What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[We Never Know]

Up is the direction out of a gravity well. We go up from earth and then down to the moon.

There is no direction in space but yet the universe is described as expanding in all directions or not expanding the same in all directions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Technically with earth's axis titled at 23.5 degrees, there is land lower than the south pole. We simply use the poles as the directional points because they are the poles.

Elevation has nothing to do with the poles. Hoo boy! the tilt of the axis does not make anything "lower".

 

[Nakosis]

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

Sure, you can stick anything in there that suits your fancy.
Since there is no info, no testability and the enormity of human ignorance, whatever anyone speculates is likely to be wrong.

My position as an atheist is that I don't feel any motivation to place a bet based on total ignorance.

 

[We Never Know]

Ok, but causality would seem an argument for the existence of a universe/reality independent of the human mind.

I don't really know your view on the existence of a independent universe.

Causality would simply mean there was a cause. If there was a cause that we don't know or can explain yet, many people just insert God. In my opinion that's why causality is frowned upon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no direction in space but yet the universe is described as expanding in all directions or not expanding the same in all directions.

There are directions, you just do not understand the concept. All directions are relative. And since the distances to all distant galaxies are getting larger the further away a galaxy is we can tell that the universe is expanding.

 

[We Never Know]

Elevation has nothing to do with the poles. Hoo boy! the tilt of the axis does not make anything "lower".

If you use a straight line up and down, no degree tilt, technically there is. However like I said we use the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, but causality would seem an argument for the existence of a universe/reality independent of the human mind.

I don't really know your view on the existence of a independent universe.

I believe in a natural universe, but I know nothing of reality independent of my mind, because I know through my mind.

 

[We Never Know]

There are directions, you just do not understand the concept. All directions are relative. And since the distances to all distant galaxies are getting larger the further away a galaxy is we can tell that the universe is expanding.

Lol. What direction is Jupiter from the Sun?
Mars from Saturn?

Of course they universe is expanding and galaxy's are getting further apart. You can use a balloon with dots for that example.

 

[Nakosis]

Causality would simply mean there was a cause. If there was a cause that we don't know or can explain yet, many people just insert God. In my opinion that's why causality is frowned upon.

Someone is frowning on causality? Perhaps as a philosophical argument?
Just about everything in my "world" is dependent on it. Except maybe QM which I have very little understanding of the issue there.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Has anyone brought a reasonable method to do so?
I'm just saying I don't think this is possible.

 

[icehorse]

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.

I'd be happy to discuss this, but only if you clarify the OP.

 

[Quiddity]

And that is correct. A more refined version of the argument limits itself to things that 'come into existence' or are 'contingent'.

The problem is, of course, that the first assumes that time already exists, so the universe does as well (time is part of the universe). The second begs the question of whether non-contingent things exist in the universe (not to mention technical difficulties with the idea of necessary and contingent existence).

These have been addressed. I had to read an entire book to wrap my mind around it, so I'd simply recommend you look up some of Feser's work on this specifically. I'd have to thumb through the physical copy I have at home.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe in a natural universe, but I know nothing of reality independent of my mind, because I know through my mind.

Ok, just checking. Some won't even go that far.

 

[We Never Know]

Someone is frowning on causality? Perhaps as a philosophical argument?
Just about everything in my "world" is dependent on it. Except maybe QM which I have very little understanding of the issue there.

Surely you've seen these arguments....

If the universe came from a singularity, what caused the singularity? Insert "God"

Then it becomes if God created the universe, what created God?

Its gets down to what caused the causer lol

 

[firedragon]

Length contraction and time dilation are only seen in comparing two different reference frames. They are analogous to how the x and y coordinates change upon rotation.

No, time does NOT 'stand still'. There are two aspects of time in relativity: coordinate time and proper time. Coordinate time is associated with some reference frame and all measurements are made in that frame. Proper time is the time experienced *by something*.

In an analogy between geometry and relativity, time and length are like x and y coordinates, different frames correspond to different possible coordinates systems (rotated, translated) and proper time corresponds to the length of a path.

