Why belief in a god is an unfalsifiable claim that serves no purpose

[Wrangler]

Frankly, you come across as a ”hater” of religion.

Agreed.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

He plays word games with this.

I also does the same that's why he cannot win or lose when he talks to me

We need to pray for him.

you do that I am not righteous like you my prayers are for nought

 

[Randy Kluth]

One of the worst arguments for God is that whenever something isn’t understood or doesn’t make sense, believers will say, “God works in mysterious ways. Unless you have the mind of God, you cannot understand since you’re a limited human.” By that same token, saying things such as God is good or loving is also inaccurate because according to believers, we are limited humans. It’s a convenient copout because it involves an unfalsifiable claim i.e. ad hoc reasoning. It’s like saying there’s a dragon in my garage even though you can’t see it. I can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it either.

The word “god” can literally be replaced with any other word or entity such as a winged rabbit and believers would respond the same way an atheist would. However, that same reasoning is absent when referring to God specifically. A winged rabbit and God are both “things” that can’t be proven. Why would a believer feel otherwise about God? My guess is because to the believer, their God is superior to any other concept that’s similar in nature such as a winged rabbit. Believers and atheists are similar in that they both would not believe in the winged rabbit, but they are different because an atheist would also not believe in a god. The same logic believers apply to the existence of a winged rabbit seems to escape them when it comes to their god. And it is perfectly fine for a believer to admit that they would not believe in a winged rabbit but that they would believe in a god instead. What’s not fine is claiming that their belief is founded in sound logic and reason, which further obfuscates the difference between what’s rational and irrational.

So what is the point of claim which cannot be falsified? There’s none. It’s completely open ended because it can’t be proven nor disproven. This is why science and religion are actually diametrically opposed. God can’t be put under a microscope or test tube. The idea of a god is useless in science given the scientific method. It is also fallacious to infer that God exists by observing “his creation”. What could the creation ever know about the creator given that creation is limited? It’s a contradiction that just doesn’t get admitted to.

Actually, these kinds of arguments are as old as the hills. Skeptical philosophers, like David Hume, pointed out the limitations of human knowledge, indicating that belief in something transcendent defies the ability of our minds to know. But thousands of years before Hume, Greek philosophers conceived of this unpassable barrier between finite mankind and the idea of an infinite Deity.

What you're doing is using abbreviated popular arguments for God that on the surface appear as mere "excuses" for not having more proof for God on a rational basis. There are actually far more rational arguments for God if we dip below this surface level common language.

One of the great arguments for God--not always satisfactory--is the ontological argument, which conceives of our mind as necessarily conceiving of something greater than the finite world we live in. We may not be able to adequately explain it, but the fact we seem created for it seems to argue that we *must* believe in a Creator despite our limitations.

But nobody seriously argues that God is in the same category as arguing for "winged rabbits" or "winged horses!" The Christian Scriptures are far more sophisticated than legends and myths with fable-like language and constitutions. The Bible is chalk full of history that can be at least in part verified. The miraculous, of course, can only be witnessed by those who are there--but it cannot be proved where it came from, even though logically, it may be deduced that a benevolent God healed repentant lepers.

For me personally, the single biggest argument for God is entirely rational and a product of deductive reasoning. We are moral creatures and have moral constitutions. It stands to reason that we were designed with a conscience, which is right next door to religious conviction. We are inquisitive, and yet seem to fail both in our understanding of the universe and in our moral lives. This verifies the biblical notion of sin--we've fallen short of the knowledge of God by deviating from it willfully. What we don't do wrong willfully we seem to have inherited from those before us who did.

The options we're given in history can be reduced from the massive number of tribal, ethnic religions to a few international religions, and they all happen to be monotheistic. Hinduism is a contradiction in terms, having many gods. Well, you *can't* logically have many gods!

Islam appears to have borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, and though Christianity has borrowed from Judaism, it alone is an international faith that has determined the wealth and course of world history since Christ himself. It's a miracle that rational people have believed in a religion of miracles, with the greatest rational scientific minds coming out of the Christian culture.

But the greatest rational proof is that of Intelligent Design. I can never get over the design not just of the universe but also of history and my personal life. Those who don't see it are probably walking in the knowledge of themselves, and not in the knowledge of God--the Original Sin! ;)

This is not an "excuse" for God, but the *reason* people are in darkness about God's operation in their lives--they've simply pushed Him out. If they would cooperate with Him, as we were created to do, we would indeed see Him in our lives in the form of design and purpose. We would see His supernatural acts take place in our lives. And we would see His love and moral virtue.

