What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry I wrote too briefly. Going back to the metaphor, one would not be really 'looking in the box' if they did not use the full vision ability of eyes (and for eyes that are in good working order of course).

If that were the case, you could use all kinds of objective measurements and tests to objectively demonstrate that said person's eyes aren't working properly. And you'll get consistent results.

I'm not just imagining this possibility out of nothing. Here's why -- It took me about 7 years to make an actual (real) leap of faith.

Honestly, it doesn't matter at all to me how long or short it took.
Faith is not a pathway to truth. There is literally nothing that you could not believe on faith.

Also it's a lot like jumping off a cliff without seeing what's below or such.

Usually not a very smart thing to do.

Maybe I'm slow. I don't think I am slow though.

Personally, I think you are superstitious and being reinforced in that through confirmation bias.
That's what it sounds like anyway.

 

[halbhh]

I don't go to believers for interpretations of their scriptures.

Ironically, some things in the common bible cannot be understood if one simply assumes God does not exist as a starting assumption or even as an underlying unrealzied presumption one is using without awareness. Ergo, without either faith or a genuinely agnostic neutrality that many atheists don't seem to have, one cannot understand the text. Also some sections aren't even understandable with a neutrality I think. I found that from having tried it both ways over years of time.

 

[halbhh]

Usually not a very smart thing to do.

Ah. You may be reasoning in a circular way on that part. Some cliffs are safe to jump off (those with nets just below sight for instance), and some are not. If the text had said "there's no net there" then of course I wouldn't have taken the leap. This metaphor is about how it felt to take a 'leap of faith' -- it feels, on the emotional level, like a risk. In the text, this is actually addressed, if one is listening to the wording well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

some things in the common bible cannot be understood if one simply assumes God does not exist

I disagree. I also am not assuming that what you are calling understanding is that. I gave an argument that believers see scripture through a faith-based confirmation bias, although I didn't use that term, and why I consider unbelievers' opinions to be much closer to what scripture says.

I'm also used to being told why I can't understand scripture as well as a believer in efforts to disqualify my opinions just for being an unbeliever. In fact, I've collected sixty of these responses:

Spoiler: reasons unbelievers can't understand scripture

[1] You took the scripture out of context.

[2] You don't understand literary criticism

[3] It's an allegory, not literal.

[4] It's literal, not an allegory.

[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective

[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars

[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit

[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"

[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.

[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"

[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.

[12] You can't criticize the bible because you don't believe or understand it.

[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?

[14] Scripture always interprets scripture

[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?

[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.

[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture

[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.

[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[21] Stop scripture mining.

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[23] Even Satan can quote scripture.

[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.

[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.

[26] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?

[27] Dont fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.

[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[29] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible

[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.

[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.

[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You're cherry picking scripture.

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.

[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

without either faith or a genuinely agnostic neutrality that many atheists don't seem to have, one cannot understand the text

Most atheists are much better at evaluating any statement impartially than most believers. It's a skill developed when learning critical thinking, one essential to open-mindedness.

Also, being agnostic is not being any more neutral than being atheist. I am both.

 

[halbhh]

Faith is not a pathway to truth. There is literally nothing that you could not believe on faith.

An important question to consider. People of course have all sorts of beliefs, or faith, in things that are not definitely proven yet. It seems to be functional. A experimentalist has faith they might find interesting data, even though it's not yet proven before the experiment. And that experiment might not work well, and they might have to try again. They go on faith, and try.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An important question to consider. People of course have all sorts of beliefs, or faith, in things that are not definitely proven yet.

Hardly anything at all is "definitely proven".
Instead, it's not even merely supported. Not even a little bit. That's why faith is required.

It seems to be functional. A experimentalist has faith they might find interesting data, even though it's not yet proven before the experiment. And that experiment might not work well, and they might have to try again. They go on faith, and try.

You're being very loose there with the word "faith".

An experimentalists knows for a fact that experiments have the potential to yield interesting data. So much so that it is inevitable that at some point they'll get interesting data.

The "faith" (I'ld rather use the word trust here) they have is thus justified by evidence. By the many precedents that experiments can, and eventually will, yield interesting data.

This is very different from religious "faith" in beliefs concerning the supernatural. No precedents there. No knowledge there. No such justification there.