The length is independent of any particular coordinate system: all coordinate systems agree on the length, even if they disagree on the x and y coordinates of any point.

Similarly, time contraction and length contraction are aspects of the Lorentz transformations, which are analogous to rotations. Proper time is like the length of a path through spacetime.

I was only testing your ideas. Not expecting definitions.

Anyway you are making a philosophical claim, and you are making an excuse like you accuse others of.

As you have said above, time is relative, and if theoretically you can arrive at a time freeze. Anyway, you have defied the Big Bang theory, Einsteins theory of relativity, Godels theorem by making absolute statements arbitrarily. Like you accuse others of, others could do the same with you and claim that you are making an excuse.

If this is the approach to falsification of the cosmological argument, it is baseless.

The whole argument of the cosmological argument is that everything that has had a cause has had a cause which requires an uncaused cause to have been the mover. With this argument mixed with your argument that time began existing at a particular time and having cause prior to time is impossible, will only apply if the cause was prior to the Big Bang. But since you dont believe the universe had a beginning, you defy that theory. Nevertheless, Godel showed that in any mathematical system complex enough to include the addition and multiplication of whole numbers, there are propositions which can be stated that we can even see are true but which cannot be proved or disproved mathematically within the system. But maybe you defy that as well. Or maybe you use the incompleteness theorem to defy Einsteins relativity saying "time cannot stand still" even if theoretically it attains C. No one is contending we have observed it nevertheless.

Just to address your time argument, if good enough energy is introduced into a system, localised in a suitably small region, then there is strong possibility that this energy might help create some particle together with its antiparticle, yet that is in concordance to Einsteins equation which also you seem to defy. A lot of these are in extreme conditions and considering 4piGM a hypothesis could be built around a manner of which a time freeze is absolutely possible. When measuring hyperbolic distance, with the speed of light corresponding to infinite angle-degree of the cone in the rapidity which measures hyperbolic space.

Thanks for engaging. Peace.

 

[firedragon]

So what is your point of asking? Why do you assume I have an excuse?

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

Has anyone brought a reasonable method to do so?
I'm just saying I don't think this is possible.

Not yet mate. But you never know. Sometimes even a layman like me on the subject might bring something profound to consider. Sometimes, a person who has expertise in another field might apply what he knows in that irrelevant field, to bring a new concept in another field.

So its worth it.

 

[exchemist]

It requires more in-depth unpacking, the basic structure of the argument is fairly simple but the background metaphysics to understand what is meant by terms and how it meshes together takes quite a bit of work; At least for me, it does. But in its simplest form, the cosmological argument is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause. Which is different than everything has a cause.

Dr. Feser continues:

Lots of people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – think that the cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it. If everything has a cause, then what caused God? Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause? Why assume the cause is God? Etc.

Here’s the funny thing, though. People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from. They never quote anyone defending it. There’s a reason for that. The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. (Your Pastor Bob doesn’t count. I mean no one among prominent philosophers.) And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.

OK, but your quoted passage doesn't address my question. All it does is dismiss the simple idea of first cause, without explaining what the real argument is supposed to be, if it is not that. Can you link a passage that explains what the argument is, instead of what it is not?

But meanwhile, there are contingent occurrences that are uncaused, according to modern physics. The classic example is decay of the nucleus of a radioisotope, causing a γ-ray photon to come into existence. The probability of this taking place within a set period of time is accurately known, but there is no way to determine when it will happen. And when it does, there is apparently nothing to make it happen at that moment. It is just chance. It is apparently an uncaused event.

 

[firedragon]

I'd be happy to discuss this, but only if you clarify the OP.

Nah. Its alright.

 

[stvdv]

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?

What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

Is this not like a "Contradictio in terminis"

God is given the attributes: omniscient, omnipotent and omniscient. Its also said that God is beyond words and can't be put in words, though words are used to describe that which is beyond words. Clearly all this, IMO, indicates that God can in no way be approached using scientific methods

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.