What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[Aupmanyav]

You are now a computer program run by an Alien space race.

I thought I was the strongest skeptic, but I was wrong. I met my match.

That's how Atheist's approach uncomfortable truths of life.

Only theists have uncomfortable truths (How to defend the existence of God? How to prove Big Bang and Evolution wrong? How to prove that this prophet or that prophet was sent by God / Allah. The atheist just has to sit back and enjoy your wriggling. For atheists, truth is always comfortable.

 

[Colt]

We have different truths.

I see, you've stated yours is the wrong one.

 

[Colt]

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

I see, you've stated yours is the wrong one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see, you've stated yours is the wrong one.

Yes, to you. To me wrong is better than right, since I am a skeptic.

 

[PureX]

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

But that simply isn't true. If it's existence really didn't matter (like fairies and flying spaghetti monsters), you wouldn't have sought to know in the first place. But we humans survive and thrive by knowing the nature and limits of our experience of existing, so that we can control them to our advantage. 'Knowing' is survival, and not knowing is our biggest existential threat. Such that when we perceive an unknown, we want to resolve it. We want it so badly that we are often willing to accept an imaginary or unproven resolution over no resolution at all.

And 'God' is the ultimate unknown. It is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. To know it, would be to know it all. Which makes it the 'holy grail' of knowing. Certainly not something to be ignored, as you are trying to suggest.

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.

But, logically, you don't know anything more about it than they do. So you're presumptions of your own superior "experience and reasoning" is just an unfounded bias: ... a whim of your own. Same as theirs.

 

[firedragon]

How to prove Big Bang and Evolution wrong?

Why should theists prove these things wrong?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know, "Goddidit". Is there any proof around (opther than circular reasoning )?

 

[Nakosis]

But that simply isn't true. If it's existence really didn't matter (like fairies and flying spaghetti monsters), you wouldn't have sought to know in the first place. But we humans survive and thrive by knowing the nature and limits of our experience of existing, so that we can control them to our advantage. 'Knowing' is survival, and not knowing is our biggest existential threat. Such that when we perceive an unknown, we want to resolve it. We want it so badly that we are often willing to accept an imaginary or unproven resolution over no resolution at all.

Someone told me God existed. That why I went looking.
Didn't know it didn't matter at the time, now I do.

And 'God' is the ultimate unknown. It is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. To know it, would be to know it all. Which makes it the 'holy grail' of knowing. Certainly not something to be ignored, as you are trying to suggest.

And "God" will be the ultimate unknown when you die. Ignoring it or not ignoring it won't change anything.

But, logically, you don't know anything more about it than they do.

I see you finally got my point.

So you're presumptions of your own superior "experience and reasoning" is just an unfounded bias: ... a whim of your own. Same as theirs.

I'm not the one making presumptions, but when your blind man hits that target, let me know.

 

[Nakosis]

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

That's where you're mistaken in thinking the Gods of others are only concepts.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Which part didn't you understand?

That something which has no affect on you, you can't have knowledge of?

Or that a person which has no knowledge about a thing, can't have knowledge about that thing?

 

[Nakosis]

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

You don't have to know it. You just have to observe it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which part didn't you understand?

That something which has no affect on you, you can't have knowledge of?

Or that a person which has no knowledge about a thing, can't have knowledge about that thing?

So you know of the-thing-in-itself? How?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't have to know it. You just have to observe it.

You are taking empirical realism for granted.

 

[Colt]

That's where you're mistaken in thinking the Gods of others are only concepts.

One may conceptualize God as 1. Another may conceptualize God as 47. Both have faith, ones concept is closer to the truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One may conceptualize God as 1. Another may conceptualize God as 47. Both have faith, ones concept is closer to the truth.

Or don't consider that one may conceptualize God as relevant.

 

[samtonga43]

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.

IT? No. God in three Persons.
Do virtual particles begin to exist?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

You spend a lot of time quibbling over meaning which is clear to everyone else, and you spend no time actually discussing the issue. Your attempts to derail the discussion are not going to work and are not fooling anyone.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Maybe one day you'll understand that you don't have to live as though you're a brain in a jar and you can join us in a proper discussion.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Yeah, clear what you said is nothing more than meaningless technobabble.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IT? No. God in three Persons.
Do virtual particles begin to exist?

God in three persons is thrice more difficult to explain than God in one person, which also has never been explained. Yeah, virtual particles do exist.

"Virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and then mutually annihilate, or in some cases, the pair may be boosted apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles .."

"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. For this reason, virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not typically obey the mass-shell relation; the longer a virtual particle exists, the more the energy and momentum approach the mass-shell relation."
Virtual particle