This type of "faith" can be invoked to believe anything.

Tell me, is there anything one could not believe on faith?

 

[halbhh]

An experimentalists knows for a fact that experiments have the potential to yield interesting data.

Bingo! That's a winner. That's what you need to consider as you read any of my posts on this kind of thing, about trying out what Jesus says to do. It's not a 'blind faith' as if there is nothing to go on -- we can consider that even before testing "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" is likely to be a fertile thing to try for possible rewards. (here, Christ used an proactive full form, with the "in everything" also).

Our experience tells us it might work well -- it's a reasonable candidate to try out more extensively.

This is just like how most experimentalists would decide what to look for: what they think could work based on their knowledge and/or experience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bingo! That's a winner. That's what you need to consider as you read any of my posts on this kind of thing, about trying out what Jesus says to do.

That's not the same thing.
As I explain in the rest of the post that you left out of the quote.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bingo! That's a winner. That's what you need to consider as you read any of my posts on this kind of thing, about trying out what Jesus says to do. It's not a 'blind faith' as if there is nothing to go on -- we can consider that even before testing "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you" is likely to be a fertile thing to try for possible rewards. (here, Christ used an proactive full form, with the "in everything" also).

Our experience tells us it might work well -- it's a reasonable candidate to try out more extensively.

This is just like how most experimentalists would decide what to look for: what they think could work based on their knowledge and/or experience.

Okay, I accept your methodology. I get what you are saying and understand how it works.
I did the same as a skeptic, agnostic and atheist. I read the thoughts of other humans, tested them out and they worked.

 

[samtonga43]

Okay, I accept your methodology. I get what you are saying and understand how it works.
I did the same as a skeptic, agnostic and atheist. I read the thoughts of other humans, tested them out and they worked.

Yes, I did the same, and then, after years of atheism, I was drawn to God. I gave in and, in the words of C.S. Lewis, acknowledged that
"God was God, and knelt and prayed"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I did the same, and then, after years of atheism, I was drawn to God. I gave in and, in the words of C.S. Lewis, acknowledged that
"God was God, and knelt and prayed"

Well, I am still an atheist.

 

[samtonga43]

Well, I am still an atheist.

God may still draw you to Him.

 

[halbhh]

That's not the same thing.
As I explain in the rest of the post that you left out of the quote.

I wanted to highlight our total agreement on that key thing.

But, perhaps I should not have quoted only that perfect sentence in highlight anyway.

I meant in the remainder of my post to respond to all parts of your post, after carefully reading every sentence.

I hope that will be more visible now that I've clarified.

If you read the rest of my post, I think you'll see me trying to address all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wanted to highlight our total agreement on that key thing.

And by removing the bulk of my post, you completely misrepresented my post, because we don't agree at all.

But, perhaps I should not have quoted only that perfect sentence in highlight anyway.

I meant in the remainder of my post to respond to all parts of your post, after carefully reading every sentence.

I hope that will be more visible now that I've clarified.

If you read the rest of my post, I think you'll see me trying to address all.

You didn't.

Answer my question: is there anything at all that one couldn't believe "on faith"?

 

[halbhh]

And by removing the bulk of my post, you completely misrepresented my post, because we don't agree at all.


You didn't.

Answer my question: is there anything at all that one couldn't believe "on faith"?

Yes, to paraphrase (maybe better) myself from above, we should reasonably only put 'faith' into what we reasonably think is likely or plausible to work. What could work, seemingly.

Ergo, therefore, things that seem very clearly unlikely can sometimes be avoided. Of course, one wants to attempt to avoid using too many assumptions, or at least allow a way to not be too blinded by inevitable assumptions. If there is a claimed idea that seems out-there, such as that Special Relativity, one would ideally not want to be overly prejudiced or jump to conclusion too fast against it. (there was early criticism of SR: Criticism of the theory of relativity)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, to paraphrase (maybe better) myself from above, we should reasonably only put 'faith' into what we reasonably think is likely or plausible to work. What could work, seemingly.

Why can't you just give a straight answer to the question?

Here it is again: is there anything that one could NOT believe, based on faith?

Ergo, therefore, things that seem very clearly unlikely can sometimes be avoided

You mean like.... walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrecting from the dead,...?

