New to the subject. Unfalsifiable God.

[Terrapin Station]

On my view, by the way, God is falsifiable, and it's falsified in many different ways.

One of the main ways it's falsified is that the very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

Another way it's falsified is that all religious claims are so obviously fiction/fantasy that we'd make up, and absurd, often just gobbledygook, as something proposed as factual. It's very similar to ancient mythology in that.

[Terrapin Station]

On my view, I had the advantage of not even being exposed to religious beliefs when I was growing up. My parents are atheists and I didn't have any friends who were religious enough to ever talk about it. So I had almost no idea of the content of religious claims until I was in my mid teens--maybe 15 or 16. And then when I finally heard religious claims, I seriously thought that people must have been playing a practical joke on me. I was like, "You believe what?!? You've got to be kidding me." It was like suddenly learning that someone you knew was the member of a cult that believed that alien dinosaurs were going to teleport to Earth, only they'd arrive in the middle of mountains--nestled in rock, but cult members wearing cellophane underwear and chanting 'Bajooba Plooba Bat' would magically get the alien dinosaurs out of the mountains, so the cult members could be 'saved.'"

In other words, it suddenly dawned on me that a lot of people were pretty insane in some ways, and having the advantage of not having been at all indoctrinated by similar beliefs, it was clear to me just how absurd the beliefs were. So there's never been the slightest chance of me taking any religious claims at all seriously. No more than anyone would take the dinosaur alien claims seriously if they didn't learn about them until they were much older.

[woodbine]

On my view, by the way, God is falsifiable, and it's falsified in many different ways.

One of the main ways it's falsified is that the very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

It is only possibly incoherent in the context of (the local presentation of) the universe. God by our definition is beyond this context.

Another way it's falsified is that all religious claims are so obviously fiction/fantasy that we'd make up, and absurd, often just gobbledygook, as something proposed as factual. It's very similar to ancient mythology in that.

That is not falsification. All the religious claims are consistent with a God (or no God).

Thanks for your help.

[Terrapin Station]

On my view, by the way, God is falsifiable, and it's falsified in many different ways.

One of the main ways it's falsified is that the very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

It is only possibly incoherent in the context of (the local presentation of) the universe.

What does that even mean? "The context of the 'local presentation of the universe'"??

It's incoherent in general.

Another way it's falsified is that all religious claims are so obviously fiction/fantasy that we'd make up, and absurd, often just gobbledygook, as something proposed as factual. It's very similar to ancient mythology in that.

That is not falsification.

[/quote]

Yes it is. It's obviously fiction/fantasy.

[Sy Borg]

Woodbine. Re: your request. You are experiencing no problems at all with your replies. Scott designed to site to minimise trolling, so new members must have their first 20 posts approved by a mod.

However, there are just two of us mods doing regular work here and we tend to spend most of our lives doing other things like work, family, entertainment, domestics, seeing friends, walking the dog, experiencing the outdoors before it goes away, playing and listening to music, writing, listening to people's problems, listening to their criticisms of me, watching TV, reading the news, reading up on topics and the other minutiae of life.

Thus, it can take up to a day or so for posts to be approved.

By the way, can we falsify the fact that there is a huge spirit man named Hot Gary living in the core of the Earth and who controls everything we do? Hot Gary comes to people in visions and dreams, but he likes to call himself names like "God", "Allah" or "Buddha" as a vanity, changing his story to best suit the culture.

No possible evidence can distinguish between Hot Gary's existence or non existence.

Personal experiences are possible evidence.

Personal experiences cannot distinguish between Gary's existence or non existence.

"Possible evidence" would encompass any information received from the senses and I suggest, logic and reason. This seems a non trivial point.

Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, or appeals to logical arguments, there seems nothing evidentiary left.

Am I right to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in Hot Gary?

[Sculptor1]

First ever post.

If we accept that the God hypothesis, (where God is defined nothing more than the prime mover, uncaused cause of the universe) is unfalsifiable then by definition no possible evidence can be used to distinguish between the truth or otherwise of the God hypothesis.

No possible evidence can distinguish between Gods existence or non existence.

Personal experiences are possible evidence.

Personal experiences cannot distinguish between Gods existence or non existence.

"Possible evidence" would encompass any information received from the senses and I suggest, logic and reason. This seems a non trivial point.

Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, or appeals to logical arguments, there seems nothing evidentiary left.

Am I right to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in a God?

Thoughts?

woodbine.

You mean Faith is the death of reason.
Yes.

[woodbine]

Woodbine. Re: your request. You are experiencing no problems at all with your replies. Scott designed to site to minimise trolling, so new members must have their first 20 posts approved by a mod.

