Happy Atheist Forum

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. :)

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

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.

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

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

Quote from: "'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?

Quote from: "metaed"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.

Quote from: "metaed"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.

Quote from: "metaed"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.

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?

QuoteAny 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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

"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.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "'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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "'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.

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.

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

First part of your post:If god is the universe, then god is just a word made up by mankind.  Words made up by mankind have no impact on the universe.  Why not call the universe 'the universe'?   Why would one worship the universe?

The rest:
Real things are measurable/detectable/and in some manor, predictable.

If souls exist after you die, why isnt it reliably detectable with some kind of insturment.

If god exists, what are his GPS coordinates?

"Hinduism", if we're going to reify that term, shouldn't be thought of as a singular religion, but perhaps rather as a religious paradigm, a theological framework, or a cultural continuum. In many way the same is true of "Christianity", but I would venture to say that "it's" different cultural manifestations are even more varied than those of "Hinduism" in some respects.  Christianity appears more uniform in its monotheism, while the thousands of cults in Hinduism makes it look more varied.  But there simply is not a South African Hinduism, nor a Korean Hinduism.  It is largely confined to the way it functions in Indian society, while Christianity functions in almost all cultural settings in multiple forms.

In truth, it is monotheistic.  There is only one god in Hinduism.  What we know as their "gods" are manifestations of that one god.  Where we Christians have one incarnation of God, Jesus, the Hindu have many.  Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha are all manifestations of that one god.  Like with Christianity, because we worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are not polytheistic.  Likewise, the Hindu see god in all mankind.  Are we not supposed to see the Image of Christ in all mankind?  Obviously, the details vary (considerably) between the various forms of Hinduism and Christianity, but the truth is that most Westerners really have a poor understanding of Hindu belief since most of it comes from some other Westerner's interpretation of it.  In talking with my Hindu friends, I find more commonality of belief than I was led to believe by studying the Western view of Hinduism.  

I would say that Christianity is not as theologically varied. I think this has to do with a notion of the singularity of Truth in most of Christendom, which surrounds one incarnation of the one God.  On event, one God-man, at one time, for all time.

So we Christians may disagree on what that truth is exactly, but we all agree that there is One Truth in the person of Jesus Christ.

A huge portion of Christianity is at least theoretically united in their beliefs, if we just look at the Latins there are over a billion of them, and the Orthodox Catholics are 200,000,000 or maybe even more. So even just those two account for a huge portion of Christendom that are theologically united into two groups, at least on paper.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"Real things are measurable/detectable/and in some manor, predictable.

If souls exist after you die, why isnt it reliably detectable with some kind of insturment.

If god exists, what are his GPS coordinates?

Who's to say those coordinates are not 'naturally' verifiable?

Way to miss the point, Ache: making bald claims which are by their very nature unfalsifiable has no utility in explaining this world.  You keep dancin', bro.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi52.tinypic.com%2F1ow10x.jpg&hash=3d27bfba89503fce83bdde79a3c4f66468b942aa)

Lemme wrap up addressing PH's question in the other thread and I'll get back to the 'location' of God.

Also God has destined us for a goal beyond the grasp of reason: "No eye has seen what you have prepared for those who love you". And since we must set ourselves this goal and pursue it we need teaching about it beforehand. We even needed revealed instruction in things reason can learn about God. If such truths had been left to us to discover they would have been learnt by few over long periods and mingled with much error; yet our whole well-being is centered on God and depends on knowing them. So, in order that more of us might more safely attain him, we need teaching in which God revealed himself.

Pass the ranch, please?

Quote from: "'Matt'"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"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.

Apparently you think the Greeks themselves perceived their gods as having, in a permanent sense, as opposed to assuming and discarding at will, physical bodies.  What gives you that impression?  For one thing, Zeus assumes and discards a bull body in one myth and a swan body in another.  What body would he have had in a permanent sense?  Furthermore, the gods appear and disappear at will.  This requires dematerializing and rematerializing.  What body did they have during the in-between transitional moment?  

Facetious and irrelevant digression: I blame Star Trek.  :hide:

So let me ask you, do you think that if an ancient Greek had actually climbed Mount Olympus, discovered no gods there, and returned to his village to announce his discovery, the villagers would have seriously started to doubt the existence of their gods?  The Greeks were pretty smart.  I think the villagers would have immediately responded either that (a) the gods are like ghosts, we can't see them; or (b) the gods disappeared and then reappeared when no one was around to see them.  You don't think that?

