What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[Colt]

You and your source is not a we, because I do God differently than you.

We who believe in a real God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You haven't solved anything, because you could be a Boltzmann Brain in an universe with different physics than you believe in.

What is a Boltzmann Brain composed of? Atoms and energy. What is the universe composed of? Atom and energy. I am not different from the universe, neither are you. That is the basic premise of 'Advaita' Hinduism (non-duality). It does not exclude anything. It is closest to science. That is why I follow it.
It is an ancient thought. It categorically says "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am the universe), "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are), Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).

 

[Scott C.]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

As a believer in God, I don't believe God can be proven to exist with any logical argument, including the cosmological argument. Such an argument may persuade one to believe the existence of God is possible or likely. But proof is another issue. For me, the strongest proof for God's existence is personal experience.

 

[Tiberius]

1. Do you think you have no faith whatsoever?
2. Also, do you think that everything that one believes due to "faith" is wrong by default?

There are many different kinds of faith. I certainly hope you're not about to equate religious faith with faith the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

 

[Tiberius]

Because worthless is not a part of the real world, because the real world is external sensory experience according to your rule and worthless is not based on external sensory experience. Worthless is not information about the objective, physical world. You are using feelings. Feelings are bad, unreasonable, irrational, not science and you are not in the real world, when you don't use science. Neither am I, but I don't care. And yes, that is a feeling.

When you have no option but to quibble about words and meanings, you've lost the argument.

I mean worthless as in: "Unable to provide any useful information about the real world; it produces no information that can be used in any practical sense."

Now, if you have something of value to add to the discussion, then add it. If you're just going to play words games, take it somewhere else.

 

[Tiberius]

If the finite could prove the existence of Infinite God using logic, then the Atheist would still need to approach God subjectively in spirit just like those who have found God are already doing now.

Care to translate this into English? Right now, it's little more than a slogan - it sounds impressive, but means nothing.

 

[Nakosis]

So what is the world with knowledge?

Consistency.
As long as physics and causality are consistent now, that is all that matters.

 

[Nakosis]

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.
"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.
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".

Actually it's a premise that if I can't know whether something exists or not, its existence of non-existence doesn't matter.

How I determine likely? Experience. I see folks come up with ideas about how things works over and over based on a complete lack of knowledge and be wrong 100% of the time. It's like a blind person trying to hit a target by shooting in random directions. They have no idea which direction, how far away or how big the target is. Even if they happen to hit it, they won't know they hit it. So they'll continue shooting off in some other direction.

 

[Nakosis]

If the finite could prove the existence of Infinite God using logic, then the Atheist would still need to approach God subjectively in spirit just like those who have found God are already doing now.

It is easy to find God. I've found many. In fact it is pretty hard not to find a God if you are looking. I suspect most atheists have simply stopped looking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is a Boltzmann Brain composed of? Atoms and energy. What is the universe composed of? Atom and energy. I am not different from the universe, neither are you. That is the basic premise of 'Advaita' Hinduism (non-duality). It does not exclude anything. It is closest to science. That is why I follow it.
It is an ancient thought. It categorically says "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am the universe), "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are), Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).

You are now a computer program run by an Alien space race. From that doesn't follow the atoms and energy is same in the Alien universe as how reality appears to you in the simulation.
Simply put all you know about the universe independent of your mind is that he/she/it caused you to exist. That is it. You know nothing of atoms and energy independent of your mind.

You know through you mind. Your mind is caused by something else, but you can only know that you are caused by something else. The moment you claim you know what the universe is independent of your mind you are doing an act of faith. You are showing faith in the belief that the universe is natural or something else. But both are acts of faith and says nothing about what the universe is independent of your mind. Only what your faith is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Consistency.
As long as physics and causality are consistent now, that is all that matters.

So you know physics? And consistency? And not just causality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you have no option but to quibble about words and meanings, you've lost the argument.

I mean worthless as in: "Unable to provide any useful information about the real world; it produces no information that can be used in any practical sense."

Now, if you have something of value to add to the discussion, then add it. If you're just going to play words games, take it somewhere else.

You haven't solved the epistemological problem in solipsism and the problem of the-thing-in-itself. How you know something independent of your mind, if you only know through your mind?

So here it is, step by step. If you doubt everything, you know one thing: That you doubt! You know that something is going on. Namely you are a mind with experiences. If you then test your experiences further, you notice that the experiences are not yours. They come to you. They are caused by something else.
So here is the problem: You are caused by something else and that doesn't have to fair. You could be a computer simulation run by an Alien space race in a universe that is nothing like it appears to you.

So the problem of the real world is two-fold. You know nothing of the real world and it is a belief that the universe is fair and nothing something else than it appears to you.
Now here is a news flash for you. That is how you explain this:
Philosophy of science
That is why science is based on beliefs, that you can't test. You can't test if the universe is fair and that you can trust your experiences. That you as an apparent member of the Western culture are unaware of your own culture's intellectual history and how philosophy led to science as a naturalistic belief system, is not my problem.

So if we agree that we both trust our experiences, from that doesn't follow that the world is real. Only that we both trust our experiences. If we then try to categorize our experiences, you then find this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So here is a model of your experiences:

1. You have physical experiences.
2. You have abstract rational experiences.
3. You have social experiences.
4. You have personal subjective experiences.
5. You have an experience of making sense of it, a world view.

You believe that your experience of a real world is knowledge. It is not. It is a belief system that apparently works.
How? Because you haven't solved the epistemological problem in solipsism and the problem of the-thing-in-itself.

Now I am serious. If you have solved these 2 problems, please write down the explanation and publish it. You would then have done something no other human have done in recorded history.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually it's a premise that if I can't know whether something exists or not, its existence of non-existence doesn't matter.

How I determine likely? Experience. I see folks come up with ideas about how things works over and over based on a complete lack of knowledge and be wrong 100% of the time. It's like a blind person trying to hit a target by shooting in random directions. They have no idea which direction, how far away or how big the target is. Even if they happen to hit it, they won't know they hit it. So they'll continue shooting off in some other direction.

So you have solved the problem of solipsism in epistemology and the problem of the-thing-in-itself? Please explain and don't just claim it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We who believe in a real God.

Good for you. I believe in another real God than your real God.

 

[firedragon]

There are many different kinds of faith. I certainly hope you're not about to equate religious faith with faith the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

Yep, there are many kinds of faith. I agree.

To your question my response is "no".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are many different kinds of faith. I certainly hope you're not about to equate religious faith with faith the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

Well, I will equate it as metaphysically the same kind of faith for what the real world really is. In practice for the everyday world there is more, but for the fundamental level all positive metaphysical claims are faith.

 

[Colt]

Care to translate this into English? Right now, it's little more than a slogan - it sounds impressive, but means nothing.

Its clear, you just pretend like it's not to avoid the obvious truth. Thats how Atheist's approach uncomfortable truths of life.

 

[Colt]

It is easy to find God. I've found many. In fact it is pretty hard not to find a God if you are looking. I suspect most atheists have simply stopped looking.

Find the God of your own personal experience rather than hiding behind the God concepts of others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its clear, you just pretend like it's not to avoid the obvious truth. Thats how Atheist's approach uncomfortable truths of life.

We have different truths.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Find the God of your own personal experience rather than hiding behind the God concepts of others.

I have. It is different than yours as far as I can tell.