Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Ouroboros]

What good reason is there to accept religion or God's existence right now?

Is that a test? I'm failing to see how that's a falsifiable test.

The answer to this question is going to point to the answer to yours.

???

So by me saying that there's is no good reason that proves the test positive, and hence leads to that religion and God's existence has been falsified?

I'm not sure I follow that. Can you please explain. How is your "test" above in any way refuting God's existence or religion? What's the refutable component in it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I don't think we're talking about the same Popper's experiential falsification, are we? What you're talking about there is "verification", not "falsification."

No, I'm not.

If we're trying to falsify claim X, and X implies observable thing Y, then if we test for Y and find that Y is false, then we can deduce that X is also false.

Testability implies falsifiability. If a claim is not falsifiable, then it is not testable. If a claim is not testable, then its truth or falsehood cannot be known.

Can you provide a falsifiable test for religion? I'm curious of what test you would consider a falsifiable one.

No, I can't. Not a single test, anyhow. It would depend on the specific claims of the religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that a test? I'm failing to see how that's a falsifiable test.


???

So by me saying that there's is no good reason that proves the test positive, and hence leads to that religion and God's existence has been falsified?

I'm not sure I follow that. Can you please explain. How is your "test" above in any way refuting God's existence or religion? What's the refutable component in it?

Sorry - I think a couple of issues are starting to get muddled. It's a falsifiable test for religion, not for the existence of God. IMO, built into every religion is the idea that the religion's claims are based rationally derived from... something.

I'm not saying that not having a good reason for belief in God implies God doesn't exist. I'm saying - and have been trying to say all along - that not having a good reason for belief in God implies that the belief is baseless and arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm not saying religion is right... or wrong... or halfway between or green or vanilla flavored.

If religion is falsifiable (I assume we're talking about the experiential falsification according to Popper's theories), then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

"religion" in your posts isn't falsifiable, as it isn't even a claim... Or explaining anything at all.
But if a religion makes falsifiable claims (for example, non-religious people have no morals, and commit more crimes than religious people, or age of the earth, or shape of the earth, or any claim that actually is about things that happen) then that claim can be checked.

Also, a note about a previous post of yours.. falsifiable doesn't mean proven false, just means that it CAN be proven false.. a wording you used earlier threw me off, so tossing that out, just in case.

What would be the falsifiable experiment for religion or God's existence?

The only one I can come up with is "when I die, if I don't see God, then it's obvious that God does not exist." That's a test that would theoretically prove religion wrong. So it's a hypothetical or theoretical test, but is it practical?

Depends on the religion you're talking about..
If it's xtianity, I'm sure there are multiple claims in the bible that are falsifiable or not.
but when you only use the word "religion" it makes me completely assume what religion, and what brand of that specific religion.. and I'd rather not do that guesswork.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I'm not.

If we're trying to falsify claim X, and X implies observable thing Y, then if we test for Y and find that Y is false, then we can deduce that X is also false.

Sure.

Testability implies falsifiability. If a claim is not falsifiable, then it is not testable. If a claim is not testable, then its truth or falsehood cannot be known.

Ok.

No, I can't. Not a single test, anyhow. It would depend on the specific claims of the religion.

But... I thought the term "falsifiable" meant that something can be "falsified", i.e. tested in a falsifiable test. If you can't find a falsifiable test for religion, then how can you be so sure religion is falsifiable?

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry - I think a couple of issues are starting to get muddled. It's a falsifiable test for religion, not for the existence of God. IMO, built into every religion is the idea that the religion's claims are based rationally derived from... something.

I'm not saying that not having a good reason for belief in God implies God doesn't exist. I'm saying - and have been trying to say all along - that not having a good reason for belief in God implies that the belief is baseless and arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

But that's not what he was saying though. He said that religion is not falsifiable. I don't remember he said anything about having a good or bad reason for belief (but I'd have to go back and double check that, I tend to forget sometimes what people said). If you argue that religion is in fact falsifiable, then it shouldn't be difficult to find a falsifiable test for it.

---edit

He said that religious beliefs in general are not falsifiable. Many of religious beliefs are not testable. Life after death? Can we test it? Can we falsify it? Can we verify it? Sin, salvation, washed in the blood of Christ, born again spirit, or reincarnation... Can we test, verify, falsify any of these? If we can't find a way of doing it, how can they still be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable if we can't figure out any test to fit?

 

[Ouroboros]

"religion" in your posts isn't falsifiable, as it isn't even a claim... Or explaining anything at all.

Well, that answers the whole thing. Religion isn't even a claim, so how can it then be falsifiable? The statement that started this whole discussion was "religion is unfalsifiable" (which I agree with), but it was contested.

My view: religion is unfalsifiable.

Your view: religion isn't a claim, but it's still is falsifiable?

But if a religion makes falsifiable claims (for example, non-religious people have no morals, and commit more crimes than religious people, or age of the earth, or shape of the earth, or any claim that actually is about things that happen) then that claim can be checked.

Check is about verification, not exactly falsification though.

Also, a note about a previous post of yours.. falsifiable doesn't mean proven false, just means that it CAN be proven false.. a wording you used earlier threw me off, so tossing that out, just in case.

That's my point.

How do you make a falsifiable test of a belief?

Bob believes pixies creates gravity.

Now make a falsifiable test that if proven true would prove Bob wrong.

Depends on the religion you're talking about..
If it's xtianity, I'm sure there are multiple claims in the bible that are falsifiable or not.

Sure. Different claims in a religion can be falsifiable.

but when you only use the word "religion" it makes me completely assume what religion, and what brand of that specific religion.. and I'd rather not do that guesswork.

Which makes religion as a whole... unverifiable, untestable, and also unfalsifiable.

To go back to the post that started this discussion: (by Metis)

Generally speaking, religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

For example: in our universe there is a multitude of spiritual cosmic Godzillas that actually created our universe, forming planets, stars, and the other bodies through their spit-wad fights. They all told me how to achieve heaven, with the quickest single way being to watch a lot of their Japanese movies, and that one major holiday they say is for us to observe is for us to crawl on our bellies, stick out our tongues, and eat flies.

Try and prove me wrong.

I agree with Metis. Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable generally speaking. Not saying that in some instances or certain beliefs necessarily are, but the "qualifier" here is "generally", meaning "in most cases, which I think is true. In most cases, religious beliefs are untestable, unknowable, unverifiable, and hence, unfalsifiable, but in some cases, sure, some beliefs are testable.

Some years ago, i was challenged to prove to someone that Santa Claus didn't exist. The person, my antagonist took the standpoint that Santa Claus was real (just for fun). I didn't win. Simply because Santa Claus was invisible and had his workshop in a parallel dimension, etc...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

But that's not what he was saying though. He said that religion is not falsifiable. I don't remember he said anything about having a good or bad reason for belief (but I'd have to go back and double check that, I tend to forget sometimes what people said). If you argue that religion is in fact falsifiable, then it shouldn't be difficult to find a falsifiable test for it.

That would depend on the religion, and the claims it makes.
unless you are saying there is only one Religion, and we can assume that ANY claim made by someone that calls themselves religious, is therefore acceptable to be chosen.
I'm ok with that, as well... otherwise, just saying "prove religion" with no specifics, is not a great statement...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

By the way.. looking back, it seems as if the start of this particular tangent was "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable"

And that would depend on the belief.

There are both falsifiable and non-falsifiable beliefs in most religions.

When did the "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable" change to "religion is unfalsifiable"?
one sec... checking that myself as well..

 

[Ouroboros]

That would depend on the religion, and the claims it makes.
unless you are saying there is only one Religion, and we can assume that ANY claim made by someone that calls themselves religious, is therefore acceptable to be chosen.
I'm ok with that, as well... otherwise, just saying "prove religion" with no specifics, is not a great statement...

I'm not saying to prove religion either. That's the point.

My view is: you can't prove (in general terms). In specifics, here and there, sure, but in general (most cases) you can't.

But you seem to be on the same page? So where exactly is our difference?

 

[Ouroboros]

By the way.. looking back, it seems as if the start of this particular tangent was "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable"

And that would depend on the belief.

There are both falsifiable and non-falsifiable beliefs in most religions.

When did the "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable" change to "religion is unfalsifiable"?
one sec... checking that myself as well..

That was probably my fault. Mostly because of sloppiness and laziness.

The specific was more of "generally speaking" and "religious beliefs".

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm not saying to prove religion either. That's the point.

My view is: you can't prove (in general terms). In specifics, here and there, sure, but in general (most cases) you can't.

But you seem to be on the same page? So where exactly is our difference?

my guess would be semantics..
What you appeared to me, to be saying, is since not every bit of religion is falsifiable, that religion as a whole, is unfalsifiable, which disregards the fact that there are many claims that can be falsified.
Viewing that under the light of the OP with "therefore science can say nothing about religion" I think the fact that claims that can be falsified shouldn't be dismissed, based on the OP..
..in a different thread, I probably wouldn't even notice, but under this particular topic, I want to make sure to keep tat point salient.