Of course, one wants to attempt to avoid using too many assumptions, or at least allow a way to not be too blinded by inevitable assumptions. If there is a claimed idea that seems out-there, such as that Special Relativity, one would ideally not want to be overly prejudiced or jump to conclusion too fast against it. (there was early criticism of SR: Criticism of the theory of relativity)

You really shouldn't compare religious faith to scientific theories.

They are nothing alike.

 

[halbhh]

Why can't you just give a straight answer to the question?

There's the question!

Because for a scientific attitude, there isn't really a simpler answer. It would be false scientifically to say that only some things are categorically possible (just stuff we know) and nothing else is that we don't specify.... (else all the theorists might as well give up)

We want to look where we might find something, but we want to be careful not to trap ourselves in rigid thinking!

This really comes across strongly if you read enough stuff by physicist theorists. They want to think of new angles. They want to think again, and wonder if they missed something....

Here it is again: is there anything that one could NOT believe, based on faith?

Since you want something really concrete:

I feel quite certain the moon isn't made of blue cheese.

You mean like.... walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrecting from the dead,...?

No, those aren't all good examples of things I think impossible, since they already happen even for just ordinary life. Bugs walk on water, and the dead get resurrected even after hours if they fell into icy water.

So, since those happen even in just ordinary life, asking if they could happen in a more extraordinary way isn't so impossible seeming to me even at first glance. Not likely on their own....but...impossible? No, not to me.

You really shouldn't compare religious faith to scientific theories.

Why would I do that?

It is interesting though to imagine doing that.... Hmmm..... I'll have to think about possible parallels.

Interesting notion.

But, back to the topic:
'Faith' I define is to believe in something without first seeing it. To believe before proof.

Of course, everyone uses some faith in ordinary daily life, even for very unremarkable things, like believing other people will show up at a meeting, or whatever.

 

[samtonga43]

I could not believe that a tiny teapot is orbiting the sun, based on faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's the question!

Because for a scientific attitude, there isn't really a simpler answer. It would be false scientifically to say that only some things are categorically possible (just stuff we know) and nothing else is that we don't specify.... (else all the theorists might as well give up)

We want to look where we might find something, but we want to be careful not to trap ourselves in rigid thinking!

This really comes across strongly if you read enough stuff by physicist theorists. They want to think of new angles. They want to think again, and wonder if they missed something....

This isn't a question about science.
It's a question about faith.

The question is: Is there anything that one could NOT believe merely on faith?

You're dancing all around it. I think I know why though.

It's because you know the answer is "no". One can believe literally anything on faith - including false things. Because "faith" is not a pathway to truth. It's a pathway to gullibility.

Since you want something really concrete:
I feel quite certain the moon isn't made of blue cheese.

Not an answer to the question.

COULD you believe the moon IS made of blue cheese, based on faith?
The answer is "yes".

Because there isn't anything that can't be believed on faith.

No, those aren't all good examples of things I think impossible, since they already happen even for just ordinary life. Bugs walk on water, and the dead get resurrected even after hours if they fell into icy water.

/facepalm

This is what I would call intellectual dishonesty.

Is Jesus a bug?
Was Jesus put in icy water for a few hours instead of being tortured, crucified and stabbed to death only to supposedly resurrect 3 days later?

How about the water to wine thingy?

[quoe]
So, since those happen even in just ordinary life,[/quote]

They don't. Don't be so intellectually dishonest and dodgy.

But, back to the topic:
'Faith' I define is to believe in something without first seeing it. To believe before proof.

Or before evidence whatsoever. Or despite evidence / proof to the contrary.
Yes. Which means the answer to my question is "no, there isn't anything that could NOT be believed on faith".

So on faith, perfectly possible to believe the moon is made out of blue cheese.

Of course, everyone uses some faith in ordinary daily life, even for very unremarkable things, like believing other people will show up at a meeting, or whatever.

That's not a belief without evidence. That's belief based on precedents. Neither is showing up at an appointment anything extra-ordinary.

People show up at meetings all the time. People NOT showing up at meetings is the statistical exception - not the rule.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I could not believe that a tiny teapot is orbiting the sun, based on faith.

Why not?