Science can say nothing about existence of God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Can you give any examples of religious claims that can be held as true a priori?

 

[metis]

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

Oh, I agree. I'm not in any way suggesting that most people just make things up.

 

[Ouroboros]

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).

So where would you place the belief in sin? That all people have sin or are sinner and are in need of salvation. What is that? Is it well founded, subject to testing, verification, nullification, and rational or is it irrational?

The thing is, I think that many beliefs have a foundation or base, but I do not hold the idea that having a base or foundation for a belief is the same as being testable.

I held a religious belief for many years, out of emotional reasons and experiential. Just like "I like ice cream" claim I made earlier. I liked being religions. I liked my religion. I liked my beliefs. I knew that some or many of them couldn't be tested, but that wasn't the reason to why I believed them.

 

[Willamena]

Can you give any examples of religious claims that can be held as true a priori?

The Heart Sutra indulges a priori proposition:

• The noble bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, being engaged in practicing the deep transcendental wisdom-discipline, looked down from above upon the five skandhas (aggregates), and saw that in their svabhava (self-being) they are devoid of substance.
• Here, O Sariputra, bodily-form is voidness; verily, voidness is bodily-form. Apart from bodily-form there is no voidness; so apart from voidness there is no bodily-form. That which is voidness is bodily-form; that which is bodily-form is voidness. Likewise (the four aggregates) feeling, perception, mental imaging, and consciousness (are devoid of substance).
• Here, O Sariputra, all phenomena of existence are characterized by voidness: neither born nor annihilated, neither blemished nor immaculate, neither deficient nor overfilled.

 

[Ouroboros]

What prior knowledge, fact, proof, evidence, test, experiment, reason is the foundation for the belief that "all people are sinners and are in need of salvation"?

If all belief is reasonable and can be tested, and no belief is a priori but have a sound base, then what is it for above belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So where would you place the belief in sin? That all people have sin or are sinner and are in need of salvation. What is that? Is it well founded, subject to testing, verification, nullification, and rational or is it irrational?

It's predicated on a number of other claims:

- God exists
- God has a set of likes and dislikes for human behavior
- God has communicated this set of likes and dislikes to humanity
- God will judge people for whether they abided by his set of likes and dislikes, and presumably punish or reward them based on how well they abided by them.
- there exists a realm or realms where God will enact this reward and punishment
- human beings can continue to exist after death in some form that could rightly be called "them"

I think when you break it down this way, a number of points where you could test the underlying claims. This woukd have implications for the higher-level claims you described.

However, there's still another issue: unwarranted specificity. If even God's existence is still an open question, then any pronouncement about God's opinions or plans is putting the cart before the horse. IOW, regardless of whether we can disprove God, if there's no evidence *for* God in the generic, then it's irrational to assume a particular God (e.g. one that will punish people who sin) over other particular Gods (e.g. a God of universal salvation, or a God that has no plans for a human afterlife at all). Any rational basis we could use to choose between specific Gods would speak to the more basic question of whether God exists at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What prior knowledge, fact, proof, evidence, test, experiment, reason is the foundation for the belief that "all people are sinners and are in need of salvation"?

If all belief is reasonable and can be tested, and no belief is a priori but have a sound base, then what is it for above belief?

You need to unpack it a bit first:

- what's sin?
- what's salvation?
- salvation from what?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's predicated on a number of other claims:

- God exists
- God has a set of likes and dislikes for human behavior
- God has communicated this set of likes and dislikes to humanity
- God will judge people for whether they abided by his set of likes and dislikes, and presumably punish or reward them based on how well they abided by them.
- there exists a realm or realms where God will enact this reward and punishment
- human beings can continue to exist after death in some form that could rightly be called "them"

I think when you break it down this way, a number of points where you could test the underlying claims. This woukd have implications for the higher-level claims you described.

Ok.

However, there's still another issue: unwarranted specificity. If even God's existence is still an open question, then any pronouncement about God's opinions or plans is putting the cart before the horse. IOW, regardless of whether we can disprove God, if there's no evidence *for* God in the generic, then it's irrational to assume a particular God (e.g. one that will punish people who sin) over other particular Gods (e.g. a God of universal salvation, or a God that has no plans for a human afterlife at all). Any rational basis we could use to choose between specific Gods would speak to the more basic question of whether God exists at all.

I'm getting a little lost, I have to admit.

I'll get back to it later to see if I can figure out what I think about this.

 

[Ouroboros]

You need to unpack it a bit first:

- what's sin?
- what's salvation?
- salvation from what?

Well, you said that any belief is not only warranted and supported, but also testable. If we're just playing a game of recursive definitions and never get to any proper test, we're basically saying that we can't create a positive or negative test.

Here are the definitions:

Sin is what we need to be saved from.

Salvation is salvation from sin.

Now, how do we test it?

This is part of the problem of religious beliefs, they're not well defined.

I can define sin in many different ways, and sure, we can perhaps break it down to other components, but then it's very vague how the parts relate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you said that any belief is not only warranted and supported, but also testable. If we're just playing a game of recursive definitions and never get to any proper test, we're basically saying that we can't create a positive or negative test.

Here are the definitions:

Sin is what we need to be saved from.

Salvation is salvation from sin.

Now, how do we test it?

