What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[We Never Know]

Nope, you are using an illustration that you do not understand and assuming that it makes a point. You cannot "whoosh" when you never got the point that you screwed up on in the first place.

Like I said using a vertical line with no degree that is straight up and down vertical through earth, one point being north, the others being south,,, there is south of the south pole. The tilt puts south slightly upward the side of earth same as north slightly downward the side of earth.
The poles are on a 23.5 degrees tilt and that's what we use to define the S and N poles.

According to science the earth is on a titled axis due to a collision with a mars sized plated that also created the moon. Without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a
23.5 degrees tilt?

 

[We Never Know]

No, the directions of north and south are *defined* in reference to the rotation, not relative to the orbit around the sun. The x is north of the south pole, not south of it.

How would rotating a different direction change what is north or south.

 

[Polymath257]

How would rotating a different direction change what is north or south.

Because north and south are defined in terms of rotation. If you want, north is defined in terms of the direction of the angular momentum.

 

[exchemist]

Check out his blog. He covers all these nuances.

But you can't explain them here, or link to the relevant passage? Very well, the best I can find in that blog is this passage:

every actualization of a potential has a cause, or whatever is composite has a cause, or whatever has a feature only by participation has a cause, or whatever is contingent has a cause.

It seems to me my example of decay of an atomic nucleus puts paid to all that.

So the cosmological argument, in your version of it, would seem to fail, too.

 

[Polymath257]

According to science the earth is on a titled axis due to a collision with a mars sized plated that also created the moon. Without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a
23.5 degrees tilt?

The only poles are the north and south poles. What other ones are you talking about?

 

[We Never Know]

Because north and south are defined in terms of rotation. If you want, north is defined in terms of the direction of the angular momentum.

So does Venus and Uranus have a different location for N and S? After all they rotate in an opposite direction.

 

[Polymath257]

Like I said using a vertical line with no degree that is straight up and down vertical through earth, one point being north, the others being south,,, there is south of the south pole.

There is no 'vertical' in space. You are comparing the rotational direction of the Earth with the plane of its orbit. The term 'vertical' (usually meaning 'up') only makes sense in a gravitational field.

 

[We Never Know]

The only poles are the north and south poles. What other ones are you talking about?

I've never mentioned any other poles. I simply talked about direction.

 

[Polymath257]

So does Venus and Uranus have a different location for N and S? After all they rotate in an opposite direction.

If you are asking if their poles are pointed in a different direction than ours, yes. But *on the planet*, north and south are defined by the direction of rotation. So, on Neptune, north is defined by the direction to the north pole and that is the one that appears to be rotating counter-clockwise from above the planet.

The same is the case on Venus.

North and South are only defined with respect to some rotating system. Tell me which rotating system you are talking about and I will tell you which way is north.

 

[We Never Know]

There is no 'vertical' in space. You are comparing the rotational direction of the Earth with the plane of its orbit. The term 'vertical' (usually meaning 'up') only makes sense in a gravitational field.

There is no N or S in space either.
Vertical means straight though in the sense i used it. Straight through and not on a 23.5 degrees angle

 

[Polymath257]

I've never mentioned any other poles. I simply talked about direction.

Then what did you mean here?

"
Without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a 23.5 degrees tilt?"

You seem to be comparing two things: 'poles run vertical to each other'.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no N or S in space either.

Correct. It is defined on the surface of a rotating body (or even inside of it).

Vertical means straight though in the sense i used it. Straight through and not on a 23.5 degrees angle

Straight through compared to what? The orbit?

 

[We Never Know]

If you are asking if their poles are pointed in a different direction than ours, yes. But *on the planet*, north and south are defined by the direction of rotation. So, on Neptune, north is defined by the direction to the north pole and that is the one that appears to be rotating counter-clockwise from above the planet.

The same is the case on Venus.

North and South are only defined with respect to some rotating system. Tell me which rotating system you are talking about and I will tell you which way is north.

Uranus is basically on its side. So its N and S would bet almost equal to our E and W correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said using a vertical line with no degree that is straight up and down vertical through earth, one point being north, the others being south,,, there is south of the south pole. The tilt puts south slightly upward the side of earth same as north slightly downward the side of earth.
The poles are on a 23.5 degrees tilt and that's what we use to define the S and N poles.

According to science the earth is on a titled axis due to a collision with a mars sized plated that also created the moon. Without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a
23.5 degrees tilt?

You are simply inventing a false "up and down" in your example. And all of this is because you did not understand, or would not accept @Polymath257 's original explanation to you. But your continued errors are highly informative of why you could not get it right.

So avoiding any future derails let's go back to the original error. Some people look at maps and make the error of reading them literally. Especially Mercator projection and similar maps. they grossly distort any land that is approaching the poles. So much so that most cut off before 90 degrees of latitude.

