What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet the singularity existed before the universe, before natural laws and before time.
And before time, natural laws or the universe existed, for some reason this singularity rapidly heated and expanded.

The singularity would be T = 0. Not "before" that.

 

[Polymath257]

You are good at this, because you are not that dogmatic in how you view your ideas.

I think you will find that most scientists are not dogmatic either. They simply want to understand what is going on. The science we have is the best description so far based on certain rules.

 

[We Never Know]

The singularity would be T = 0. Not "before" that.

The singularity existed before time, before natural laws and before then universe, then it gave birth to all three.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you will find that most scientists are not dogmatic either. They simply want to understand what is going on. The science we have is the best description so far based on certain rules.

Well, it is best description of the objective parts for us all. But subjectively to you that is all you in effect accept as knowledge. Oh, and abstract thinking. We have been here before.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The singularity existed before time, before natural laws and before then universe, then it gave birth to all three.

That is your belief.

 

[We Never Know]

The rule of actual physical things is a man made concept.

Pick up a physical piece of rock and you can show it to me. Now pick up a physical piece of south and show it to me.

 

[Polymath257]

The singularity would be T = 0. Not "before" that.

And the issue is that it may be the case that only t>0 makes sense.

 

[firedragon]

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.

I thought I was responding to someone else.

Anyway, you dont know me brother. As a respectable person you should not be making assessments of a person you never met and say things like I am influenced in some limited cultural tradition etc etc which maybe your personal experience so you think others are like you. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? This is ad hominem, that's what you should know. Obvious fallacy.

This post was not about what someone "needs" which I dont know why several people are bringing up. If you dont wish to engage, and you see no need, that's fine by me mate. Its all good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pick up a physical piece of rock and you can show it to me. Now pick up a physical piece of south and show it to me.

Tell me how you know this rock as know and we are in business. I am a skeptic after all.

 

[We Never Know]

Tell me how you know this rock as know and we are in business. I am a skeptic after all.

Go pick up a rock. You can see it, weigh it, feel it, etc. If its not physical, neither are you.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Fine. Lets say its an excuse. But that's not a good falsification attempt just to say "its an excuse".

So tell me. What is your excuse?

 

[Polymath257]

Pick up a physical piece of rock and you can show it to me. Now pick up a physical piece of south and show it to me.

Pick up a neutrino and show it to me. Or a photon.

 

[We Never Know]

Not completely true, although we are getting to the difference between a coordinate singularity and a geometric one. Geometric singularities are 'not smooth', but are 'cuspy'.

Before North, South, East and West there was that way, this away, over there. Then came up, down, left and right. The came N,S,E, and W.

 

[Polymath257]

Fine. Lets say its an excuse. But that's not a good falsification attempt just to say "its an excuse".

So tell me. What is your excuse?

Yes, it is. It's called special pleading.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I thought I was responding to someone else.

Anyway, you dont know me brother. As a respectable person you should not be making assessments of a person you never met and say things like I am influenced in some limited cultural tradition etc etc which maybe your personal experience so you think others are like you. Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? This is ad hominem, that's what you should know. Obvious fallacy.

This post was not about what someone "needs" which I dont know why several people are bringing up. If you dont wish to engage, and you see no need, that's fine by me mate. Its all good.

Well, there are 2 kinds of ad hominem, you do know that, right?
We are debating everything and how we know that Then how we know, is relevant.
You can't escape logic and epistemology, then moment you start doing logic and epistemology.

You may very well be a professor of sociology, but that is not logic and epistemology as such. So when you go, know and everything, you have left sociology and entered philosophy and skepticism.

 

[We Never Know]

Pick up a neutrino and show it to me. Or a photon.

They can be shown 3 ways. Direct observation, indirect observation or inferred presence and predictions from theory or conjecture.

Do the same for a piece of south.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Go pick up a rock. You can see it, weigh it, feel it, etc. If its not physical, neither are you.

You are assuming you have solved solipsism and the problem off the-thing-in-itself. If you have, then you are the first human to have done so, so please explain. Don't claim, explain.

 

[We Never Know]

You are assuming you have solved solipsism and the problem off the-thing-in-itself. If you have, then you are the first human to have done so, so please explain. Don't claim, explain.

Edit
Go pick up a piece of rock in your left hand and then go pick up a piece of south in your right hand. Compare them and see what you come up with.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

The physicist should perhaps stay in his lane. The "everything has a cause" is not a premise of the argument and is often misunderstood. Dr. Feser explains:

"The stock caricature in question is, of course, the “Everything has a cause, so the universe has a cause” argument. As I’ve pointed out many times (e.g. here and here), no major proponent of the idea of a First Cause ever actually defended this stupid argument. Indeed, all the major proponents of arguments for a First Cause would reject the claim that “everything has a cause,” and on entirely principled rather than ad hoc grounds. Hence the stock retort to this caricature has no force whatsoever against their actual arguments. That stock retort is of course to ask “If everything has a cause, then what caused God?” and then to suggest that if God need not have a cause, then neither need the universe have a cause. Maybe, those who attack this caricature suggest, it is the universe itself (or the event that gave rise to it) that is the first or uncaused cause."

Edward Feser: Clarke on the stock caricature of First Cause arguments

 

[We Never Know]

Before North, South, East and West there was that way, this away, over there. Then came up, down, left and right. The came N,S,E, and W.

Like the ole farmer said, "go up this away until you get to the old oak tree then go left"
Simply put go north to the oak tree then go west.