By the way, I love your avatar.  Very striking.

Quote from: "Achronos""Hinduism", if we're going to reify that term, shouldn't be thought of as a singular religion, but perhaps rather as a religious paradigm, a theological framework, or a cultural continuum. In many way the same is true of "Christianity", but I would venture to say that "it's" different cultural manifestations are even more varied than those of "Hinduism" in some respects.  Christianity appears more uniform in its monotheism, while the thousands of cults in Hinduism makes it look more varied.  But there simply is not a South African Hinduism, nor a Korean Hinduism.  It is largely confined to the way it functions in Indian society, while Christianity functions in almost all cultural settings in multiple forms.

In truth, it is monotheistic.  There is only one god in Hinduism.  What we know as their "gods" are manifestations of that one god.  Where we Christians have one incarnation of God, Jesus, the Hindu have many.  Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha are all manifestations of that one god.  Like with Christianity, because we worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we are not polytheistic.  Likewise, the Hindu see god in all mankind.  Are we not supposed to see the Image of Christ in all mankind?  Obviously, the details vary (considerably) between the various forms of Hinduism and Christianity, but the truth is that most Westerners really have a poor understanding of Hindu belief since most of it comes from some other Westerner's interpretation of it.  In talking with my Hindu friends, I find more commonality of belief than I was led to believe by studying the Western view of Hinduism.  

I would say that Christianity is not as theologically varied. I think this has to do with a notion of the singularity of Truth in most of Christendom, which surrounds one incarnation of the one God.  On event, one God-man, at one time, for all time.

So we Christians may disagree on what that truth is exactly, but we all agree that there is One Truth in the person of Jesus Christ.

A huge portion of Christianity is at least theoretically united in their beliefs, if we just look at the Latins there are over a billion of them, and the Orthodox Catholics are 200,000,000 or maybe even more. So even just those two account for a huge portion of Christendom that are theologically united into two groups, at least on paper.

In the above, I see only one sentence (which I have bolded/underlined) that I would even begin to consider as approaching some kind of an answer to the point Matt originally raised (that there is no way to know which "God" of which religion has been "revealing" the "correct truth").  The rest of the response, in which you begin by stating Hinduism is more unified in its cultural manifestations than Christianity and yet close by throwing out numbers to suggest almost the opposite and offer that as some attempt at an answer for why "your religion wins", is really all irrelevant to the original question.  "3 out of 10 religious people agree, our religion is better" is not an answer.

That bolded sentence above would seem to be a way of suggesting that "the God of Hinduism and Christianity is essentially the same".  Is this your answer?  (As a side note, you may be on to something at least when it comes to Orthodoxy -- with all of that saint worshiping, in a few centuries/millennia, you might find your religion has evolved into something almost indistinguishable from Hinduism...)

I have a question...  If that is indeed your answer, what truth is it that God has revealed to them, but not yet to Christians, which causes them to flock to see deformed babies with multiple appendages/faces/etc and hail them as gods, while Christians do no such thing?

'Tis rather like nailing jelly to the wall.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Apparently you think the Greeks themselves perceived...

Sorry about this, hope you have more of a sense of humor then thump.

The greeks were imagining their gods to be real,  logic does not apply in imagination.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"Sorry about this, hope you have more of a sense of humor then thump.

Actually I think Thump is the one with more sense of humor. :)

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"In the above, I see only one sentence (which I have bolded/underlined) that I would even begin to consider as approaching some kind of an answer to the point Matt originally raised (that there is no way to know which "God" of which religion has been "revealing" the "correct truth"). The rest of the response, in which you begin by stating Hinduism is more unified in its cultural manifestations than Christianity and yet close by throwing out numbers to suggest almost the opposite and offer that as some attempt at an answer for why "your religion wins", is really all irrelevant to the original question.  "3 out of 10 religious people agree, our religion is better" is not an answer.