Mercator projection
A person looking at such a map might wonder why you could not continue going "north" past the north pole. There is no apparent end to it. But the point is that they do not accurately represent the world. On a globe it is obvious why there is no "north of the North Pole". When it comes to the math that describes the universe and its beginnings just as "north of the North Pole" is a ridiculous claim using a globe the phrase of "Before the Big Bang" is ridiculous from a mathematical point of view. Time does not begin until the Big Bang in current models. Just as North does not begin to exist until after one is south of the North Pole.

People that say "before the Big Bang" are treating a Mercator projection as if it were a globe.

 

[We Never Know]

Then what did you mean here?

"
Without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a 23.5 degrees tilt?"

You seem to be comparing two things: 'poles run vertical to each other'.

The collision supposedly is why the earth has a tilt. So without that collision would the poles run vertical to each other rather than on a 23.5 degrees tilt?" See picture

 

[Quiddity]

But you can't explain them here, or link to the relevant passage? Very well, the best I can find in that blog is this passage:

every actualization of a potential has a cause, or whatever is composite has a cause, or whatever has a feature only by participation has a cause, or whatever is contingent has a cause.

It seems to me my example of decay of an atomic nucleus puts paid to all that.

So the cosmological argument, in your version of it, would seem to fail, too.

It seems......yes.

I come in here sporadically and then disappear for sections at a time, I simply don't have the desire to wrestle things out as I used to, other than the occasional pointing of a direction of where one can get the answer. I don't find this format fruitful at the pace and complexity that I think it requires. We can do a one on one and I can answer as time permits me if you are really interested.

 

[We Never Know]

You are simply inventing a false "up and down" in your example. And all of this is because you did not understand, or would not accept @Polymath257 's original explanation to you. But your continued errors are highly informative of why you could not get it right.

So avoiding any future derails let's go back to the original error. Some people look at maps and make the error of reading them literally. Especially Mercator projection and similar maps. they grossly distort any land that is approaching the poles. So much so that most cut off before 90 degrees of latitude.

Mercator projection
A person looking at such a map might wonder why you could not continue going "north" past the north pole. There is no apparent end to it. But the point is that they do not accurately represent the world. On a globe it is obvious why there is no "north of the North Pole". When it comes to the math that describes the universe and its beginnings just as "north of the North Pole" is a ridiculous claim using a globe the phrase of "Before the Big Bang" is ridiculous from a mathematical point of view. Time does not begin until the Big Bang in current models. Just as North does not begin to exist until after one is south of the North Pole.

People that say "before the Big Bang" are treating a Mercator projection as if it were a globe.

Look at your map vs my globe. Do you notice any thing different on the continent's?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at your map vs my globe. Do you notice any thing different?

Quite a few things, but once again: Whooosh!

 

[We Never Know]

Quite a few things, but once again: Whooosh!

You can whoosh all you want. Whoosh doesn't make a point. In fact replying whoosh implies you have no point.

 

[blü 2]

Any claim has to be stated in such a way that it can be shown to be false. For example if I say all crows are black, that is a falsifiable claim because all someone has do to falsify it is to find a crow of a different colour. If I claim that all the green crows are invisible, no one can prove otherwise because that is not a falsifiable claim. In other words, one has to make a reasonable claim.

Wikipedia gives this version of the "argument from cause" ─

Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist).
​

Implicit in this is a timeline with a starting point.

And at the starting point, the coming into existence of the universe from a literal and absolute nothing.

But what if time exists BECAUSE eg mass-energy exists? Then the apparent starting point is not a starting point at all.

And if there had been an absolute nothing, then there would be no such thing as the contents of the Big Bang (mass-energy and the basic particles, as we presently think), and no dimensions of space or of time, hence nowhere and nowhen for anything to happen.

Therefore the far more coherent argument is that the contents of the Big Bang pre-existed our universe, and that time and space exist because (at the least) those contents exist.

Thus if God exists then "God" is a synonym for the pre-existing state of things in which the Big Bang occurred and need not be (and certainly does not appear to be) sentient, rational, purposeful, or active independently of the rules of physics.


Wikipedia also sets out Pruss's version of Leibnitz's argument ─

1. Every contingent fact has an explanation.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being.
5. This necessary being is God.

Unfortunately for the argument, the "necessary being" is subject to the same argument; again, there is no reason why the "necessary being" must be sentient, rational, purposeful, or active independently of the rules of physics.


Finally, the sequences envisaged by the arguments are chains of cause+effect ─ in the old arguments, 'cause' in one of the various flavors of cause set out by Aristotle and latterly 'cause' in the sense classically used in the physical sciences.

But in QM there are countless events across the universe every second that have no cause in the classical sense. Examples include the spontaneous emission of any particle in the course of radioactive decay, and the phenomena that cause the Casimir effect.