 

[Romanov2488]

Actually, these kinds of arguments are as old as the hills. Skeptical philosophers, like David Hume, pointed out the limitations of human knowledge, indicating that belief in something transcendent defies the ability of our minds to know. But thousands of years before Hume, Greek philosophers conceived of this unpassable barrier between finite mankind and the idea of an infinite Deity.

What you're doing is using abbreviated popular arguments for God that on the surface appear as mere "excuses" for not having more proof for God on a rational basis. There are actually far more rational arguments for God if we dip below this surface level common language.

One of the great arguments for God--not always satisfactory--is the ontological argument, which conceives of our mind as necessarily conceiving of something greater than the finite world we live in. We may not be able to adequately explain it, but the fact we seem created for it seems to argue that we *must* believe in a Creator despite our limitations.

But nobody seriously argues that God is in the same category as arguing for "winged rabbits" or "winged horses!" The Christian Scriptures are far more sophisticated than legends and myths with fable-like language and constitutions. The Bible is chalk full of history that can be at least in part verified. The miraculous, of course, can only be witnessed by those who are there--but it cannot be proved where it came from, even though logically, it may be deduced that a benevolent God healed repentant lepers.

For me personally, the single biggest argument for God is entirely rational and a product of deductive reasoning. We are moral creatures and have moral constitutions. It stands to reason that we were designed with a conscience, which is right next door to religious conviction. We are inquisitive, and yet seem to fail both in our understanding of the universe and in our moral lives. This verifies the biblical notion of sin--we've fallen short of the knowledge of God by deviating from it willfully. What we don't do wrong willfully we seem to have inherited from those before us who did.

The options we're given in history can be reduced from the massive number of tribal, ethnic religions to a few international religions, and they all happen to be monotheistic. Hinduism is a contradiction in terms, having many gods. Well, you *can't* logically have many gods!

Islam appears to have borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, and though Christianity has borrowed from Judaism, it alone is an international faith that has determined the wealth and course of world history since Christ himself. It's a miracle that rational people have believed in a religion of miracles, with the greatest rational scientific minds coming out of the Christian culture.

But the greatest rational proof is that of Intelligent Design. I can never get over the design not just of the universe but also of history and my personal life. Those who don't see it are probably walking in the knowledge of themselves, and not in the knowledge of God--the Original Sin! ;)

This is not an "excuse" for God, but the *reason* people are in darkness about God's operation in their lives--they've simply pushed Him out. If they would cooperate with Him, as we were created to do, we would indeed see Him in our lives in the form of design and purpose. We would see His supernatural acts take place in our lives. And we would see His love and moral virtue.

The ontological argument for God by Anselm is deeply flawed because it is tautological. It’s basically saying, God exists so God exists. It only works for a Christian who already believes in a God by providing a rational basis for their belief. God exists only if you accept the premise that he exists.

As far as intelligent design goes, there are also many a counter arguments to it. It is said that evolutionary flaws disprove intelligent design.

Evolution Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?

Stem Cell Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?

counterbalance.org

 

[Romanov2488]

Q. How would you convince a man born blind that color exists?
A. Give him the ability to see.

Q. How would convince a man that can see colors that color does not exist?
A. It would be impossible … even if you blinded him so he could never see color again, he knows what he saw.

So an atheist (blind) can ”see” and change his mind, but a Christian (seeing) cannot “un-see” and deny what he knows he “saw”. No persuasive argument from all the BLIND MEN in the world will ever convince the man THAT CAN SEE that color does not exist.

I truly think that it is Christians who are blind to the evidence that contradicts their beliefs. This is evident in the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate where Ken said nothing would change his mind about the existence of God whereas Bill Nye said he would only need a simple shred of evidence.

I have spoken to a Christian family member about the Ark and he said there is literally one built in Kentucky that can fit two kinds of every animal. I then did my research and found that’s it’s just a theme park of Noah’s Ark. The man refutes any evidence that Earth is older than 6000 years.

What you said at the very end about how an atheist can change his mind but a Christian cannot, essentially demonstrates willful ignorance. You’ve made the claim that I’m a hater of religion, however more and more it seems that Christians are haters of atheism which is not surprising of someone who is not open to the possibility of ever changing their mind despite any evidence. They talk about how the atheist could be wrong but they never have the courage to talk about how they could be wrong about God’s existence.

 

[Romanov2488]

God is not useless! He gives atheists something to obsess over.

3 Mind-Bending Reasons Why the Scientific Method Can’t Prove God’s Existence

Skeptics who want to use the scientific method to prove God's existence are making a mistake and here are 3 mind-bending reasons why.

notashamedofthegospel.com

Didn’t say God was useless, but talking about the existence of God is. We are talking about something completely outside of space and time. Neither an atheist or a Christian can win in that type of argument. The Christian can’t prove God and the atheist cannot disprove God. However, the atheist can at least leave room for change by refraining from inserting God into every gap.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The ontological argument for God by Anselm is deeply flawed because it is tautological. It’s basically saying, God exists so God exists. It only works for a Christian who already believes in a God by providing a rational basis for their belief. God exists only if you accept the premise that he exists.

