so your thread is irrelevant.

Falsifiability matters. This thread claims theism is unfalsifiable. What about that makes it irrelevant?

Because if you can present evidence for God then falsifiability no longer matters and most theists believe there is evidence for God especially on this forum so that is what the debate is really about.

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.

Missed my point. Most people don't just believe in a God, but believe in one with specified claims attached like in the bible. Atheists can easily read the bible and find contradictions and problems in the bible to refute the biblical God. They also try to find contradictions between the attributes of an all-powerful God to refute him.

I still miss your point. If you believe in a specific God whose existence could be disproved, then I'd be interested to know the details. If not, then you've lost me.

I am not a theist. It is easily possible to find tons of logical problems with the God of the bible. Just start with the law of Moses or the idea of eternal hell for non-believers. The God of the bible is easily falsifiable.
KwLm
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:54:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

But the statement "God does not exist" is the default state of mind and argument for any atheist, I'm a little confused to what your actually trying to accomplish, can you describe your point in a more clear fashion?
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:57:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:41:18 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:25:36 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:20:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

And that is what the debate is about so your thread is irrelevant.

Falsifiability matters. This thread claims theism is unfalsifiable. What about that makes it irrelevant?

Because if you can present evidence for God then falsifiability no longer matters and most theists believe there is evidence for God especially on this forum so that is what the debate is really about.

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.

Missed my point. Most people don't just believe in a God, but believe in one with specified claims attached like in the bible. Atheists can easily read the bible and find contradictions and problems in the bible to refute the biblical God. They also try to find contradictions between the attributes of an all-powerful God to refute him.

I still miss your point. If you believe in a specific God whose existence could be disproved, then I'd be interested to know the details. If not, then you've lost me.

I am not a theist. It is easily possible to find tons of logical problems with the God of the bible. Just start with the law of Moses or the idea of eternal hell for non-believers. The God of the bible is easily falsifiable.

Whilst I agree that no sane person should be able to believe in an actual hell as described in the Bible, that doesn't mean it can be objectively disproved, does it? And even if it does, that would just disprove the doctrine of eternal damnation, not the existence of God.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 1:05:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:54:11 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

But the statement "God does not exist" is the default state of mind and argument for any atheist, I'm a little confused to what your actually trying to accomplish, can you describe your point in a more clear fashion?

I'll try.

Atheists are often called upon to "prove that God doesn't exist". Whilst I believe we can have confidence to the point of certainty he doesn't exist, proving it is another matter. And I would say that the Gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam at least are incapable of being disproved, simply because of the way they are defined.

Karl Popper suggested that if there is no way an assertion can be disproved (ie no test we could conduct to verify whether it is true or not), then it is a meaningless proposition, and there is no good reason to believe it, unless there is absolute proof of its truth. I claim that "God exists" falls into this category. I gave a couple of other examples in my OP. Does this make more sense?
lannan13
Posts: 23,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:08:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 11:33:46 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:10:25 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:09:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:08:04 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:45:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 4:22:39 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:27:57 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 3:18:33 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

What do you define as "God?"

Most widely accepted definitions would work, I think. In the absence of something better, what about "an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being"? If you've got something better, go with it.

So you go off of the traditional Christian God then?

You're the one who asked for a definition. I gave you one. If you're not happy with it, propose an alternative. I'm fairly certain the above wouldn't be considered too far off for most Christians, Jews or Muslims. I'd be interested to know if you have a view of God which would render the argument invalid. If so, I'd be happy to be more specific in the definition.

My concept of God is a mind that grounds all of reality.
God is an earth strap.

I wouldn't say quite so, but I can see where you are coming from there.

This is the third time I've thought I asked this question, but it's never shown up. Must quit drinking...

What do you mean by grounded?

Universrally connected. Meaning that he pratically could be reality, but all things are tracable to God.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Perussi
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 2:13:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

This logic is illogical because if something was really true then it couldn't possibly be proved false.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:41:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:57:20 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:41:18 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:25:36 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:20:46 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:16:30 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:11:51 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

If you can provide evidence for God's existence then falsifiability doesn't matter.

Also most people believe in God along with some religion like Christianity. Christianity makes many claims about God in the bible that can be logically falsified.

There is no evidence for God's existence (because any supposed evidence presented to date cannot be substantiated), therefore falsifiability does matter.

And that is what the debate is about so your thread is irrelevant.

Falsifiability matters. This thread claims theism is unfalsifiable. What about that makes it irrelevant?

Because if you can present evidence for God then falsifiability no longer matters and most theists believe there is evidence for God especially on this forum so that is what the debate is really about.