However, there are just two of us mods doing regular work here and we tend to spend most of our lives doing other things like work, family, entertainment, domestics, seeing friends, walking the dog, experiencing the outdoors before it goes away, playing and listening to music, writing, listening to people's problems, listening to their criticisms of me, watching TV, reading the news, reading up on topics and the other minutiae of life.

Thus, it can take up to a day or so for posts to be approved.

By the way, can we falsify the fact that there is a huge spirit man named Hot Gary living in the core of the Earth and who controls everything we do? Hot Gary comes to people in visions and dreams, but he likes to call himself names like "God", "Allah" or "Buddha" as a vanity, changing his story to best suit the culture.

No possible evidence can distinguish between Hot Gary's existence or non existence.

Personal experiences are possible evidence.

Personal experiences cannot distinguish between Gary's existence or non existence.

"Possible evidence" would encompass any information received from the senses and I suggest, logic and reason. This seems a non trivial point.

Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, or appeals to logical arguments, there seems nothing evidentiary left.

Am I right to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in Hot Gary?

Hot Gary is in principle falsifiable because it may be possible to investigate the Earths Core.

Thanks for the heads up.

[gad-fly]

First ever post.

If we accept that the God hypothesis, (where God is defined nothing more than the prime mover, uncaused cause of the universe) is unfalsifiable then by definition no possible evidence can be used to distinguish between the truth or otherwise of the God hypothesis.

No possible evidence can distinguish between Gods existence or non existence.

Personal experiences are possible evidence.

Personal experiences cannot distinguish between Gods existence or non existence.

"Possible evidence" would encompass any information received from the senses and I suggest, logic and reason. This seems a non trivial point.

Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, or appeals to logical arguments, there seems nothing evidentiary left.

Am I right to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in a God?

Thoughts?

woodbine.

You said: Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, . . . there seems nothing evidentiary left.

What if there are books . . . experiences? Does it mean there are something left, to indicate that you may not be right to conclude? Or must such experiences be rejected?

[Sy Borg]

Woodbine. Re: your request. You are experiencing no problems at all with your replies. Scott designed to site to minimise trolling, so new members must have their first 20 posts approved by a mod.

However, there are just two of us mods doing regular work here and we tend to spend most of our lives doing other things like work, family, entertainment, domestics, seeing friends, walking the dog, experiencing the outdoors before it goes away, playing and listening to music, writing, listening to people's problems, listening to their criticisms of me, watching TV, reading the news, reading up on topics and the other minutiae of life.

Thus, it can take up to a day or so for posts to be approved.

By the way, can we falsify the fact that there is a huge spirit man named Hot Gary living in the core of the Earth and who controls everything we do? Hot Gary comes to people in visions and dreams, but he likes to call himself names like "God", "Allah" or "Buddha" as a vanity, changing his story to best suit the culture.

No possible evidence can distinguish between Hot Gary's existence or non existence.

Personal experiences are possible evidence.

Personal experiences cannot distinguish between Gary's existence or non existence.

"Possible evidence" would encompass any information received from the senses and I suggest, logic and reason. This seems a non trivial point.

Without books or testimonies or personal experiences, or appeals to logical arguments, there seems nothing evidentiary left.

Am I right to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to believe in Hot Gary?

Hot Gary is in principle falsifiable because it may be possible to investigate the Earths Core.

Thanks for the heads up.

But what are you looking for? Hot Gary, like all Gods, is ethereal, a spirit, unable to be measured by the unsubtle instruments of science. An deity-detecting instrument that could detect Hot Gary could uncover any other possible deities, including the Deity Formerly Known as Yahweh.

Can you dispute that Hot Gary is essential for our existence - along with, of course, Boiling Ethel - whose star provides Gary's plate with warmth from the outside?

[woodbine]

Hot Gary is in principle falsifiable because it may be possible to investigate the Earths Core.

Thanks for the heads up.

But what are you looking for? Hot Gary, like all Gods, is ethereal, a spirit, unable to be measured by the unsubtle instruments of science. An deity-detecting instrument that could detect Hot Gary could uncover any other possible deities, including the Deity Formerly Known as Yahweh.

Can you dispute that Hot Gary is essential for our existence - along with, of course, Boiling Ethel - whose star provides Gary's plate with warmth from the outside?

Hi Ethel. ... That "Gary" is unfalsifiable therefore, all possible evidence will be consistent with the Gary Hypothesis. So asserting that any particular piece of evidence is consistent with the Gary Hypothesis is an unremarkable claim.

Without evidence of Gary's existence or non existence and given Gary's lack of explanatory power, Gary is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

[Pantagruel]

I think this thread is labouring under a massive misconception about the nature and meaning of "unfalsifiability", especially with respect to evidence. I suggest you read, carefully, this excerpt from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which pretty much sums up where these misconceptions are occurring:

Popper does not hold that non-scientific claims are meaningless. Instead, he argues that such unfalsifiable claims can often serve important roles in both scientific and philosophical contexts, even if we are incapable of ascertaining their truth or falsity. Second, while Popper is a realist who holds that scientific theories aim at the truth (see Section 4), he does not think that empirical evidence can ever provide us grounds for believing that a theory is either true or likely to be true. In this sense, Popper is a fallibilist who holds that while the particular unfalsified theory we have adopted might be true, we could never know this to be the case. For these same reasons, Popper holds that it is impossible to provide justification for one’s belief that a particular scientific theory is true.

[Sy Borg]

But what are you looking for? Hot Gary, like all Gods, is ethereal, a spirit, unable to be measured by the unsubtle instruments of science. An deity-detecting instrument that could detect Hot Gary could uncover any other possible deities, including the Deity Formerly Known as Yahweh.

Can you dispute that Hot Gary is essential for our existence - along with, of course, Boiling Ethel - whose star provides Gary's plate with warmth from the outside?

Hi Ethel. ... That "Gary" is unfalsifiable therefore, all possible evidence will be consistent with the Gary Hypothesis. So asserting that any particular piece of evidence is consistent with the Gary Hypothesis is an unremarkable claim.

Without evidence of Gary's existence or non existence and given Gary's lack of explanatory power, Gary is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

But Hot Gary produces a powerful invisible shield around the Earth that protects us from the Sun's radiation. His heat and power makes plate tectonics and vulcanism possible, without which we would not be alive.

[woodbine]

Hi Ethel. ... That "Gary" is unfalsifiable therefore, all possible evidence will be consistent with the Gary Hypothesis. So asserting that any particular piece of evidence is consistent with the Gary Hypothesis is an unremarkable claim.

Without evidence of Gary's existence or non existence and given Gary's lack of explanatory power, Gary is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

But Hot Gary produces a powerful invisible shield around the Earth that protects us from the Sun's radiation. His heat and power makes plate tectonics and vulcanism possible, without which we would not be alive.

Gary is unfalsifiable so we have no way of verifying your claims, therefore the default position is to suspend belief pending confirmatory evidence.

[woodbine]

I think this thread is labouring under a massive misconception about the nature and meaning of "unfalsifiability", especially with respect to evidence. I suggest you read, carefully, this excerpt from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which pretty much sums up where these misconceptions are occurring:

Popper does not hold that non-scientific claims are meaningless. Instead, he argues that such unfalsifiable claims can often serve important roles in both scientific and philosophical contexts, even if we are incapable of ascertaining their truth or falsity. Second, while Popper is a realist who holds that scientific theories aim at the truth (see Section 4), he does not think that empirical evidence can ever provide us grounds for believing that a theory is either true or likely to be true. In this sense, Popper is a fallibilist who holds that while the particular unfalsified theory we have adopted might be true, we could never know this to be the case. For these same reasons, Popper holds that it is impossible to provide justification for one’s belief that a particular scientific theory is true.

You are right, we have not defined unfalsifiable. What I mean by unfalsifiable is that no logically possible evidence, real or imaginary, could be demonstrated to be inconsistent with the hypothesis.

The Alien Civilisation hypothesis says that the universe was initiated by a super intelligent alien civilisation from another universe. The God hypothesis says that an uncaused cause we call God from outside the universe, initiated the universe.

There is no possible evidence in or of the universe that could distinguish between the "God" and "no God" and "Alien Civilisation" and "no Alien Civilisation" hypotheses. All are unfalsifiable.

[Sy Borg]

But Hot Gary produces a powerful invisible shield around the Earth that protects us from the Sun's radiation. His heat and power makes plate tectonics and vulcanism possible, without which we would not be alive.

Gary is unfalsifiable so we have no way of verifying your claims, therefore the default position is to suspend belief pending confirmatory evidence.

No, Hot Gary is definitely there in the centre of the Earth. After all, we know about the shield around us that he created that protects the Earth from the Boiling Ethel's violent outbursts. We know that his heat drives plate tectonics and vulcanism.

Just as we know that God Jones-Smythe is whatever in the universe that people want him to be. God is love. God is life. God is our sense of being. God is goodness. God is beauty. God is truth. God is justice. God is a trinity. Kanye West reckons that God simply is. God is within. Which is it?

Compared with what appears to be blanket coverage (just in case a few claims don't work out) Hot Gary's claims are far more modest and credible. He only does a few things, but they are incredibly influential. In fact, according to brainwave tests, humans can sense Hot Gary's field, but only those who are in touch with "the Essential Gary" will appreciate that they are sensing his field.