inductive by nature (same with evolution/big bang). There seems to always be alternatives and underdetermination of evidence on all sides. If faith is suppose to be grounded in at least some form of reason (faith seeks understanding model) how can proper judgments be made over what is more logical. If God is the source what accounts for his existence (what accounts for primeval atoms existence on other side.) what do you think.
2007-07-23 13:34:29 · 8 answers · asked by kevinhoegle 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There's a preponderance of evidence against the existence of god, just as the preponderance of evidence supports speciation via natural selection and a big bang at the beginning of this universe. Reason does not necessarily mean DEDUCTIVE reasoning, it can also include INDUCTIVE reasoning.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that your parents sexual union resulted in your birth, but there are other possibilities, too. Yet I doubt you would doubt the convincing nature of that pile of evidence .
- {♂♂} - {♂♀} - {♀♀} -
2007-07-23 13:38:09 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
1. Concepts are not in and of themselves "unfalsifiable" only statements about concepts can be so predicated. A concept may be incoherent or empty, for example.
2. You seem to be suggesting by the term "unfalsifiable" that there are empirical statement about god which cannot in principle be subject to verification of some sort. That is true; there are an infinite number of them; but that is true of the sun, Jupiter and taxi cabs, which I think is not what you are after.
3. More to the point, god isn't something for which evidence is given: there is no evidence for god since god is not an empirical concept. The point is whether or not the concept of god is empty.
HTH
Charles
2007-07-23 14:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Charles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't prove something does not exist, but you can prove something has no effect. People can always say there is a God, they just will take into account everything and say God did it. What they can't show is that God as they describe plays any part in our lives. They cant show how they can use their belief or faith to make anything real happen. This has been proved time and time again.
No God, No Problem!!!!
2007-07-23 13:41:31 · answer #3 · answered by patrick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. God is an unfalsifiable concept.
But arguments about God will not always be inductive, because definitions of God differ. If God is defined as providence, the sum of all positive properties, the universe, the collective consciousness, etc., then his existence is a foregone conclusion. But arguments for specific divine attributes will probably always be inductive.
2007-07-23 13:40:16 · answer #4 · answered by NONAME 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it particularly is the belief, yet we are assuming that there is not any longer some way unknown to us to scientifically verify the life of a god or gods. in my view i've got not got faith there is, yet i'm merely enjoying devil's recommend. -edit- it particularly is assuming that we are speaking a pair of god or gods in many circumstances. If we are particular a pair of god or god(s) from a particular faith, they could very mostly be falsified. The Abrahamic god could be disproven utilising ordinary good judgment. "A" god continues to be an unknown, gods from widespread religions are conceptually impossible in line with their own scriptures. -edit2- Our ability to falsify something does no longer make certain whether it particularly is falsifiable or no longer. If there is the thank you to do it (whether it particularly is a trend we are no longer conscious of) it particularly is falsifiable. A thought the two is, or it particularly isn't any longer ... it won't be able to strengthen into falsifiable. occasion: String thought is something we are no longer able to falsify immediately, it does no longer mean it particularly is unfalsifiable, merely that we don't comprehend the thank you to do it immediately. IF we ever discover the thank you to do it, it became continually falsifiable, we merely discovered how.
2016-10-09 07:43:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If God is truth, than the rejection of God is the rejection of truth.
This simple statement implies that atheists abound in falsehoods, lies, deceptions, and have the utmost faith in the ramblings of men. This explains a lot, especially why anyone attempts to study and research theoretical concepts (origin of the world/universe, origin of life/species) rather than observable facts (anatomy, biology, paleontology, physiology, etc.), for only the latter can help us better understand the present and immediate future of the world we live in.
2007-07-23 13:43:02 · answer #6 · answered by Holy Holly 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If God created the Heavens first and all the angels of the Heavenly Host of Heaven, there are different levels of angles
and all the earth , all that in is heaven and earth is mans discoveries of what he created
2007-07-23 13:40:47 · answer #7 · answered by Gifted 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it sounds like you are desperately trying to come up with some way to keep logic and reason at bay; you apparently haven't found it yet.
2007-07-23 13:39:12 · answer #8 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