God empirically testable?

[Inevitable Droid]

This came up in another thread, and I didn't want the discussion to be buried inside some larger conversation. My nod of the head goes out to the person I was conversing with, as it was he who triggered all this in the head I am nodding.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not I.  The monotheistic gods seem, almost, to be designed so as to be unfalsifiable.

[fazFwQo83]

Can't think of one at the moment ... will have to get back to you after I'm dead ... may take a while though and I can't make any promises.

[Matt]

The Greek gods were gods and said to live on top of Olympus.  It should be easy enough to falsify those gods.

[metaed]

I like the last answer.

I think it's meaningless to ask whether you can empirically test "God" (blanket term). The gods which people actually believe in are so different. How could the answer for all of them be the same?

People make claims for their gods. Some of those claims are empirically testable. Yes, you can climb to the top of Olympus. Then you can look at the DNA of the aboriginal peoples of America (Mormon god says they floated here from Israel, DNA says no). You can look at archeological discoveries to see if they confirm Yahweh's accounts of his conquests (discoveries say no). People today believe their gods have performed miracles, and those claims can be tested (results say no). The gods didn't hold up too well to scrutiny, actually, and you couldn't very well say that if it were meaningless to ask if you can do the test.

I suppose the only gods that you can't empirically test are those that people make no claims for (are there any of those?) and those we haven't made up yet …

Cheers, MetaEd

[Inevitable Droid]

The Greek gods were gods and said to live on top of Olympus.  It should be easy enough to falsify those gods.

You're assuming they have physical bodies, apparently.  Couldn't they be pure spirit and hovering over Olympus?  How would we falsify that?

I think it's meaningless to ask whether you can empirically test "God" (blanket term). The gods which people actually believe in are so different. How could the answer for all of them be the same?

An affirmative answer for any of them would surprise me.

Then you can look at the DNA of the aboriginal peoples of America (Mormon god says they floated here from Israel, DNA says no).

That would prove the Mormon God is either a liar or mistaken or didn't author the Book of Mormon.  It wouldn't falsify the claim that he exists, which is what this thread is about.  Any claim that can't be falsified, I reject out of hand as unworthy of consideration.  When I started this thread, I was asking if anyone could define God in such a way that a claim for his existence would be falsifiable.

You can look at archeological discoveries to see if they confirm Yahweh's accounts of his conquests (discoveries say no).

Same answer as above.  Liar, mistaken, or didn't author the books of the bible.  The claim that he exists would remain unfalsified - and, more to the point, unfalsifiable, thus begging to be rejected out of hand.

[Achronos]

May the Lord have mercy on those Mormons. What conquests are you speaking of, regarding Yahweh?

What about common sense empirical observations which could help establish metaphysical points?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Any claim that can't be falsified, I reject out of hand as unworthy of consideration.

I have already assumed that the point of this thread is to point out the fact that gods are non-falsifiable, given the phrasing of the OP.  Indeed, it might be argued that that is one quality of a god: that it cannot be falsified.

[Inevitable Droid]

Indeed, it might be argued that that is one quality of a god: that it cannot be falsified.

I concur!  It might be argued and I in fact argue it!  

Because I reject the unfalsifiable on principle, I cannot be other than an atheist.

[Ihateyoumike]

"God" is a blanket term used to explain everything which is not fully understood by those who are weak-minded enough to not attempt to find a verifiable explanation or be comfortable with no verifiable explanation.

[Matt]

The Greek gods were gods and said to live on top of Olympus.  It should be easy enough to falsify those gods.

You're assuming they have physical bodies, apparently.  Couldn't they be pure spirit and hovering over Olympus?  How would we falsify that?

You can claim that if you want, but then you have to also claim that the Greek myths are metaphors, and blah-de-blah-de-blah.  You'd have to start doing theological backflips.

[Achronos]

We can’t understand anything about God except what God himself reveals to us.  God revealed himself as three persons, and if we want to get close to our God, we should accept this and move on.  

Since God existed before all created things, we can not use the logic of created things to understand what is God.  I am told that we can better understand God by His revelations.  

This is merely my opinion.

[Matt]

Here's the thing:  If Christianity were the only religion, a lot of arguments for it would look a hell of a lot better.  However, it's one of many.  I can say the same thing about Zeus.

[Achronos]

Here's the thing:  If Christianity were the only religion, a lot of arguments for it would look a hell of a lot better.  However, it's one of many.  I can say the same thing about Zeus.

Not necessarily, actually are you assuming Zeus was the God of Gods, yet that very God was conceived by Cronus. It is much too easy dismantling Greek mythology in regards to what a 'God' actually entails itself to be.

But His revelations of himself, through nature and of Christ are very important in getting to know some of God. It is through his revelations which we can better understand Him.

[Matt]

Ok, I'll pick a different religion more suited to these purposes: Hinduism.