How many people believe in something is not evidence, nor relevant.

Missed my point. Most people don't just believe in a God, but believe in one with specified claims attached like in the bible. Atheists can easily read the bible and find contradictions and problems in the bible to refute the biblical God. They also try to find contradictions between the attributes of an all-powerful God to refute him.

I still miss your point. If you believe in a specific God whose existence could be disproved, then I'd be interested to know the details. If not, then you've lost me.

I am not a theist. It is easily possible to find tons of logical problems with the God of the bible. Just start with the law of Moses or the idea of eternal hell for non-believers. The God of the bible is easily falsifiable.

Whilst I agree that no sane person should be able to believe in an actual hell as described in the Bible, that doesn't mean it can be objectively disproved, does it? And even if it does, that would just disprove the doctrine of eternal damnation, not the existence of God.

I believe you can. Hell is a punishment and people debate whether certain punishments make sense all the time. For example I can start questioning the rationality of punishing finite crimes with infinite punishment, or I can question why belief is the way out of hell. Whether or not I can actually falsify hell doesn't matter, the point is it is hypothetically possible for me to construct logical arguments again punishing people with hell.

Hell would disprove Christianity because it is central to it. Other religions have other specific claims about God that can also be attacked. Unless you are a deist your belief in God can be falsified.
KwLm
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:05:14 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:54:11 PM, KwLm wrote:
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

But the statement "God does not exist" is the default state of mind and argument for any atheist, I'm a little confused to what your actually trying to accomplish, can you describe your point in a more clear fashion?

I'll try.

Atheists are often called upon to "prove that God doesn't exist". Whilst I believe we can have confidence to the point of certainty he doesn't exist, proving it is another matter. And I would say that the Gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam at least are incapable of being disproved, simply because of the way they are defined.

Karl Popper suggested that if there is no way an assertion can be disproved (ie no test we could conduct to verify whether it is true or not), then it is a meaningless proposition, and there is no good reason to believe it, unless there is absolute proof of its truth. I claim that "God exists" falls into this category. I gave a couple of other examples in my OP. Does this make more sense?

Ah yes, that is clarified to perfection, thank you.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:33:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:33:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
It is considered meaningless to accept a proposition which has no possible way of being falsified. The invisible fire-breathing dragon in the garage and Russell's teapot (the suggestion that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars) are examples of this principle.

The assertion "God exists" is impossible to disprove, not because it is true, but because there is no possible test one could conduct which would negate the hypothesis.

Unless someone can produce a condition under which "God exists" could be shown to be false, the assertion has no substance.

I fail to recognize the validity of his statements. We hold weight in theory all the time. No matter how many times a theory is failed to be disproven, that next time may be the time it goes down, and yet you still believe in many. You never know. To truly believe in theory is to cross the line between logic, and faith.

Your faith in atheism, can be bolstered, but cannot be rationalized. That's what makes it faith. That's just something truthful atheists have to accept, which is really not a big deal. Its not the bombshell some portray it to be. There are a lot of things you will never know, and probably a fair amount you falsely believe in as well, not to imply that atheism is false, but without knowing the actuality the possibility is always there by effect of blind perspective.

One thing I'll add just for the sake of perspective, is that in my religion, though I believe in 'God', I believe his existence and/or form is essentially irrelevant to my spiritual standing, and how I should present myself in life.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 6:33:21 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Your faith in atheism, can be bolstered, but cannot be rationalized. That's what makes it faith.
Atheism is the rejection of your claim that gods exist. You can defeat atheism in an instant, just supply evidence in support of your claim that gods exist
That just something theists need to understand. Until that happens gods don't exist.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 6:37:43 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/1/2016 6:33:21 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Your faith in atheism, can be bolstered, but cannot be rationalized. That's what makes it faith.
Atheism is the rejection of your claim that gods exist. You can defeat atheism in an instant, just supply evidence in support of your claim that gods exist

I've not claimed that god's exist.

That just something theists need to understand. Until that happens gods don't exist.

Having dealt with you in the past, I'll entertain you with one reply in hopes that I can move past my prejudice against you. IF God exists, then god has always existed. IF he does not, then I was always wrong.

From my perspective, its a coin flip. 50/50 chance of picking the correct one. My religion makes sense to me, and I feel like God exists, so I basically said, %#$% it and hold God exists for my personal belief. I mean, I can't help believing what I believe, but the point is that its not a rational thought process. This is fully acknowledged.

From the perspective of someone who possessed true knowledge, it would be 100% chance of one and 0% of the other.

What allows us to pick one or the other without the knowledge required? Faith. This is my main point.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.