What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[firedragon]

You leave a lot of things unstated here, esp. what you mean by God in this context and which cosmological argument you have in mind.

But if we suppose what you are referring to is the "first cause" argument, for the Abrahamic God, which goes back as far as Aquinas I believe, then a physicist would say it is false because it seems that in nature not every event needs to have a cause.

Alright. Kalam cosmological argument.

On a side note, it goes back to a guy called Gazali. Maybe even further.

 

[darkskies]

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created.

You're not wrong, but the argument shows that if the premise "everything that exists has a cause" is assumed true, then the conclusion must include God.

 

[PureX]

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.

Except to claim that to be "reasonable" the claim must be falsifiable is, itself, unfalsifiable.

 

[PureX]

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created. Forget that others including me are theists. How would you prove or what could you bring to prove that God, if existing, has to have been created?

The flaw was to claim that everything that exists must have a cause. We can't know "everything that exists". We can only know of what exists within this universe. And so far, it appears that everything that exists within this universe has a cause. That does not logically imply, however, that what caused this universe to exist must also, itself, have a cause. It only implies that there be an expression of existence that is beyond what we see manifested in this universe.

 

[Altfish]

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created. Forget that others including me are theists. How would you prove or what could you bring to prove that God, if existing, has to have been created?

No, that is not my problem but the problem of using the Cosmological argument. You can't say "Everything must have a creator ... oh, but apart from god" that's not an argument it is an excuse.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps, but not observing apparent cause is not an indication of no cause at all. Just saying.

Well it's true that, like every theory in science it is a provisional conclusion, pending further observations.

But at present, both our observations suggest there are uncaused events and our theories are built on that principle. So this at the very least calls into serious question the assumption that everything must have a cause. It may well not.

So it is not legitimate to construct a logical proof that revolves around that assumption.

 

[PureX]

No, that is not my problem but the problem of using the Cosmological argument. You can't say "Everything must have a creator ...

That is not the cosmological argument. The content of the argument is cosmological, not existential. It states that everything that exists in the cosmos has a cause.

 

[firedragon]

You're not wrong, but the argument shows that if the premise "everything that exists has a cause" is assumed true, then the conclusion must include God.

So how will you go about proving that God, if existing, has to have been created.

Well, that was your whole argument. So how will you go about it.

 

[firedragon]

The flaw was to claim that everything that exists must have a cause. We can't know "everything that exists". We can only know of what exists within this universe. And so far, it appears that everything that exists within this universe has a cause. That does not logically imply, however, that what caused this universe to exist must also, itself, have a cause. It only implies that there be an expression of existence that is beyond what we see manifested in this universe.

How do you approach that argument? If the cause to existence has to be a caused cause, not uncaused, what would have caused that? What is your argument?

 

[PureX]

How do you approach that argument? If the cause to existence has to be a caused cause, not uncaused, what would have caused that? What is your argument?

The proposition of causation is not about existence. It's about the material universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not necessarily. If X was not X before, then it originated later and might not have needed an environment.

The point is that you can't invoke phenomenon who's existence depends on the existence of X, to explain the origination of X. Since X doesn't exist yet when it is about to originate.

 

[darkskies]

So how will you go about proving that God, if existing, has to have been created.

Well, that was your whole argument. So how will you go about it.

My argument only addressed one premise; "everything that exists has a cause". I do not assume it to be true. So I don't have to prove anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created. Forget that others including me are theists. How would you prove or what could you bring to prove that God, if existing, has to have been created?

We could easily ask the same question in reverse: how would you prove that this god does not need to be created / originated?

And the answer to BOTH questions is "none at all", because there are no gods anywhere to be found that we can study and investigate from which we could derive such proofs.

So the best you can do is merely arbitrarily "define" your god as "uncreated".
And by the same token with the exact same merit, one could just as easily arbitrarily define this god as being "created".

 

[darkskies]

The point is that you can't invoke phenomenon who's existence depends on the existence of X, to explain the origination of X. Since X doesn't exist yet when it is about to originate.

Yes, I got your point. Careful with terminology is all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created. Forget that others including me are theists. How would you prove or what could you bring to prove that God, if existing, has to have been created?

No, I conclude using Agrippa's 5 modes, that if you can learn to catch yourself in your thinking, you will realize that there are no strong justified reasoning of what the world really is.

I just need 3 humans and all 3 can be found on this forum.
One: I know that the world is natural.
Two: I know the the world is from God.
Three: I have learned by thinking about what you two do, that I don't need to know what the world is. Thus as I have a life without knowing what the world is, you can live in the world without knowing what the world is. We are in effect playing psychology and how we cope differently. You two cope by believe that you both know, but one of you don't, yet both of you live in the world. So I have learned that I don't need to know. Thus I am a skeptic.

You are as most people influenced in the limited cultural tradition of truth and God taking for granted that we can answer what the world is with truth/God. I just don't believe in that, because I don't need it to live and I am still here after doing that for over 20+ years. And I am not that unique. Others have done this before me, are doing it now and if induction holds, will do it the future.

So as long as you take truth/God for granted regardless of your specific science/philosophy/religion I can do a falsification in effect: I can do it differently and we are both a part of the world, right?
It is that simple. You hold truth/God and I don't, yet I am still here. And that goes for all other humans, who don't hold your truth/God or if you like your correct interpretation of the world.
That has nothing to do with you being what you are individually. It has to do with that you don't need to doubt your beliefs as long as they work in practice for you.
But that also is so for all other humans including me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except to claim that to be "reasonable" the claim must be falsifiable is, itself, unfalsifiable.

Except that that's not really a claim. It's rather a statement "by definition" of the word "reasonable".

The reasonableness of a claim is determined by the amount and quality of evidence in support of it.
The less evidence and the lower the quality of said evidence, the less reasonable a claim is.

Unfalsifiable claims can't have any evidence by definition of it being "unfalsifiable.
So an unfalsifiable claim can't be reasonable by definition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you approach that argument? If the cause to existence has to be a caused cause, not uncaused, what would have caused that? What is your argument?

Causality is a phenomenon that manifests IN the universe. It is dependend on it. It requires a temporal framework to manifest.

You can't use phenomenon that apply IN the universe and invoke them in a setting where the universe doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that that's not really a claim. It's rather a statement "by definition" of the word "reasonable".

The reasonableness of a claim is determined by the amount and quality of evidence in support of it.
The less evidence and the lower the quality of said evidence, the less reasonable a claim is.

Unfalsifiable claims can't have any evidence by definition of it being "unfalsifiable.
So an unfalsifiable claim can't be reasonable by definition.

Unless there is no evidence. The problem is if you assume all evidence must be positive in the end. If you accept falsifiable and falsification as including that there is limited to evidence and the support of that is the lack of evidence.

 

[Altfish]

That is not the cosmological argument. The content of the argument is cosmological, not existential. It states that everything that exists in the cosmos has a cause.

Including god?

 

[samtonga43]

You're not wrong, but the argument shows that if the premise "everything that exists has a cause" is assumed true, then the conclusion must include God.

Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause.