What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[firedragon]

I see a broad brush building a strawman.

you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see a broad brush building a strawman.

Are you referring to something I said?

If yes, what's the strawman?

 

[samtonga43]

Are you referring to something I said?

It does seem so, since I placed what you said above my response.

If yes, what's the strawman?

This is the statement to which you responded:

• "We don't believe in things that make no sense".

You have not refuted this. Instead you have responded to a statement which (in your head) goes something like...

• "Theists don't believe in things that are illogical. However, we (theists) can see that in religions other than our own there are things that are illogical".

Also, keep in mind that beliefs that make no sense to you, may make sense to others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It does seem so, since I placed what you said above my response.



This is the statement to which you responded:

• "We don't believe in things that make no sense".

You have not refuted this. Instead you have responded to a statement which (in your head) goes something like...

• "Theists don't believe in things that are illogical. However, we (theists) can see that in religions other than our own there are things that are illogical".

Also, keep in mind that beliefs that make no sense to you, may make sense to others.

That's not a strawman. That's a disagreement followed by an observation.
It's a response.

When he said "we", he spoke for all theists.
There are theists on this very forum, who believe all kinds of things that are directly contradicted by the evidence of reality. That, by very definition, is a belief that makes no sense.
Then there are also many, I'ld say ALL, that believe things for which there is NO evidence - which is also not sensible. Because it is exactly supporting evidence that puts the "sensible" in "sensible belief".

Examples of such beliefs are:
- a god / the supernatural exists
- the world is only 6000 years old
- a person that died can bring himself back to life 3 days later
- the biblical flood
- flat earth
- after death, you go to a place of eternal bliss (or torture)
- ...


None of these beliefs are sensible.
All these beliefs are based on faith rather then evidence (or worse: despite evidence of the contrary!). Such beliefs are not sensible.

As for my comment of theists being good at spotting illogical beliefs in others, and not themselves, that's just an observation.

Just the other day, I had a conversation on another forum with a YEC who proudly, and rightfully, said that muslims who believe that mohammed split the moon in two, aren't holding a sensible belief. Yet that person was unable to use the same logic that led him to that conclusion, to his own beliefs concerning a physically impossible boat and a physically impossible flood.



In any case, just as I suspected, you are wrong. I did not at all argue a strawman. I merely responded to what was said.

 

[halbhh]

Sadly, I don't.




Have you read the forums lately?

Also, theists tend to be very good at spotting illogical beliefs in followers of religions that aren't their own.

They don't really tend to excel at recognizing it in their own beliefs.
Obviously, if they would be able to, they wouldn't hold those beliefs, so... yeah.

A blanket characterization is like someone who went to Rio and got mugged, and then makes the error of blaming all Brazilians.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A blanket characterization is like someone who went to Rio and got mugged, and then makes the error of blaming all Brazilians.

Says the guy who just pretended to speak for literally all theists.


Also, your generalized statement made little sense. Which is what I was pointing out.

The one who holds nonsensical beliefs, is not going to think he holds nonsensical beliefs.
The delusional person never thinks he is being delusional. Or he wouldn't be delusional.

 

[halbhh]

Says the guy who just pretended to speak for literally all theists.


Also, your generalized statement made little sense. Which is what I was pointing out.

The one who holds nonsensical beliefs, is not going to think he holds nonsensical beliefs.
The delusional person never thinks he is being delusional. Or he wouldn't be delusional.

Who is it here that is pretending to speak about all theists?....

ah, yourself, it seems.

 

[samtonga43]

The one who holds nonsensical beliefs, is not going to think he holds nonsensical beliefs.
The delusional person never thinks he is being delusional. Or he wouldn't be delusional.

A belief is only nonsensical to someone who does not (yet) understand that which is outside her/his experience.

She/he who believes that theists are delusional, are, in my opinion, mistaken.

Flinging around words like 'delusional' is neither helpful nor mature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who is it here that is pretending to speak about all theists?....

ah, yourself, it seems.

Ah, here you've got a different idea about what faith is than (most or almost all even of) believers. We don't believe in things that make no sense.

Do you think it is sensible to believe in a 6000 year old earth and the physically impossible literal interpretation of the flood?

That right there is believed by more then 70 million people in the US.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A belief is only nonsensical to someone who does not (yet) understand that which is outside her/his experience.

Or when it is based on no evidence whatsoever or even flies in the face of evidence.

Like believing in ghosts, alien abduction, bigfoot, a 6000 year old earth, a flat earth, the supernatural etc.

 

[samtonga43]

Or when it is based on no evidence whatsoever or even flies in the face of evidence.
Like believing in ghosts, alien abduction, bigfoot, a 6000 year old earth, a flat earth, the supernatural etc.

LOL! In my experience it is non-theists who believe in ghosts, alien abduction, bigfoot etc.

 

[samtonga43]

Do you think it is sensible to believe in a 6000 year old earth and the physically impossible literal interpretation of the flood?

This is called 'Begging the Question'.

That right there is believed by more then 70 million people in the US.

Can you show the evidence for this statement?

 

[halbhh]

Do you think it is sensible to believe in a 6000 year old earth...

No. The evidence is strong it's about 4.5bn years old, like our solar system generally, by much of the same evidence (and this isn't a recent theory, but one refined over the years since first estimated in the 1950s).

