What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[We Never Know]

Sheesh louise............


I can only repeat myself: there is no "before" T = 0. By definition.
The beginning of the universe = the beginning of time.
There is no "before" time. Just like there is no north of absolute north.


Yes, it's hard to wrap our human head around that one.
Doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense to talk about "before" when there is no timeframe for "before" to exist.

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.
The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago when all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

Without time there could be no heat.

 

[icehorse]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

Could you say more about the specifics of this person's argument? Including any assumptions or axioms?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand that. This post was not meant to make a GOd argument. It was asking how one would go about falsifying the cosmological argument.

There are several ways to do it as it is not an argument, but rather a type.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[PureX]

Something not defined requires no particular beliefs about it.

Nor, of course, does it negate any particular definition, so long as that definition comports with the unknown.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I doubt you can falsify causality. That's the basis of the argument.

I just point the actual nature of this first cause is unknown.
If someone wants to call this first cause God. Ok, but the nature, properties of this first cause remain unknown.

So "God" remains an unknown. Someone then wants to speculate about the properties of this first cause "God", fine but the cosmological argument any of this.

This just makes the word "God" an undefined variable. Something not defined requires no particular beliefs about it.

You can, but it is philosophy and thus a Cluster **** of what assumptions you accept for valid and sound reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its a direction. You can go south of the equator and still go further south.

You missed the point. Can you go south of the South Pole?

 

[firedragon]

Okay, we, know, the world.

You are not a we and neither am I. It appears that you have hidden assumptions about knowledge and the world. To find hidden assumptions is standard in philosophy. If you have hidden assumptions in your claims, then you have hidden assumptions. If you haven't learned to check your own thinking for that, doesn't mean that there are no hidden assumptions. It just means that you are no aware that you use hidden assumptions about knowledge, reason and what not.

That doesn't mean you are wrong, bad or what not. It just means that you haven't learned to find your hidden assumptions. And if you indeed have hidden assumptions in your thinking, then that is positive ad hominem, because you have hidden assumptions. It is about you as having hidden assumptions.

Thanks. But irrelevant mate.

 

[We Never Know]

You missed the point. Can you go south of the South Pole?

South is a direction, not a place.
For example, you leave Washington and all you tell your family is you are going south?. What exact place would they find you at?

 

[firedragon]

Could you say more about the specifics of this person's argument? Including any assumptions or axioms?

I think through this thread many have done that. Anyway, maybe you can google something like the Kalam Cosmological argument and you will find whatever you are looking for. If you want to read a book with a synopsis maybe you could read the encyclopedia of timescience, philosophy, theology and culture.

 

[HonestJoe]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

Why would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

 

[firedragon]

Why would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

I have no clue why. You should do a survey on the forum to get an answer for that I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

South is a direction, not a place.
For example, you leave Washington and all you tell your family is you are going south?. What exact place would they find you at?

Whoosh!!

 

[Altfish]

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?

But I just omit the 'god' step and simplify things.

 

[firedragon]

But I just omit the 'god' step and simplify things.

Cheers.

 

[Polymath257]

I am interested in addressing your causality argument that time is essential for causality. Thus, the universe could not have had a beginning with your argument because there could not be any existence prior to time.

Even more: the phrase 'prior to time' makes no sense at all. The term 'prior' requires time.

Before going any further, could I clarify something from you?

What if your time stands still and you know its possible, can there be causality?

Time isn't something that 'stands still' or not. Causality is always directed into the forward light cone from any event.

Even in quantum mechanics, events outside of each other's light cones are not correlated.

 

[Polymath257]

Its a direction. You can go south of the equator and still go further south.

But you cannot go further south from the south pole.

 

[Polymath257]

Your best honest answer would be "I don't know"
Again if a singularity existed which gave birth to the universe, whether it existed for a billion years or a quadtrillionths of a second, it existed before.

But that is the point. A 'singularity' is a description, not a thing. The singularity did NOT exist before the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

So what is your excuse?

Why do you assume I need one?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks. But irrelevant mate.

Now could you please state your basic understanding and explanation of knowledge, reason, logic, evidence proof, truth and all that, when we do the big game of life, the universe and all the rest.
If you have no hidden assumptions, you can do that. It is that simple, if you have learned it.

 

[Polymath257]

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.
The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago when all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.

Without time there could be no heat.

This is an incorrect description of the Big Bang theory.

The universe was NOT a small ball. It never had infinite density. And the singularity is not a thing.

A better description for the standard BB model:

The universe has existed for 13.8 billion years. Time and the universe are co-existent. The very early universe was very hot and dense, to the point that nuclear reactions happened everywhere. As you go back in time, the temperature increases and the density increases. It is impossible to go back further than a certain time because the density and temperature become unbounded.