PHILOSOPHY IS KING

quote:

---

Why are theological arguments not eligible for falsification ?

---

This is a very interesting question that I would like to take a stab at, if I may.Theological arguments are not eligible for falsification for two reasons. The first is that God himself is generally regarded as too mysterious to understand. We cannot fully comprehend His motives or His methods. Without being able to comprehend why He does what He does or even how He does what He does, we cannot even approach a meaningful understanding of Him. Without this understanding, falsification is not an option.You have to admit that God is outside the realm of most human experiences. Even according to Dr. Scott, God’s works can only be seen as his works by those who believe in him. Any argument you use to show how He exists can only be understood by those who already believe in Him. For something to be falsifiable, it has to be able to be falsified by anybody without assuming anything on faith.The second reason theological arguments are not falsifiable lies within theological language. The words that theologians use are generally meaningless. For example, God is usually said to love us. I can say that I love people in my life, and not only would I not inflict pain and suffering on them, I would not knowingly allow pain and suffering to be inflicted upon them. God, however, does exactly that. The answer to this argument usually boils down to something like well, God’s love is unique to God, and our love is primitive in comparison. Even assuming this is true, we must admit that this God love is never defined meaningfully in terms of any human experience by which we might analogously understand it.For another example, I would give the word omnipotent. Omnipotence is usually defined as unlimited power, but God clearly does not possess this. Can God create a stone so large that he cannot lift it? This is a logical paradox that is obviously irresolvable. Since it seems that even God must work within the bounds of logic, there is a limit on his power, and cannot justifiably be called omnipotent. Of course, this is assuming that God must work within the bonds of logic. If he is not so constrained, we are even less likely to be able to define him or anything about him in any meaningful way.Most of what I have written is an attempt to show that theological arguments are not even meaningful, let alone falsifiable. This is not to say that God does not exist, or that what anyone thinks about Him is wrong, or anything else that could be perceived to be an attack on anyone’s beliefs.

I know that there is more response coming, but I will respond to what you have so far.I reread my post and I think I may not have been clear in my point. It was not that most people do not believe or even that most people cannot believe, it was that not all people are capable of seeing God’s works as God’s works. For something to be falsifiable, it must first be able to be verified by anyone, not just those with a special sense. Not that I am saying that a God sense is special in that it is unique to a few people, but special in that not everyone has it.As to God sense, you might consider reading the works of William James in this matter. In his Variety of Religious Experience, James writes that religious experience (he uses mystical experience and religious experience synonymously) is ineffable:

quote:

---

The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality of worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one‘s self to understand a lover‘s state of mind. (Variety of Religious Experience, 1902, taken from Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, page 94)

---

Assuming God sense to exist, James takes another view of it. According to him, either people have it, or they don’t. Only between people who have this sense is there any chance of a meaningful discussion, and only then if this God sense is universal. However, to utilize his musical ear analogy, some people like classical music, some people like rock. While they agree in that they like music, they cannot meaningfully discuss it even among themselves. To carry this analogy further, even among people who like rock, you get some people who have one favorite band, and some people who have another. Among the people who agree on a band, some people have one favorite song, others have another favorite song. I can carry this analogy further, but I do not think it is necessary.I would submit that God sense is similarly defined on a uniquely personal level, simply because there is no more than a very basic level of agreement between religious experiences. You can find two people who have God sense easily enough, but two people with the same God sense is impossible.One more problem though. One must also realize that even if one were to find two people who completely agree on everything musical, even they would not be able to tell you why they like what they like. This is because of the inexplicable nature of what makes a person like a certain type of music. Even if one were to find these two people (if two such people exist), they would not be able to have a meaningful discussion. Similarly, even if one were to find two people with the same God sense, God is still too incomprehensible to them to discuss meaningfully.

Sorry for the double post, but I should also mention that there is another way in which theological arguments are not falsifiable. Consider this situation: lets say that I come to you and say that I have falsified God. Because if God is falsified, then your God sense is nothing more than a personal bias in favor of God. Thus you would probably either reject the findings out of hand, or look at it and not agree with them, regardless of whether or not they actually falsify God.Remember the Galileo fiasco. Copernicus disproved the biblically supported notion that the sun revolved around the Earth, and Galileo confirmed his findings. For all intents and purposes, this disproved a section of the Bible, but it did not even come close to falsifying God. People just reinterpreted the relevant texts and continued belief. Because these texts can be (and are) reinterpreted when new evidence conflicts with them, they cannot be falsified. There is nothing that we can observe in nature, no logical syllogisms, no evidence at all that would be immune to reinterpretation. A current biblical interpretation may be falsified, but the Bible itself cannot be.If you disagree, come up with a few bits of possible evidence that could falsify God. Please only include evidence that the living can falsify. I submit to you that no evidence would be enough to overcome reinterpretation.(edited to fix run-on sentence)[This message has been edited by Cynic1, 04-16-2004]

quote:

---

Falsification of claims ?

​

Dr. Scott himself declares that IF anyone can prove that even ONE Biblical prophecy has failed to come to pass then he has better things to do than waste his time with a God that will not back His word. Dr. Scott is the ultimate source to see the performance of God in making His word come to pass. Dr. Scott uses all of his talent to "falsify" the claims of scripture for the exact purpose of testing their veracity.

---

So when is the next biblical prophecy due to come to pass? The only reason I ask is because without a general time frame, one could always say the prophecy hasn’t happened yet. Also, what is prophesied to happen? The only reason I ask is because most of the prophesies I have heard being fulfilled have been interpreted as fulfilled after the fact. If all prophecies have already been interpreted as fulfilled, it is no longer falsifiable by us.Well lets falsify the Bible together then. Just tell me when the next prophecy is due to come true, and what is prophesied. We’ll know if the Bible is true based on what happens after the prophecy is supposed to be fulfilled.

quote:

---

I believe this belief that arrogantly and ignorantly dismisses an entire dimension of truth as meaningless comes from Immanuel Kant.

​

If you, cannot understand, theology, which is a word derived from the greek "theos" meaning God, then you reveal how utterly God senseless
you are.

---

Thanks for the definition, I must have missed that in freshman philosophy. It is all so clear now.By the way, I am not an atheist and have never rejected God. If I have no God sense, then I lack it in such a way as to prove Dr. Scott wrong.

quote:

---

Then you refer to the infamous oxymoron; can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it.

​

Yes He can but God would not be so stupid to do such a thing. The entire question is framed to conclude only one answer.

---

So God is not even limited by logic? How can we falsify a being that we cannot remotely understand? If God can exist in literally any condition, then there is no condition by which we can falsify him. Even if we come up with failed prophecies, one can just explain that God decided not to have them come true.

quote:

---

God is omnipotent with one exception: He cannot create the one thing He does not know : If free will mankind will use their freedom to do otherwise and choose to trust Him by faith.

---

One cannot be omnipotent with an exception. If there is exception, he is not omnipotent. Thanks for showing the indefinable nature of theology terms. God is omnipotent in his own special way. Not the way that the word actually means, omnipotent in everything unless humans interfere.Care to justify the words "love" and "benevolence" when applied to God? Right now we have an omnipotent and omniscient God who is neither all powerful nor all knowing. We have a benevolent God who loves us, but not benevolence or love as we understand them. All of this comes down to the mystery of God who we can't understand anyway.

quote:

---

You go on to say that persons with God sense cannot between themselves have meaningful discussion about God - as the British are so fond of saying - absolute rubbish.

---

Incidentally, I was trying to make the point that no two people are likely to have the same God sense. Without the same God sense, no discussion is possible. Bach and Cobain probably have nothing to say to one another in the afterlife Both had a musical ear, just not the same ear. Similarly, two people can have a God sense, but not the same sense of Him.Maybe the problem is that I do not care for Dr. Scott's definition of God sense, and prefer James's. If this is so, I propose that we agree to disagree and leave God sense out of further discussions.

quote:

---

The Bible cannot be proved to be false, this is why powers that be invented the "invulnerable" argument, as if invulnerability is somehow a negative thing (which they intend it to be).

---

AAAAAAARGH! Why are we arguing if you agree that the Bible cannot be proved false? If it cannot be proved false then it cannot be falsified, thats what the word means.That popping sound is my head exploding.

quote:

---

Falsification According to Willowtree : The best way to test any given theory is to try and prove it wrong/incorrect. If the falsification attempts fail/unsuccessful THEN, in this context, the theory has survived/passed ?

---

This is true enough, but I would stress that if falsification fails, the theory lives until it is falsified.

quote:

---

Then this sound and reasonable scientific strategy cannot be applied to theologically-based claims, because, in essence, nobody has figured out a way to test and falsify the invisible and elusive Divine.