...and the physically impossible literal interpretation of the flood?

While I have read through the text of Genesis chapters 6-7 with less of an agenda and less of a determination to see theory A or theory B and so on, I don't think it's especially important precisely how large the region of the flood was -- whether just to the local limits of the horizon ('heavens') from the top of the boat by visual sight, or wider, say a large regional flood, or a once in 50,000 year flood etc. As to the local hills even (or their local hills they call "mountains" lacking real mountains locally) -- I think that's mostly beside the point, actually.

The real point of the story isn't merely how wide spread the flood was, or what area of the Earth those writing the text were familiar with and so on -- trivial stuff in the end.

Instead, just like in a new testament parable, the point of the story is in the other deeper aspects. For instance, this story starts at verse 5 in chapter 6, and if a person doesn't really even notice verses 5-11, and the truly surprising parts there, then.... they missed the more profound parts.

Therefore I don't think 'Christians' (or others for that matter) that don't know what is in those verses even know the story, to be honest. I'm used to hearing from people that basically don't even know the story, to be frank.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, that is almost by definition true of all who believe in a creator God, I suspect.

To me, the big unanswered question is where the observed order in nature comes from, i.e. what we call the "laws of physics". These are ultimately responsible for the way the universe has developed, including life on this planet. Science has no view on why they are the way they are: they just "are".

I believe laws are like a plan and that means there is a planner.

 

[Muffled]

Not necessarily.
This is also a deductive argument:

Premise 1: Object is Grey
Premise 2: If something is Grey, then it is a Duck
Conclusion: Therefore, Object is a Duck.

Neither premise is a known fact. In fact "Object" is a variable and Premise 2 is outright false. They are still premises that lead to a conclusion deductively.

I believe I stand corrected you only need true premises if you wish to have a true conclusion. According to RF there is nothing known, so all premises and conclusions are false or rather as RF sees it, indeterminate.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, it is yet not proven that everything has a cause as also its reverse, that somethings may not have a cause - except in the case of virtual particles. That is Quantum Mechanics. What you believe or what I believe does not prove anything.

I believe we like to see cause and effect. join oxygen and Hydrogen and one gets water and the joining is the cause, water is the effect. With God it isn't quite as cut and dried. Say a prayer and it gets answered but not all the time. If it gets answered we can see the effect but our prayer is not the cause but rather God's willingness to answer, is the cause. Otherwise we would get whatever we wanted.

 

[samtonga43]

No. The evidence is strong it's about 4.5bn years old, like our solar system generally, by much of the same evidence (and this isn't a recent theory, but one refined over the years since first estimated in the 1950s)

The real point of the story isn't merely how wide spread the flood was, or what area of the Earth those writing the text were familiar with and so on -- trivial stuff in the end.

Exactly. But some people insist on reading with narrow, literalistic understanding, which means that they miss the important message.

But of course it's easier for them.

 

[halbhh]

Exactly. But some people insist on reading with narrow, literalistic understanding, which means that they miss the important message.

But of course it's easier for them.

Well, I like to think that a great many had no idea there is more to the story, and think it's only about a flood, as in a children's book version or cartoon. So, for many, they didn't skim past the important part, but instead never even looked to begin with, possibly. And for them, to hear there is something deeper would be news. Of those, some portion would have interest to hear more, or curiosity.

 

[samtonga43]

halbhh, before when I was drawn to God I also read without seeing.

Do you think it is the Spirit who helps us to see meaning, rather than just words?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. The evidence is strong it's about 4.5bn years old, like our solar system generally, by much of the same evidence (and this isn't a recent theory, but one refined over the years since first estimated in the 1950s).




While I have read through the text of Genesis chapters 6-7 with less of an agenda and less of a determination to see theory A or theory B and so on, I don't think it's especially important precisely how large the region of the flood was -- whether just to the local limits of the horizon ('heavens') from the top of the boat by visual sight, or wider, say a large regional flood, or a once in 50,000 year flood etc. As to the local hills even (or their local hills they call "mountains" lacking real mountains locally) -- I think that's mostly beside the point, actually.

The real point of the story isn't merely how wide spread the flood was, or what area of the Earth those writing the text were familiar with and so on -- trivial stuff in the end.

Instead, just like in a new testament parable, the point of the story is in the other deeper aspects. For instance, this story starts at verse 5 in chapter 6, and if a person doesn't really even notice verses 5-11, and the truly surprising parts there, then.... they missed the more profound parts.

Therefore I don't think 'Christians' (or others for that matter) that don't know what is in those verses even know the story, to be honest. I'm used to hearing from people that basically don't even know the story, to be frank.

In other words, you just acknowledged the religious beliefs from more then half of american christians (56% of americans) as being nonsensical.

Since you refer to scientific evidence, I'll go ahead and assume you think the same about creationists (ie: evolution deniers in general). This means you think literally hundreds of millions of people hold nonsensical religious beliefs.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

So much for "most, if not all theists only believe things that make sense".

Then to drive the point home...

ALL these people, believe these things on faith.



Here's a question for you, just to get to the core of the issue.

In your own words, what is the exact difference between believing something "on faith" vs believing something "on evidence"?