The problem with actually comparing Hinduism with Christianity is that Hinduism varies quite a bit with it's theology. The only case I can argue why one God, one incarnate, and one spirit is more plausible, if you will. For me to actually address the problems with Hinduism I would have to address it's wide theology, because it isn't so much unified as Christianity is. That was my point on explaining Hinduism; the only argument that I can give is why the God that I believe in is the most reasonable God. And for that argument I would have to specifically define what my faith is and why it is true (I'll be making a thread of my own faith, just so there is a perspective on where my beliefs are derived from, and why I believe them to be true).

QuoteThat bolded sentence above would seem to be a way of suggesting that "the God of Hinduism and Christianity is essentially the same".  Is this your answer?  

There is only one incarnate of God in Christianity, whilst there are many in Hinduism. Is there more commonality, yes? But the difference between both Gods lies in the incarnation.

Quote(As a side note, you may be on to something at least when it comes to Orthodoxy -- with all of that saint worshiping, in a few centuries/millennia, you might find your religion has evolved into something almost indistinguishable from Hinduism...)

Please do not speak of Orthodoxy as you may think you know it (it isn't saint worshiping btw) and I'll try my best to dispell what Orthodoxy means. Anyway even if Christianity has seperated itself over dogmatic and theological princples there is still one common thread which at its very core is the more important. That is Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God and conquered death by his Resurrection, and promised that we would have eternal life with him. No Christian will disagree with this, however the problems with Catholicsm and Protentasim are in their dogmas and the way they present the faith itself.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"Sorry about this, hope you have more of a sense of humor then thump.

Oh, I've a sense of humor, it's merely accompanied by high standards.

[spoiler:2nmna63i]

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "'Matt'"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"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.

Apparently you think the Greeks themselves perceived their gods as having, in a permanent sense, as opposed to assuming and discarding at will, physical bodies.  What gives you that impression?  For one thing, Zeus assumes and discards a bull body in one myth and a swan body in another.  What body would he have had in a permanent sense?  Furthermore, the gods appear and disappear at will.  This requires dematerializing and rematerializing.  What body did they have during the in-between transitional moment?  

So let me ask you, do you think that if an ancient Greek had actually climbed Mount Olympus, discovered no gods there, and returned to his village to announce his discovery, the villagers would have seriously started to doubt the existence of their gods?  The Greeks were pretty smart.  I think the villagers would have immediately responded either that (a) the gods are like ghosts, we can't see them; or (b) the gods disappeared and then reappeared when no one was around to see them.  You don't think that?

[/spoiler:2nmna63i]
Yes, I did make the assumption that the Greek gods have permanent bodies.  I have always thought of them that way and it didn't occur to me that the Greeks might explain it that way.  I realized after reading your post that the problem with my method is that I didn't

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"nail... jelly to the wall

and figure out exactly what would and what would constitute empirical evidence for or against the existence of the gods.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"By the way, I love your avatar.  Very striking.

Thanks.

[spoiler:2nmna63i]

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"In the above, I see only one sentence (which I have bolded/underlined) that I would even begin to consider as approaching some kind of an answer to the point Matt originally raised (that there is no way to know which "God" of which religion has been "revealing" the "correct truth"). The rest of the response, in which you begin by stating Hinduism is more unified in its cultural manifestations than Christianity and yet close by throwing out numbers to suggest almost the opposite and offer that as some attempt at an answer for why "your religion wins", is really all irrelevant to the original question.  "3 out of 10 religious people agree, our religion is better" is not an answer.

The problem with actually comparing Hinduism with Christianity is that Hinduism varies quite a bit with it's theology. The only case I can argue why one God, one incarnate, and one spirit is more plausible, if you will. For me to actually address the problems with Hinduism I would have to address it's wide theology, because it isn't so much unified as Christianity is. That was my point on explaining Hinduism; the only argument that I can give is why the God that I believe in is the most reasonable God. And for that argument I would have to specifically define what my faith is and why it is true (I'll be making a thread of my own faith, just so there is a perspective on where my beliefs are derived from, and why I believe them to be true).

QuoteThat bolded sentence above would seem to be a way of suggesting that "the God of Hinduism and Christianity is essentially the same".  Is this your answer?  

There is only one incarnate of God in Christianity, whilst there are many in Hinduism. Is there more commonality, yes? But the difference between both Gods lies in the incarnation.

[/spoiler:2nmna63i]
Okay, so you feel that Hinduism's God is different from yours.  Why does that make it untrue?

I'd also like to bring up the point of multiple Christian denominations.  There are thousands of denominations that use the same holy book, and believe in what is basically the same god, but many of them believe that some or many or even all the other denominations believe the wrong thing.

Quote from: "Achronos"The problem with actually comparing Hinduism with Christianity is that Hinduism varies quite a bit with it's theology.

No, the problem with comparing the two is that the comparison has nothing to do with Matt's question, which he has just reiterated in the post above this one and which I suspect you will continue to ignore.

Quote from: "Achronos"Please do not speak of Orthodoxy as you may think you know it (it isn't saint worshiping btw) and I'll try my best to dispell what Orthodoxy means

I'm sorry, did you object to my use of the term "worshiping"?  Would the term "veneration" have been more apt?  Much like how I'm a secular humanist, not an atheist?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"It is my contention that there is no reasonable definition of the word God that would yield a hypothetical entity or phenomenon whose existence or occurence could be investigated by empirical testing.  Do you disagree?  If so, then I ask you to propose such a definition.  

Well in terms of phenomenon there is the whole prayer answering thing which can and has been empirically tested.

Quote from: "gotsteel"Well in terms of phenomenon there is the whole prayer answering thing which can and has been empirically tested.

Even if, in a pretend universe, science demonstrated that prayer had a statistically significant tendency to precede the occurrence of the specific event prayed for, that would only demonstrate the efficacy of prayer, not why it was efficacious, as there would be at least one other explanation, namely, the hitherto underestimated power of the human brain.

I would say that monotheistic gods like the Abrahamic one is empirically testable but deistic ones are not. If Yahweh were real the Bible's "science" should hold up and prayers should have an effect. They don't.

Quote from: "Sophus"I would say that monotheistic gods like the Abrahamic one is empirically testable but deistic ones are not. If Yahweh were real the Bible's "science" should hold up and prayers should have an effect. They don't.

Unless he were real and they got his biography wrong.

But I wonder, what does it mean to say something is real, if it is not empirically testable or demonstrable?

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Sophus"I would say that monotheistic gods like the Abrahamic one is empirically testable but deistic ones are not. If Yahweh were real the Bible's "science" should hold up and prayers should have an effect. They don't.

Unless he were real and they got his biography wrong.

But I wonder, what does it mean to say something is real, if it is not empirically testable or demonstrable?

If the people who wrote the Bible got the God of the Bible wrong, then that God isn't the God of the Bible.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "gotsteel"Well in terms of phenomenon there is the whole prayer answering thing which can and has been empirically tested.

Even if, in a pretend universe, science demonstrated that prayer had a statistically significant tendency to precede the occurrence of the specific event prayed for, that would only demonstrate the efficacy of prayer, not why it was efficacious, as there would be at least one other explanation, namely, the hitherto underestimated power of the human brain.

Wouldn't prayers to a particular deity being answered while prayers to the other deities went unanswered be evidence against a mental explanation such as the placebo effect?

Furthermore the lack of prayers producing such results is a real blow to the veracity of the bible.

Quote from: "gotsteel"Wouldn't prayers to a particular deity being answered while prayers to the other deities went unanswered be evidence against a mental explanation such as the placebo effect?

It would certainly prompt important questions.  Very good notion.  I had never thought of this.

Let's say the evidence indicated that Thor seemed to answer prayers while Jesus and Allah seemed not to.  We would have to start ruling out alternative explanations; for example, could there be something unique about Thor's worshippers, or their lives, or the particular things they prayed for, or the particular way they prayed?  Until we ruled all of these out, we wouldn't find ourselves having to seriously consider Thor's existence.  But I will grant you this: the mere fact that Thor had risen to the top of the heap in this way would make him, and his worshippers, and their religion a thousand times more interesting to me than any other deity, any other worshippers, or any other religion.

QuoteFurthermore the lack of prayers producing such results is a real blow to the veracity of the bible.

Agreed.  That's a separate question, of course.  The bible doesn't have to be true for God to exist.  Certainly God has to exist for the bible to be true.

In an experiment over 1000 trials I prayed to god and then made the same prayer to my cat (I wanted a spaceship and a threesome with a couple of unnamed celebrities). In all 1000 trials the results were the same (no prayer answered), so I can only conclude that my cat and god are one and the same. I will soon conduct a new set of trials after I stockpile enough cans of tuna, I will publish the results for peer review soon.