---

Exactly. I should have read more closely earlier, I apologize. However, this seems to say that theologically based claims cannot be falsified, but I will read on.

quote:

---

In other words: The Divine/theology is subordinate to science. If you want to be included - fine. Submit your claims to our methods of discovery, if not, you and your God fails our (rigged) litmus test. Believe what you want but we can't be bothered with claims that reside outside what we are pre-programmed to consider. A closed system existing under the appearance of openess and neutrality.

---

Not subordinate, seperate. Believe what you want, just don't expect science to agree. Really though, God doesn't fail the litmus test, he just doesn't show up. Maybe he exists and maybe he doesn't, science doesn't care.

quote:

---

According to theology; science is a subordinate pathway to truth, a secondary back-up, a mirror to deduce the invisible God.

---

Theology can think whatever it wants. The fact is that science is not useful for proving or disproving God, but it does give us lots of neat technology. Again, theology and science are not complimentary in any way.

quote:

---

I have a claim(s) (Romans verses) and I have supported the claim with evidence (persons who cannot deduce intelligent design). This evidence, which supports the claim, ALSO becomes evidence supporting the three assumptions.

---

The "evidence" of people not being able to deduce intelligent design also fits another model, the model of "there is no intelligent design." Thus you need more evidence. The evidence you have does not favor one model over another. It only favors one model over another when you have assumed claims that bias you. Drop assumptions and become impartial.

quote:

---

I have provided one block of verses that make two distinct claims: God can be deduced from what is seen/failure to see/deduce God is a punishment for premeditated rejection. Western society and their controlling segments (Scientism, Law, Higher Education, Media) are hostile/reject the God of the Bible, which is explained by the block of verses.

---

That's one interpretation of the evidence.

quote:

---

Yet I have only evidenced one block of verses; times this by 10 or 20 or 100 separate claims, then you know why I believe the Bible to be the eternal word of God. This is why there are so many "scholars" out there to destroy the claims of the Bible - they know the claims and what it means if the Bible is confirmed true.

---

Well, lets go through the claims then. I have already shown that the one you gave fits more than one model, lets see if the others do too.

quote:

---

I have confirmed my claim of God sense removal via the intelligent massses who cannot deduce an Intelligent Designer, of course, these persons unanamously would say the reason to be something else.

---

You really haven't confirmed anything. At least, not in this thread.

quote:

---

Dr. Scott himself declares that IF anyone can prove that even ONE Biblical prophecy has failed to come to pass then he has better things to do than waste his time with a God that will not back His word. Dr. Scott is the ultimate source to see the performance of God in making His word come to pass. Dr. Scott uses all of his talent to "falsify" the claims of scripture for the exact purpose of testing their veracity.

---

Except that prophecies can be interpreted to come true quite easily. Also, since no time frame is given, one can just say that the prophecies haven't come true yet.As for the Behe stuff, I don't really know enough to respond. From what I have read, it sounds like the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity, but I can't say for sure.

An invulnerable position is not necessarily a good thing to have. It is the very vulnerability of scientific theories that makes their verification possible. If there are no conditions under which a given statement is false, that doesn't make the statement true, it makes the statement unverifiable. Moreover, it makes every statement unverifiable that you base the on the unverifiable original statement. That is really the problem with your assumptions: they are unverifiable, so every statement that you base on those assumptions is also unverifiable.I apologize if I came across as saying that an assumption is a bias that leads to error because that was not my intent. What I was saying was that the assumption makes every statement you base on it unverifiable, not true or false. The bias I spoke of was just to say that it makes you lean to one side or the other on claims that are unverifiable, but not right or wrong on those claims.I must stress that when I say unverifiable, I am not really saying that the statement is neither true nor false, it is just that we cannot know if the statement is true or false. For example, I say that I am wearing a hat, and I ask you to verify this. From where you are sitting, the statement that I am wearing a hat is unverifiable. There is a right answer, it is just that you cannot know what it is. Now if you have an assumption that I seem like a person who would wear a hat, that would bias you to a "yes" answer. That bias isn't wrong, just that it has no real bearing on the truth. That was what I was trying to get at earlier.I would submit that your claims are not verified and confirmed because of the unverifiable assumptions that they must be based on. Again, it is not that they are false, just that we can't judge their validity.Now there is the "God sense" issue. I disagree with Dr. Scott on the nature of the sense of God, and also I see that it may not even exist. That may be for another topic, however, as I have a few views on the matter. Assuming God exists, and assuming God sense to exist, there may be those who can verify God, but because the assumptions are unverifiable, it is impossible to say.Well, I did my best to put my thoughts on the matter in one post. Of course there are my other posts about theological discussions being flawed because of the ineffability of God and the failures of theological language, but I have too many thoughts on the matter to put it all in one post. Thankfully, that is a slightly different topic, so perhaps they will not come up again. I can't promise that all of my relevant thoughts on this topic are in this post, but for the moment, they are. I also want to thank you for the kind words, and know that I am enjoying this discussion as well.As a side note, I just noticed that you are from Long Beach. I'm from Torrance, so howdy neighbor! I'm a student too, so it really is a small world.