As far as intelligent design goes, there are also many a counter arguments to it. It is said that evolutionary flaws disprove intelligent design.

Evolution Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?

Stem Cell Topic: What is the problem with Intelligent Design?

counterbalance.org

I agree that the ontological argument falls short, as you indicate. It just can't be disproved, although the *evidence*--not proof, is there. Intelligent Design is even stronger, though as you say, it can still be rejected on a rational basis. It is *evidence,* but not *proof.*

One of the strongest proofs in any rational argument, which will always fall short, is the proof of experience. When we experience something, it is the strongest evidence of the reality that something exists. Descartes began with the experience of himself to extend that argument to experiencing God. I think, therefore I am. I think about God, therefore He is.

All of these arguments, as you say, are rational proofs of the Infinite, which must always fall short of definitive proof simply because of the divide between the Infinite and the Finite. The Finite cannot prove the Infinite, although there is plenty of strong evidence for it.

I would finish by saying this. If you willfully turn away from the knowledge and experience of God, you will not receive sufficient evidence to believe it constitutes any sort of *proof.* But for the Christian who submits to the knowledge and lordship of God, the experience and proof is there, even though our rational minds fall short without this submission to God. If we are to know God we must submit to His way of knowing Him--anything short of this will never be enough.

Naaman the leper was too proud to obey the Prophet to wash in the dirty little Jordan River in Israel. See 2 Kings 5. He expected something more sophisticated. But God wanted him to humble himself. And when he did, he was healed. He not only received proof of God's miraculous powers, but he became absolutely convinced of the reality and superiority of the Hebrew God.

If you turn away from looking at pictures from space you will not see proof that the earth is round. If you deliberately and defiantly refuse to turn to see the sunrise, you may not have sufficient proof (for you) that the sun comes up in the morning.

Clearly, if you refuse to receive the knowledge of God, which only comes from God and on His conditions, you will not experience God sufficiently to believe in Him. If you want a fuller knowledge and experience of God, He requires compliance with His moral laws. That is a great place to begin if you want real "proof."

Acts 5.32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

 

[Angel Faith]

Didn’t say God was useless, but talking about the existence of God is. We are talking about something completely outside of space and time. Neither an atheist or a Christian can win in that type of argument. The Christian can’t prove God and the atheist cannot disprove God. However, the atheist can at least leave room for change by refraining from inserting God into every gap.

I'll leave this here because when you enter a Christian community trying to insist on your point of view you appear affraid and foolish as you waste your time.

 

[ScottA]

Of course the deficit is mine regarding evidence. How else to take responsibility off yourself for failing to provide evidence? It’s a cheap victory.

What if I told you the exact same thing about my invisible dragon in my garage that you need to be born of since it exists on a higher plane than you? Convenient to say isn’t it?

Great--not only do you need to told what it is, you need to be told how it is...and still you do not believe even though most of humanity will attest to it.

As for your dragon--he's real too.

 

[ScottA]

You misunderstood, it was under the context of people claiming there is a god without actually seeing one.

Now to your claim of seeing God, so have many others who have taken strong hallucinogens. The problem now is that you are turning God into a subjective experience that’s very private. Since that is the case, then the existence of God is no longer something objective. Therefore you can no longer speak of God in an objective sense since you’re coming from a place of subjectivity.

God is real and known by most of humanity, and also truly seen and experienced by many. Your rational is denial against reason and eyewitness testimony. That is not even rational. It's called denial.

I was not telling you anything subjective. Again, you only assumed it. You say that others should perhaps compare their religions to countless others, when in reality you are obviously not comparing your own reasoning to the countless others that say otherwise. Do the math.

Indeed, many should compare their religion, and many have told you their religious nonsense. But I have told you the truth--regardless of how many others wrongly do the same. But again, the great number of wrong answers, do not make the correct answer false. To think so, is just foolish (to put it nicely).

 

[Romanov2488]

I'll leave this here because when you enter a Christian community trying to insist on your point of view you appear affraid and foolish as you waste your time.

Christian community with a NON-Christian section. It is you who is in the non-Christian section, isn’t it? How could it be that you happened to find an atheist in the non-Christian section?

 

[Romanov2488]

Great--not only do you need to told what it is, you need to be told how it is...and still you do not believe even though most of humanity will attest to it.

As for your dragon--he's real too.

