Is god falsifiable?

Question

Is it possible to dream up any observation... ANYTHING that you can make up which, if true, would DISprove god's existance?

It would have to be something where I couldn't come up with an explanation for after the fact which would make it possible that god still exists.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.





If you cannot falsify something, then you cannot claim under the rules of logic to have evidence consistent with that something. (all observations would carrry zero weight in verifying the assertion)
Karl Popper wrote extensively about how if hypothetical evidence against something cannot exist, then logically neither can evidence FOR that thing exist.

.
.

What does this prove?
Nothing.

It proves that neither atheists* nor theists can claim to have evidence to support the existance or non-existance of god.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either very uninformed or lying.
.
.

(*the atheistic position is however bolstered by the principle of parsimony, but that's for another time)

But Will, that's a cop-out because I don't know anyone unwilling to take the existance of the universe as a given.

it, too, is backed by the principle of parsimony, and "god" is not. Actually "god" is the most eggregious example of a lack of parsimony in a position.

As the board's self-appointed lecturer in logic, you should know that.
*snicker*

egypt, each of those things you listed are things that are falsifiable.


do I need to dumb this down some more for you?

Nikki has a cute ad hominem attack, but I would be interested in where she can quote me as saying that science will tell us everything...
and more interested in where she got the impression that that is what the topic was about.

another one I need to dumb things down for apparently.

I apologize to KAEOS (however it's spelled) you're right, I should have said "god(s)"
my bad

stronzo, you're way off on this one.

the sun coming up in the morning is one of the MOST falsifiable observations in the history of mankind.


your position involves the merit of induction versus deducation, and is not relevant to this issue.

and then Me Too! (the known liar) adds his two uninformed cents in.

run along, Me Too!... don't you have to embarass the theists by your dumb comments some more?

Answer 1

It's true that one can't 'prove' a negative. I think that in balance, the evidence weighs in most heavily on the side of naturalistic explanations. However, I think that that Creationists have introduced a fatal flaw in their 'Intelligent Design' arguments, by asserting that the 'complexity' of creation demands a 'creator'.

The main argument for a creator seems to be 'complexity'; i.e., something as complex as the universe and the earth and life must have a creator... it is the only thing that makes sense. But, if you think about it (Christians are not renowned for their critical thinking ability), it makes no sense at all.

The argument implies that a complex creation requires that the creator must be more complex than the creation... otherwise, the creator would have been unable to create it. But IF complexity requires a more complex creator, THEN the fact of the creator's complexity means that it must also have been created. Remember, according to this argument, complexity cannot arise by itself. That being the case, then, we end up with an infinite regression... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... creation... creator... etc... ad infinitum... ad nauseum.

That, of course, is impossible... and thus, so is the concept of a creator... IF the argument for a creator is predicated on 'complexity'.

The simple observable fact, though, is that complexity arises from simplicity, in accordance with elementary natural rules.

Interested parties should look up "self-organizing complex systems".

Answer 2

Critical falsification as a method of disproving the existence of God...that's stretching it quite a bit.

Let's take this tack...if the sun rising in the morning is an actual fact, we must falsify it in order to verify it. According to critical falsification, there is no evidence that the sun will rise in the morning.

And observation is the crux of scientific method, so by removing it from the mix, you can't be proven wrong, which you fear greatly judging from the hyperbole that you engage in when someone disagrees with you.

I'm still convinced that God is real, and that His mercies are anew every morning...about the same time that the sun rises, if I remember.

PS. Yes, Popper forwarded his theory as empirical falsification, but your misapplied version is truly critical falsification.

Answer 3

I agree, and even though that technically makes me agnostic, I'm also *still* an atheist. I don't see a need to disprove every single crazy idea to know it isn't true. Since there's an infinite amount of ideas out there, I would have to spend every waking moment trying to disprove them, which is, of course, impossible when "believers" are free to just change the rules any time they wish. That is not a sane way to live. I don't have have to comb every inch of space for government thought-stealing satellites before I decide to take off my tin-foil hat, just as I don't have to be omniscient, or die, to know that god doesn't exist.

Answer 4

Sure is. My conceptions of reality are always in question. What I may think is a heartfelt attempt to understand God may be at times insincere and full of personal desires blinding me so badly that what I think is reality is not at all anything like what I thought. Most of the time I am probably projecting my own desires onto the scene and using God as the way to express this. And this can be so misleading that I can spend my whole life thinking one thing while reality is another. So welcome always are all forms of criticism. Together we can work it out.

Answer 5

Okay so you are trying to explain the difference between belief and something that can be supported with verifiable evidence. I have to come to the logical conclusion you were not asking a question but daring people to question your logic which, by the way, is good. I could argue that atheistic position is no more supported by the principle of parsimony than a sound theist position but other than that I agree with you.

Answer 6

You say why?
Not leave the world like it is?
Let people die and people live?
Why not just keep each to his own?
You say why?
Why have such a narrow mind?
Be so obsessed with the divine?
Be so concern about our souls?
Why worry at all?

Well you might say
It’s a “new age”
But i don’t think so
Just the same old lies
The truth
Cannot be denied
Even if you try

When you say we’re all off the wall
When you say you can’t hear him call
When you say you don’t care at all
Well i don’t believe you

When you say there are many roads
When you say that anything goes
When you say there’s no way to know
Well i don’t believe you
When you say you’re fine on your own
Well i don’t believe you…why?

I say why?
Why you’re so sensitive?
When i talk about who jesus is ?
If you think the bible’s just a fable
I say why?
Why not take a longer look?
& see the beating he took just
Try and save your own self if you’re able
Ask your lucky star

You may say
Everything’s ok
My karma’s good
My fortune teller’s right
The peace you have visualized
Is passing you right by

Yes do you do you do
You need the love of jesus christ
He’s the only one who can send you
Home with a better prize
When he hung, there on the cross
A rebel with a cause
Against all the forces of evil
If only you’d believe him now
I say why?

Love came down to suffer on the mount
But all of this won’t matter
If you just don’t care…
Don’t shut the door
(well if you just don’t care)

Chorus

When you say you’re fine on your own
When you say we’ll come back around
Well i don’t believe you…why?
Why?

Answer 7

I agree that non-theists can't prove their point.....but I don't believe that theists can't.......for just one second, hold the Bible on the same level as any other historical book..... do you believe that George Washington was the first president of the U.S.? if your answer is 'yes' (which i'm assuming it is), then why do you believe that? you believe it because you read it......someone wrote it down and it has been passed down and assumed to be true......we don't have without a shadow of a doubt evidence....you didn't live during his time....people could have staged the whole thing for all you know.....well, no matter what anyone says, you will continue to believe that fact..... Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492? how do you know? because it was written down......and has simply become a common belief....well, if we can believe those historical things are true without shadow of a doubt evidence, then why is it so hard to believe the Bible.....I think that the Bible is judged on it's own scale, and that's not fair.....it must be compared equally with other documents......no matter that the Bible is religious

Answer 8

Is the existence of the universe itself falsifiable?

If the universe doesn't exist, how can we be here asking the question?

But if the universe's existence isn't falsifiable, "then you cannot claim under the rules of logic to have evidence consistent with" the universe's existence.

Answer 9

Gosh...

This yahoo-section is so monotheistic...

Well, remember there are polytheistic religions.

Instead of "God", say "deities", "gods" - or whatever.

Monotheists trying to explain the whole world...

Answer 10

This is getting exausting - there is no proof for a god(s).

Other than FSM! RAMEN