So... we need to be saved from that which we need to be saved from? Sounds like you just constructed a tautology.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's predicated on a number of other claims:

- God exists
- God has a set of likes and dislikes for human behavior
- God has communicated this set of likes and dislikes to humanity
- God will judge people for whether they abided by his set of likes and dislikes, and presumably punish or reward them based on how well they abided by them.
- there exists a realm or realms where God will enact this reward and punishment
- human beings can continue to exist after death in some form that could rightly be called "them"

Going back to this. None of these define "sin". They set the backstage for it, but they neither define or support the concept.

So let's find a true and absolute definition of the word "sin" together here. Then we can do some tests on it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Going back to this. None of these define "sin". They set the backstage for it, but they neither define or support the concept.

So let's find a true and absolute definition of the word "sin" together here. Then we can do some tests on it.

They don't need to define "sin"; they just have to be necessary for your overall claim to be true. If any one of those statements is false, then so is your claim.

However, I did implicitly define "sin": failing to abide by God's set of likes and dislikes for human behavior.

 

[Ouroboros]

They don't need to define "sin"; they just have to be necessary for your overall claim to be true. If any one of those statements is false, then so is your claim.

Ooooooh. I think I'm starting to see what you're saying. Ok. I'll meditate on this for a bit.

I agree that there might be something to the falsifiability there.

However, I did implicitly define "sin": failing to abide by God's set of likes and dislikes for human behavior.

That's only one of the definitions. I've used that in some discussions with religious people who rejected it and said it was wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do believe I exist, my existence has met it's burden of proof to me.

But not to me and or to others.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ooooooh. I think I'm starting to see what you're saying. Ok. I'll meditate on this for a bit.

I agree that there might be something to the falsifiability there.


That's only one of the definitions. I've used that in some discussions with religious people who rejected it and said it was wrong.

Fair enough. So then when a person makes a claim about "sin", we just have to ask them what they mean by the word in order to clarify what's being claimed.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If science cannot say anything about it then nor can you. It seems like this is what happens when a religious persons reaches the end of his straw.
I went through this stage once, it was pitiful.
God is a metaphysical being(supposedly) and by this very nature it is impossible to be sure that such a being can even exist if that is it's nature. How can a metaphysical being have interactions with a physical one? If this was the case then surely science could make the nature of god falsifiable to some extent.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. So then when a person makes a claim about "sin", we just have to ask them what they mean by the word in order to clarify what's being claimed.

Agree.

And in some cases (many or few?) the person might not have a good reason to why they believe what they do except for blind acceptance of the tenets, dogma, etc from their church, pastor, preacher, imam, or whatever else they consider to be the authority. In those cases, we might not be able to produce a test (verification or falsification) to confirm since the belief is not well defined (vague and plastic/modifiable to need).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agree.

And in some cases (many or few?) the person might not have a good reason to why they believe what they do except for blind acceptance of the tenets, dogma, etc from their church, pastor, preacher, imam, or whatever else they consider to be the authority. In those cases, we might not be able to produce a test (verification or falsification) to confirm since the belief is not well defined (vague and plastic/modifiable to need).

Well, in order to test a claim, we need to actually have a claim to test. If a person can't express themselves clearly enough for us to tell what they actually believe (or if their beliefs are just fundamentally muddy), then that needs to be sorted out before the belief can even be evaluated.

... though I think this is different from saying that they're making unfalsifiable claims. In those sorts of cases, I think it's more correct to say that they're not making claims at all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, in order to test a claim, we need to actually have a claim to test. If a person can't express themselves clearly enough for us to tell what they actually believe (or if their beliefs are just fundamentally muddy), then that needs to be sorted out before the belief can even be evaluated.

Sure. And honestly, even during my 30 years as a Christian, I couldn't find a perfect or absolute definition of what "sin" was. "Missing the mark" was a common term. Mark of what exactly?

... though I think this is different from saying that they're making unfalsifiable claims. In those sorts of cases, I think it's more correct to say that they're not making claims at all.

Sure they're making claims. I made claims as a Christian. I claimed that the whole world was in sin and needed Jesus to be saved. Sin is very similar to thetans in Scientology. It's this mystical thing that possess you spirit and only through salvation/belief in Jesus (or expensive education in the case of Scientology) can you rid yourself of this sin/thetan. So what is sin in the end? The "thing" you need to get rid of through our solution. Why do I need the solution? Because you have that "thing" you need to get rid of. All very strong claims. But also very unsubstantiated claims. I made a lot of claims when I was knocking on doors, evangelizing the subways, and talking to people at work, reading the Bible to them, and trying to convince them they needed Jesus.

The hardest time was when I tried to do it in Germany, and I had such a hard time speaking it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure they're making claims. I made claims as a Christian. I claimed that the whole world was in sin and needed Jesus to be saved. Sin is very similar to thetans in Scientology. It's this mystical thing that possess you spirit and only through salvation/belief in Jesus (or expensive education in the case of Scientology) can you rid yourself of this sin/thetan. So what is sin in the end? The "thing" you need to get rid of through our solution. Why do I need the solution? Because you have that "thing" you need to get rid of. All very strong claims. But also very unsubstantiated claims.

IMO, if you can't give a clear answer to the question "exactly what are you claiming?", then I'm not going to treat what you're saying as a claim... not even if you're using words that are normally found in claims.