 

[Ouroboros]

my guess would be semantics..
What you appeared to me, to be saying, is since not every bit of religion is falsifiable, that religion as a whole, is unfalsifiable, which disregards the fact that there are many claims that can be falsified.

I see. Sure. I can go with that.

Viewing that under the light of the OP with "therefore science can say nothing about religion" I think the fact that claims that can be falsified shouldn't be dismissed, based on the OP..

This recent discussion wasn't so much about the OP but just what Metis said and the responses that followed.

..in a different thread, I probably wouldn't even notice, but under this particular topic, I want to make sure to keep tat point salient.

Sure.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree. Science says nothing about the existence of god....except for those times when it says something about the existence of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure.


Ok.


But... I thought the term "falsifiable" meant that something can be "falsified", i.e. tested in a falsifiable test. If you can't find a falsifiable test for religion, then how can you be so sure religion is falsifiable?

I think you misunderstand me. "Religion" is a diverse thing. Any given religious belief is either testable (and therefore falsifiable) or arbitrarily held. The tests we can subject a religious belief to vary from belief to belief. But if a religious belief is well-founded - and I haven't met many believers who say their beliefs are baseless - there will be a falsifiable claim in there somewhere. If there isn't, then the belief is irrational, since there's no way to tell whether it's true or false, and is therefore being held without concern for whether it's true (edit: or is being held to be true for bad reasons).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not saying to prove religion either. That's the point.

Not prove, but built into most (if not all) religious claims are meta-claims about the belief. It's not just "God exists", but also "we should have faith that God exists." It's not just "an afterlife exists"; it's "we should be confident that an afterlife exists." In general, built into the religion is an overarching claim that the fundamental, factual claims of the religion are justified.

Remember: a religion isn't just a single person thinking up random claims in isolation. It's a community of shared belief where the members support each other's beliefs in various ways. Often, that support involves testable claims of its own. A religion isn't just the claims like "God is real" or "we'll live in an afterlife after we die"; it's also all the other claims that members employ to keep each other (or themselves) believing those claims.

 

[metis]

It's not a matter of proving you wrong; it's a matter of recognizing that your claim is unsupported.

... and every claim is unsupported until support is given.

Saying "religious beliefs are unfalsifiable" is functionally equivalent to saying "religious beliefs are arbitrary and baseless."

I would suggest that almost all religious beliefs are "unsupported", especially the most basic ones, to use your word for it. What objective evidence, for example, can be provided that there's one god, or even a god at all?

Therefore, I do believe it to be "arbitrary" in the sense that people will tend to pick a religion, denomination, or not, based on what they come to believe, for whatever reason, or were brought up to believe. I certainly was in regards to both the former and the latter.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that any religion is "baseless" largely because those of us that may have a theistic drift do so for a reason(s).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would suggest that almost all religious beliefs are "unsupported", especially the most basic ones, to use your word for it. What objective evidence, for example, can be provided that there's one god, or even a god at all?

Good question. If there is any, I haven't seen it.

However, I do recognize that many religious people claim that there's scads of evidence for their beliefs.

Therefore, I do believe it to be "arbitrary" in the sense that people will tend to pick a religion, denomination, or not, based on what they come to believe, for whatever reason, or were brought up to believe. I certainly was in regards to both the former and the latter.

Now, I won't go so far as to say that any religion is "baseless" largely because those of us that may have a theistic drift do so for a reason(s).

Sure - there are plenty of reasons why people adopt religious beliefs: cultural factors, an innate human tendency to over-infer agency in inanimate things, etc., etc. When I say "baseless", I'm specifically referring to reasons that rationally speak to the likelihood that the belief is correct.

Now... please keep in mind that I'm not dismissing all religions as baseless, only the ones that declare themselves immune to evidence-based investigation. There's any number of beliefs that are neither supported or refuted by any evidence; the decision to accept one of them but not the rest is, by necessity, founded on no rational evidence-based conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

Generally speaking, religious beliefs are unfalsifiable.

For example: in our universe there is a multitude of spiritual cosmic Godzillas that actually created our universe, forming planets, stars, and the other bodies through their spit-wad fights. They all told me how to achieve heaven, with the quickest single way being to watch a lot of their Japanese movies, and that one major holiday they say is for us to observe is for us to crawl on our bellies, stick out our tongues, and eat flies.

Try and prove me wrong.

Does that genuinely represent "belief," though? Or "make belief"? It would seem to me that people who believe generally do so for good reason.

 

[Willamena]

It is, actually.

When a claim is falsifiable, this means that its truth would have implications or predictions we can test or observe.

Testing the predictions of a claim is also the way we figure out whether something's true.

A priori knowledge is all over something being true without having to be empirically testable.