What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[firedragon]

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

I think you should address the OP. Maybe I didnt word the heading lengthily.,

 

[stvdv]

I think you should address the OP. Maybe I didnt word the heading lengthily.,

Thank you for the reply.

Too many difficult words in your OP. And I must admit the title/OP is a bit cryptic for me, but I see many others enjoy torturing their minds on it

To me, God is simple, and I rather keep it that way. I only need 1 eye to 'see', and without mind, to know

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for the reply.

Too many difficult words in your OP. And I must admit the title/OP is a bit cryptic for me, but I see many others enjoy torturing their minds on it

To me, God is simple, and I rather keep it that way. I only need 1 eye to 'see', and without mind, to know

This is not about God being real or not. This is about how to approach a falsification of the Cosmological argument.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

Check out his blog. He covers all these nuances.

 

[stvdv]

This is not about God being real or not. This is about how to approach a falsification of the Cosmological argument.

Yes, that much I did understand. But I am quite sure this is impossible, so I would say "good luck with that", I hope they surprise me

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You appear to be confused about the axial tilt. The axial tilt again is relative. It is relative to our orbit about the Sun. In other words the axial tilt is the tilt between our daily rotation and our annual one. Again, directions are relative and your post does not make any when talking about the tilt of the Earth. Down is a gravitational direction towards the center of the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Those directions are never constant, All you can say that they are away from it on the general solar system rotational plane.

Poorly formed questions can only be answered very generally. They often demonstrate a lack of understanding of the person asking them.

 

[We Never Know]

You appear to be confused about the axial tilt. The axial tilt again is relative. It is relative to our orbit about the Sun. In other words the axial tilt is the tilt between our daily rotation and our annual one. Again, directions are relative and your post does not make any when talking about the tilt of the Earth. Down is a gravitational direction towards the center of the Earth.

Like I said we use the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south.

 

[We Never Know]

Those directions are never constant, All you can say that they are away from it on the general solar system rotational plane.

Poorly formed questions can only be answered very generally. They often demonstrate a lack of understanding of the person asking them.

Its a perfectly formed question that you cannot answer. Your reply often demonstrate a lack of understanding of what direction is.
You are the one that claimed there is direction in space.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that much I did understand. But I am quite sure this is impossible, so I would say "good luck with that", I hope they surprise me

People in this forum always surprise me. let's say you have 3 surprises per year, that is enough. Because each surprise will take so much time to explore. Maybe years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said we use the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south.

Nope. The tilt does not affect the direction for North and South. North and South are based upon daily rotation. The amount of tilt does not enter into those directions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its a perfectly formed question that you cannot answer. Your reply often demonstrate a lack of understanding of what direction is.
You are the one that claimed there is direction in space.

It was only "perfectly formed" if you wanted to demonstrate why the previous argument went over your head. You were answered. Not liking the answer does not mean that it did not occur.

You screwed up, the correct thing to do would have been to admit it a long time ago, not to keep digging.

 

[We Never Know]

Nope. The tilt does not affect the direction for North and South. North and South are based upon daily rotation. The amount of tilt does not enter into those directions.

Whoosh! As I said and well say again, the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south. Using a line straight up and down for north and south, a verticle line, through the center of earth with no degree in tilt, there is land south of the south pole.

 

[We Never Know]

It was only "perfectly formed" if you wanted to demonstrate why the previous argument went over your head. You were answered. Not liking the answer does not mean that it did not occur.

You screwed up, the correct thing to do would have been to admit it a long time ago, not to keep digging.

I'm not wasting time with you. I've seen many times in your opinion you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Does the term narcissist ring a bell with you?
Besides I'm sure you can go on another thread and argue with someone about a God, that seems to be what you try to specialize in.
Good day.

 

[stvdv]

People in this forum always surprise me. let's say you have 3 surprises per year, that is enough. Because each surprise will take so much time to explore. Maybe years.

Very true, I am also an optimist, and for sure, 3 surprises/year sounds very generous to me
I expect in this case the suprise might take 3 years though

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And how am I defying any of them? I might suggest I understand ALL of those more fully and in more detail than you.

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

Can you supply more detail on why you think that?

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.

And that argument is unsound, I think. It is also fundamentally wrong philosophically.

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.

Yes, in particular, I disagree with the position that everything has a cause. And, I think that *is* consistent with the Big Bang and Quantum 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.

There is nothing in relativity that allows for time 'standing still'. Your misunderstanding of time dilation not withstanding.

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.

And, again, how do you imagine I defy it?

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.

Looks like a lot of catch phrases not understood.

 

[Polymath257]

Whoosh! As I said and well say again, the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south. Using a line straight up and down for north and south, a verticle line, through the center of earth with no degree in tilt, there is land south of the south pole.

No, the directions of north and south are *defined* in reference to the rotation, not relative to the orbit around the sun. The x is north of the south pole, not south of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whoosh! As I said and well say again, the poles that are titled at 23.5 degrees for reference of direction of north and south. Using a line straight up and down for north and south, a verticle line, through the center of earth with no degree in tilt, there is land south of the south pole.

Nope, you are using an illustration that you do not understand and assuming that it makes a point. You cannot "whoosh" when you never got the point that you screwed up on in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not wasting time with you. I've seen many times in your opinion you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Does the term narcissist ring a bell with you?
Besides I'm sure you can go on another thread and argue with someone about a God, that seems to be what you try to specialize in.
Good day.

You have it so backwards here. I am willing to admit I am wrong when shown to be wrong. You were shown to be wrong a long time ago and you started a rather silly detour to cover up your error instead of simply admitting your mistake.

 

[firedragon]

And how am I defying any of them? I might suggest I understand ALL of those more fully and in more detail than you.

Well, all due respect to anyone who has such superior knowledge. Good for you. "I understand these things better than you" is a super response. Very good.

Cheers.