Most of humanity does not attest to it. Most of the eastern hemisphere from India to Asia and Australia would disagree. Even most Christians in Europe take the Bible less literally than the ones in America. America is currently having an issue of Christian nationalism along with creationism. We literally have a theme park in Kentucky of a life-sized Noah’s Ark that was funded via taxpayer money and is spreading pseudoscience.

 

[Romanov2488]

God is real and known by most of humanity, and also truly seen and experienced by many. Your rational is denial against reason and eyewitness testimony. That is not even rational. It's called denial.

I was not telling you anything subjective. Again, you only assumed it. You say that others should perhaps compare their religions to countless others, when in reality you are obviously not comparing your own reasoning to the countless others that say otherwise. Do the math.

Indeed, many should compare their religion, and many have told you their religious nonsense. But I have told you the truth--regardless of how many others wrongly do the same. But again, the great number of wrong answers, do not make the correct answer false. To think so, is just foolish (to put it nicely).

“Experienced” is the land of subjectivity. You said you have seen God, is that not subjective? Eyewitness testimony can also be inaccurate.

“Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.”

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

The problem is that religious claims cannot be tested with consistent results which is the opposite of science. Wrangler shared that video of Ken Ham to prove atheists wrong and Ken is also the same guy who believes dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. Dinosaur fossils have been found to be millions of years old through radiometric dating which blows the 6000 year-old of Earth out of the water. Yet these are the same people who claim they use reason.

 

[ScottA]

“Experienced” is the land of subjectivity. You said you have seen God, is that not subjective? Eyewitness testimony can also be inaccurate.

“Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes.”

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

The problem is that religious claims cannot be tested with consistent results which is the opposite of science. Wrangler shared that video of Ken Ham to prove atheists wrong and Ken is also the same guy who believes dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. Dinosaur fossils have been found to be millions of years old through radiometric dating which blows the 6000 year-old of Earth out of the water. Yet these are the same people who claim they use reason.

You seem to have good grasp of the inaccessibility and the inability of the natural man to know God. But what you have not figured out, is that was and is the plan. You are limiting the context by self limitation, so you don't see it. Your senses are correct, just wrong in scope and too superficial. Meanwhile, it is the perfect plan to eliminate the evils known to this world, and by your self-imposed limit, this mix of good and evil is all you will see. Then you die.

“Studies have shown"--that's a good one!

But what do you hope to gain by stating the obvious? What good do you hope to accomplish by correctly identifying the trash you are wading amongst? If that is all that you perceive is going on, you are purposing to win the battle but loose the war. That is not the [full] meaning of life. Life is more than what can be seen, more than what can be proven on this lower plane; and there are many things that you cannot explain here, but many of them point to that greater reality beyond. It should rather make you suspicious and curious, and prompt you to seek it out. Perhaps that is what you doing here stating your case. Nonetheless, only those blind to that greater reality and those who actually prefer this mix of good and evil, are actually meant to deny and die. But that is just the lesser getting the lesser, while those who would look further, who want something better, something good without the evil--it is there to be found.

However, if you have made your choice already, enjoy--this too is a gift from God!

 

[BreadOfLife]

False. Catholics do see Protestants as heretics because Protestants cut out the middle man aka the Pope is traced all the way back to Peter who was given authority by Jesus according to Catholics.

By that same token, Protestants see Catholics as heretics for worshipping saints and statues (which Catholics claim they pray through instead).

WRONG.
You’re speaking from a position of ignorance here.

A Protestant who is NOT a former Catholic is NOT considered to be a heretic.
ONLY Catholics who have repudiated doctrinal positions of the Catholic faith are considered to be heretics. These are the ones whom the Anathemas of Trent were aimed at. The Church cannot anathematize (excommunicate) a person who does NOT belong to the Church.

As for Catholics “worshipping” saints and statues – this is just more ignorant nonsense.
I suggest you do your homework . . .

 

[Wrangler]

“Experienced” is the land of subjectivity

Empirical science. Empirical evidence means nothing to you.

 

[Gottservant]

As I said "the evidence for God, is a changed life".

If all the changes in your life, look exactly like you, your "god" is yourself.

If all the changes in your life look like Jesus, God is your "god".

 

[Wrangler]

As I said "the evidence for God, is a changed life".

Except for all the evidence, there is no evidence for God. The unassailable position of Atheists.

 

[Gottservant]

Except for all the evidence, there is no evidence for God. The unassailable position of Atheists.

Why does evidence have to be of God? If God is God, He would not want to be revealed except in secret?

God being revealed in secret, does not stop you from evidencing change (in your own life).

If anything that makes change in your own life, even more convincing evidence - God could applaud the changes you make in front of everyone, but then you would have nothing to say for yourself.

God is not trying to take change away from you, He is trying to bring you to a point, where you can change under your own steam!

 

[-Phil]

@Romanov2488
Use the scientific method to self-inspect.