It's what the very word means.
If you have no model or claim that is falsifiable / verifiable, then data is just data.
Data can only be evidence "for or against" something, if there is a something that is verifiable / falsifiable in the first place.
Data is what established a claim or not. We don't need the existence of God to be established first before data/evidence for God is looked at.
But God claims cannot be tested by making observations so they are not scientific claims anyway
I never made the claim that no gods exist.
I tend to try and stay clear of useless claims.
There is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist either. How much energy do you spend claim no leprechauns exist?
We are discussing the claims of theism. ie "god exists".
"god does not exist" is a separate claim. Nobody is making that claim.
I don't make the claim that God exists. I say that I believe God exists. It is not a scientific claim and cannot be tested.
And the reason is simple: theists, who make the claim that god IS guilty of existing, failed to sufficiently demonstrate their case. In fact, the very framing of their claim (unfalsifiable) makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to sufficiently demonstrate their case.
That unfalsifiability, by itself, is already enough for me to reject it out of hand.
You can reject the claim as being an unscientific claim/hypothesis but you cannot say that therefore the claim is not true.
It is the same with a belief that there is life elsewhere in the universe. It is an unscientific claim/hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable but that by itself does not mean that it is untrue.
Or he may not. How would you know? Again: the undetectable and the non-existent look exactly alike.
That is why the belief in the dragon requires faith.
You want scientific, scientific, scientific but as we have just seen, unscientific claims can be true and require faith to believe.
But of course we aren't talking belief in any old god, we are talking the Bible God and there is evidence for the Bible God, the many old documents of the Bible. The Bible is falsifiable evidence and many have tried to falsify it unsuccessfully. If that evidence is good for me that the Bible God is true then it is good for me. If it is falsified then the Bible God does not exist even if God exists.
And the answer is going to be "no", since the undetectable (= unfalsifiable) can't have any evidence by definition.
The Bible God is undetectable by observation but that does not mean there is no evidence of what He has done. Just like a subatomic particle may be detected, not through direct observation but through seeing what it does.
There isn't. There are only claims and believers of said claims.
Yes and any evidence the believers use is not to your liking but it can still be evidence for the believers even if you do not like it as evidence. It is falsifiable evidence and no doubt it is falsified in your eyes, but not in mine.
BUT you want to claim that it is not even evidence even if you think it has been falsified in your eyes.
So the Bible does cater to your desire for falsifiable evidence.
"hell bent"?
First, that's emotionally laden language that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, plenty of the bible is demonstrably false. It's okay to point that out. Especially when conversing with people who deny that.
Third, you could disprove the bible from a to z and still that wouldn't prove no gods exist.
Gods is a different matter, it cannot be falsified and their existence is not a scientific question.
You could disprove the Bible and you have disproven the Biblical God. Still the attempts to do that by those hell bent on doing it have failed imo and so I still have my faith in the Biblical God.
1. the bible isn't evidence. the bible is a collection of CLAIMS
2. Plenty of claims in the bible are in fact falsifiable yes, because they deal with things in reality, with events in reality. Take a literal reading of adam and eve for example. That makes predictions about the genetic record of humans (it predicts an enormous bottleneck since according to that claim, at one point there were only 2 humans in existence). Or take Noah's flood. That makes predictions about the genetic record of all complex life (mass reduction of populations to only a handful) and also about geology. Those things are testable. And if we don't find such genetic bottlenecks in our sequenced genomes... then those claims are falsified. Meaning that those particular bible stories are incorrect.
Since the predicted bottlenecks do not exist, we know that those stories can not be literally true. So the literal interpretation thereof is demonstrably false.
You have a good point, but I don't give up my faith lightly and so I seek an answer to that attack on the Bible's veracity.
So only those you already believe then?
Only those associated with your religion, which more then likely is just determined by your geographic location and / or culture you happen to be born into?
You completely dodged the point made, btw.
It's okay though. I would do my best to dodge it also if I were in your place with your mindset.
I don't think I dodged anything. Why should I believe all claims? I might believe others that you consider rubbish and unfalsifiable, unscientific even, but so?
And I already explained how claims aren't evidence, like in the previous quote where you dodged the point. Claims require evidence.
To say that the claims are the evidence, is textbook circular reasoning.
The real claim is the existence of the Bible God and the evidence is the testable things that this God is said to have done,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I always think of prophecy, which is testable and passes the test imo even if not in yours.
????
Why would I stay clear of the topic of religion on religiousforums who's whole reason d'être is... discussing religion??????????
This is a new low.
You are seriously confused.
The claim that god, or the supernatural, exists is an unfalsifiable claim. Regardless of who makes it or where it was written down.
That doesn't mean that the book that contains such claims doesn't also make OTHER claims that are in fact falsifiable. Like above, where I gave the example of noah's flood or adam and eve.
Disproving those claims doesn't disprove any unfalsifiable gods or other supernatural stuff.
Instead, it just disproves those claims of the flood and adam and eve. That's it.
It disproves the Bible God for you. I keep my faith and look for answers to your reasons to say it is disproved.
I didn't mention anything specific. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
Your bible claims that "god did that" when it speaks of adam and eve and the flood. Both are disproven by the evidence. The testable predictions don't check out. That falsifies those claims.
And in case of creationism, there in fact is a natural mechanism that explains the origins of species. You might have heard of it.... it's the corner stone theory of modern biology.
The flood imo is not shown to be false.
Evolution only shows that YEC is not true.
No, it isn't. You just think it's "special" because you are a follower.
A muslim consider his islam to be "extra special" also.
Every follower of every religion thinks his religion is "extra special" compare to all others.
From my side of the fence though, that is not at all surprising.
It's just the follower's bias at play.
In reality, it's all the same in principle.
No it's different and that is why skeptics attack the Bible and leave the others alone.
See... this is the problem with unfalsifiable claims.
Yes, if you define your unfalsifiable god as an entity that can do anything while remaining undetected, then sure - he can do anything while remaining undetected.
But then you are back at square one. And unless you acknowledge to holding a double standard, you should believe that I have an undetectable pet dragon.
I did not realise your dragon has evidence for it's existence such as a dragon Bible.
But that is OK, you are allowed to believe in your dragon even with no evidence if you want.
Subduction Zone it seems has one also. Maybe there is more to it than I thought.
