Reply
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 11:51 pm
Basically when the theory of god has become metaphysical and escaped empirical investigation it follows that:
1.The theory has been removed from the area where any scientific finding can possibly confirm or refute it prove/disprove.
2.It has become a philosophical,rather than a scientific problem for no collection of facts can be gathered which would resolve the problem.
...interpreted this way it can still be attacked on philosophical grounds.
3.for when any theory cannot be refuted by facts,then it losed it’s explanatory force.
...it becomes true by definition,but no longer refers to the world in the way in which genuine scientific theories do.
4.since its truth of falsity no longer depends upon the facts.
...when this happens,the theory may be rejectd on the ground that it,has lost its power to provide us with a satisfactory explanation of the facts its started to explain.
So what do you think,is it sound?
A example where this could be applied is when the philosophy/belief of creationism fails to take into account the totality of its own creation,such as the horrors of the holocaust and other great sufferings/tragedies of history.
And in the face of such horrors people can abandon/discard these beliefs in favor of one's that actually reflect nature or their experiences.
@r3lax187,
Theism can be attacked on sociopathic grounds but not on existential grounds since such
beliefs obviously exist. The mistake is to assume that "truth" of
anything is more than confidence in belief in that thing. And confidence in theism is a matter of social conditioning which directs individual perceptions and evaluations. Such directed perceptions act as a selective filter on what constitutes "facts" ( Latin
facere -to construct).
@r3lax187,
The main proof of God at this point is the fact that the only possible alternative, evolution, has been so thoroughly debunked over the past few decades.
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The main proof of God at this point is the fact that the only possible alternative, evolution, has been so thoroughly debunked over the past few decades.
You wish!
Certain specific theories of how evolution works have been questioned. The
fact of the evolutionary process has not been "debunked." And, btw, what does evolution have to do with any proofs for or against that which some people call 'god'?
When it comes to religion we can all be expected to forgo impartiality and objectivity.
The other day three Jehova's Witnesses came to my door (an old man and women and what appeared to be their great-grand daughter). I tried to escape their good intentions with the report that I am a Buddhist. He sought an opening with the question: "But you do believe that you were created?" I responded: "I believe that I grew like a tree, but not that I was created like a house." He seemed stymied and immediately I worried that he might be embarassed before his grand-daughter. I said that as far as I know his belief might be right, thanked him and closed the door.
@JLNobody,
Interesting. Here in Hawaii if you tell visiting Jehovah's Witnesses that you're a Budhist, they will desist, wish you a great day and retreat, smiling politely. Same thing with Mormons who proselityze in the same manner. I know. I've done it.
@gungasnake,
Quote:The main proof of God at this point is the fact that the only possible alternative, evolution, has been so thoroughly debunked over the past few decades.
Does it have to be either or? What if both are "wrong"?
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:gungasnake wrote:
The main proof of God at this point is the fact that the only possible alternative, evolution, has been so thoroughly debunked over the past few decades.
You wish!
The death of evolution and evoloserism is a fact and in fact evolosers can pick their pioson; the business has been utterly falsified in a number of totally unrelated ways. The DNA/RNA scheme is a complex information code like C++ or Java and every kind of creature which has ever walked the Earth is basically a highly complex application (like an operating system) written in that code.
Complex information systems and information handling applications do not just sort of happen on account of dirt and rocks getting moved around by wind or lightning.
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:The DNA/RNA scheme is a complex information code like C++ or Java and every kind of creature which has ever walked the Earth is basically a highly complex application (like an operating system) written in that code.
C++ and Java and Operating systems don't reproduce, so your analogy doesn't apply at all. Reproduction, variation and selection are the key elements of evolution. You need an analogy which matches those criteria.
Are we really trying again to prove the negative, the non-existence of God(s)?
@r3lax187,
Quote:Is this a good argument/proof that their is no divine creator/s? (see below).
Two notions are being conflated here: the notion that such-and-such claims do not qualify as a theory, and the notion that such-and-such theory is false. The argument you've presented demonstrates the former but it does not necessarily demonstrate the latter. The argument shows that theism does not qualify as a theory in any meaningful sense because it cannot be scientifically verified or refuted, but that's not the same thing as saying the theory is false. To say it is false means it has been falsified, and step [1] of the argument above states that theism has been removed from the domain of falsification in the first place. So the argument may succeed in showing that theism does not qualify as an explanatory theory at all, but it doesn't show that theism is false; it shows that falsity and truth simply don't apply to theism because theism is not asserting anything empirically meaningful.
@gungasnake,
Quote:The main proof of God at this point is the fact that the only possible alternative, evolution, has been so thoroughly debunked over the past few decades.
Two fallicies here: the false binary fallacy and the disjunctive syllogism fallacy.
@r3lax187,
Empiricalism requires induction, it is not logical, such as a priori epistemology, however thiestic God's require a posteriori knowledge.
The God hypothesis has yet to be open to falsification, furthermore is an ad hoc hypothesis.
Can the God hypothesis be investigated by contingent methodological practices?
@Shapeless,
Thank you for your'e reply,good answer (sorry for the late reply).
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace