What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[We Never Know]

Those directions are never constant, All you can say that they are away from it on the general solar system rotational plane.

Poorly formed questions can only be answered very generally. They often demonstrate a lack of understanding of the person asking them.

Isn't everything that isn't at the sun, away from the sun? LOL

So are you going to explain these direction you claim exists out in space? Or is it another empty assertion?

 

[Tiberius]

If everything has a cause, that would mean God / Allah would have to have a cause as well. IMO everything having a cause is a logical impossibility.

And if we say that there are some things that do not need a cause, then we can say that the universe could be one of those things. In either case, it does not look good for the idea of God.

 

[firedragon]

If everything has a cause, that would mean God / Allah would have to have a cause as well.

Thats not the argument.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If everything has a cause, that would mean God / Allah would have to have a cause as well. IMO everything having a cause is a logical impossibility.

And if we say that there are some things that do not need a cause, then we can say that the universe could be one of those things. In either case, it does not look good for the idea of God.

Therefore, it is not yet time to decide if everything has a cause or not. Why does anything (including God) exists at all? I would leave that for our future generations.
But apart from that, what are the reasons, why should any one believe in existence of God and his sending prophets / son/ messengers / manifestations / mahdis?

 

[Tiberius]

Therefore, it is not yet time to decide if everything has a cause or not. Why does anything (including God) exists at all? I would leave that for our future generations.
But apart from that, what are the reasons, why should any one believe in existence of God and his sending prophets / son/ messengers / manifestations / mahdis?

Doesn't matter if it's the time or not. If God exists, it must be one or the other, and both possible options weaken the pro-God argument.

 

[Colt]

If we could demonstrate such a logic path to God then Atheists would try to debunk it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If we could demonstrate such a logic path to God then Atheists would try to debunk it.

Well, logic in that sense has already being debunk, but that has nothing to do with God in particular. It is the limit of rationalism.
And logic has nothing to do with religion or non-religion, because some people on both sides can do it and others on both sides can't.

 

[samtonga43]

Therefore, it is not yet time to decide if everything has a cause or not. Why does anything (including God) exists at all? I would leave that for our future generations.
But apart from that, what are the reasons, why should any one believe in existence of God and his sending prophets / son/ messengers / manifestations / mahdis?

It's not about everything having a cause. It's about everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

 

[PureX]

Sure, you can stick anything in there that suits your fancy.

You say that like there's something wrong with it. There isn't. It's called 'speculation'. And it's what we humans do when we find ourselves confronted with an unknown.

Since there is no info, no testability and the enormity of human ignorance, whatever anyone speculates is likely to be wrong.

"Likely to be wrong" according to what, exactly? How are you establishing likelihood? How are you establishing correctness? You're just as ignorant as anyone else.

My position as an atheist is that I don't feel any motivation to place a bet based on total ignorance.

And yet that's exactly what you're doing. You're betting that if you can't know something to exist, it doesn't exist. And you're doing that based on no knowledge or evidence at all. ... Because it "suits your fancy".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, you can stick anything in there that suits your fancy.
Since there is no info, no testability and the enormity of human ignorance, whatever anyone speculates is likely to be wrong.

My position as an atheist is that I don't feel any motivation to place a bet based on total ignorance.

I doubt you can falsify causality. That's the basis of the argument.

I just point the actual nature of this first cause is unknown.
If someone wants to call this first cause God. Ok, but the nature, properties of this first cause remain unknown.

So "God" remains an unknown. Someone then wants to speculate about the properties of this first cause "God", fine but the cosmological argument any of this.

This just makes the word "God" an undefined variable. Something not defined requires no particular beliefs about it.

So what is the world with knowledge?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If we could demonstrate such a logic path to God then Atheists would try to debunk it.

You have no such path, which is why we're atheists.

Have you ever considered what this discussion would look like if there were no gods? Like this - repeated failed efforts to prove true something that is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have no such path, which is why we're atheists.

Have you ever considered what this discussion would look like if there were no gods? Like this - repeated failed efforts to prove true something that is not.

Well, have you ever consider what it would look like if there are no true metaphysics, including naturalism, materialism, physicalism and that is not true that there is real world?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's about everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

The problem is that somethings even in science do not seem to have a cause - Virtual Particles. We observe them but can we explain it? God is something different. If there is some evidence of its existence, then we will look for more info on why 'it' exists and how.
Excuse me for using 'it' for God, but in Hinduism, 'what exists', known as 'Brahman', is always addressed as 'it' because 'it' is supposed to have neither a gender, nor a category as living or non-living, or a form.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, one can show that a particular argument for God leads to a contradiction. Or one can show that a God is not logically required. But to provide a positive proof that God does not exist is practically impossible, because the idea of God is unfalsifiable.

So far so good.

And anything unfalsifiable is a worthless idea. It can tell you nothing real about the world.

Well, you can't use science on neither worthful nor worthless as you use it. So "And anything unfalsifiable is a worthless idea" is itself a worthless idea and not real, because it has no objective referent. BTW neither has real, real is a worthless idea, because real has no objective referent and is not a scientific term.

So God as an idea is worthless and so are your ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that somethings even in science do not seem to have a cause - Virtual Particles. We observe them but can we explain it? God is something different. If there is some evidence of its existence, then we will look for more info on why 'it' exists and how.
Excuse me for using 'it' for God, but in Hinduism, 'what exists', known as 'Brahman', is always addressed as 'it' because 'it' is supposed to have neither a gender nor a category as living or non-living.

But existence in not real as it is a subjective idea in you as it has no objective referent just like God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, have you ever consider what it would look like if there are no true metaphysics, including naturalism, materialism, physicalism and that is not true that there is real world?

I'll leave that to you. It's not relevant to my point.

I find such preoccupation with subjectivism and radical skepticism to the point of solipsism to be fruitless, and in fact counterproductive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll leave that to you. It's not relevant to my point.

I find such preoccupation with subjectivism and radical skepticism to the point of solipsism to be fruitless, and in fact counterproductive.

And that is subjective and only relevant to you subjectively and it is different to me. So your point is as fruitless and counterproductive to me as my point is to you.

 

[Colt]

You have no such path, which is why we're atheists.

Have you ever considered what this discussion would look like if there were no gods? Like this - repeated failed efforts to prove true something that is not.

Those who have found God don’t often realize that it wasn’t via a logic path but the “gift” of faith. So when faithers encounter the Atheist belief, they get tangled up in the weeds trying to use mere logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those who have found God don’t often realize that it wasn’t via a logic path but the “gift” of faith. So when faithers encounter the Atheist belief, they get tangled up in the weeds trying to use mere logic.

Well, I have found the "gift" of faith. I believe in a natural world. So I have faith like you. I am just an atheist.

 

[Colt]

Well, I have found the "gift" of faith. I believe in a natural world. So I have faith like you. I am just an atheist.

The natural world is obvious to a child of nature, to the fact that we live in nature. The spiritual world is something we acquire via the birth of the spirit.