quote:

---

Invulnerable and theological (claims) is a compliment to the dimension of truth despite the negative emotive meaning attached.

---

This is, unfortunately, unverifiable. It may be as you say, but say two religions offer two equally invulnerable, yet equally contradictory statements. Without being able to verify these statements, which do we use?

quote:

---

This sentence was offered in the context of theological claims, which you remain unflexible in regards to their confirmation. No problem, but I will reiterate that I did explain how theological declarations are confirmed/verified.

---

I maintain that I did not mean to imply that the bias leads to error.

quote:

---

Yes we can. If the Bible declares x and there is evidence for x outside the pages of scripture then the statement can be known to be true.

---

Probably, it kind of depends on the evidence. For the most part I would say that you are right, provided you did not say that the Biblical statements "w," "y," and "z" are also true because "x" is true. Empirical statements the Bible makes can be verified, non-empirical statements really can't. That some empirical statements can be verified does not mean that the whole book or any of the metaphysical concepts are true. Sections of other religious materials and myths have been proved true, but that does not mean that the metaphysical element to them is true.

quote:

---

If a claim of scripture is evidenced to be true THEN this evidenced claim ALSO evidences the assumption under which it was offered. (God exists/Bible contains/is His word) The more claims that are discovered to be true the more the assumptions are evidenced to be true.

---

Well, a statement being proved true does help prove an assumption true. However, it is circular when the assumption has to be true in order to evidence the statement that proves the assumption. If the assumption does not have to be true for the evidence to make the statement true, then and only then the assumption is evidenced.

quote:

---

Notice how many EvC members have an icon/picture under their name that depicts some type of animal ? Thats their god and the object of their focus and valid evidence demonstrating the above declaration/claim.

---

I think that may be attaching too much significance to the avatar. I hope you are joking.

quote:

---

I am sick of seeing some scientist being treated like a god for spending 30 years in Africa mesmorized by apes. They are convinced that mankind evolved from these creatures, again Romans evidenced, God senselessness demonstrated.

---

I haven't seen many altars to scientists, nor prayers of any kind. Perhaps saying that they are treated as Gods is hyperbole, but I would say that treating them like learned people is fair.

quote:

---

Cynic1 you have my admiration as a quality debater and formidable opponent, while we are neighbors, Long Beach locals do not venture into Torrance and we would appreciate the same respect.

---

Thanks, you too. You're mean though. I'm in Long Beach twice a week at least to visit friends and family, plus I intent to re-attend CSULB.

Let me try to put this into three syllogisms.If God exists, then Romans is true, therefore people who deny the existence of God are in error.If Romans is true, then there will be people who deny the existence of God, therefore God exists.If the people who deny God's existence are in error, then God exists, therefore Romans is true.Did I sum it up at all?That is an interesting point about the avatars though, I never thought of that. Can I ask for a bit of clarification though? Do these people know that those avatars are their Gods?

quote:

---

IF you are tempted into crafting a response that levels an indictment of circularity then I advise caution as I have loosely said that I can live with what you presented.

---

If circularity doesn't bother you, then I think we are done on that topic. I'd much rather take God completely on faith than create a circular argument to "prove" him. That's just me though, and I don't judge your route to faith.I also am going to have to disagree with you on the issue of the avatars. While I do agree that many proponents of evolution are more focused on animals than the Creator (except perhaps theistic evolutionists), I do not think it is a correct comparison to liken this focus with focus on a God. I have thought about it for a while, and I just think it is too much of a stretch.