Theistic Scientists

[pears]

 

Then it's probably a semantics issue if you feel anyone here is attacking your stance undeservedly. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "evidence" in anything but a scientific context, just like I don't use the word "theory" when I mean "an idea I've pondered whilst showering". Precise terminology is something a theistic scientist would have to be more than normally attentive to

 

Yes there is a semantics issue. We certainly have different definitions of the word 'evidence' and that has led to some frustration within the discussion. I can see that in a science context then evidence takes on a special meaning, but it also as a more general every day usage which is far less formal. If we were discussing a science experiment then I would fully accept your usage in that context. But since we are not I don't think it's entirely fair to impose a scientific usage of the word on the conversation. Yes I know this is a science forum, but we aren't discussing science. We're discussing theistic scientists and what leads people to believe.

 

I think it's only evidence if it can convince others through rational thought. If it can't but you still think it's evidence, then I think you're invoking faith, in which case you shouldn't need evidence. Does that make sense?

Not entirely or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. This seems to impose a digital view on faith. Faith is either 'pure' and doesn't need "evidence" or evidence is scientific and does not require faith. I.e. it's either all pure faith, or pure empiricism. I would view faith as a much greyer area than this. It's all about what can be known for certain. The more empiric the evidence the higher degree of certainty. Then there is a scale where faith may be based on "evidence" in a much less formal sense, e.g. testimony, personal experience, history etc or perhaps on pure philosophical reasoning. Forming an opinion in the middle or lower end of that scale is a personal judgement, and the amount of faith required probably varies along the scale.

 

 

Science is continually wrong. Newtonian mechanics was trusted for so long until it was falsified, and the paradigm shift introduced us to general relativity.

 

It isn't exactly that science is right and verified while religion is wrong... it's more that science accepts that it can be wrong. It is skeptical in a way that faith can't be. For that... I trust science far more.

 

True but with faith there can be doubt, which is perhaps akin to scepticism in a faith context.

 

As has been stated, we are not talking about mathematical proof of God.

Perhaps we should be prepared to accept the lower standard of proof used in court.

Is there proof of God "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Clearly the answer is no, because there are lots of reasonable people who strongly doubt there's a God.

Since the believes can't even manage this lesser standard, they clearly won't be able to reach the "gold standard" of a mathematical or scientific proof.

 

Whoa there. What? You're suddenly making an appeal to popularity? And how are you defining reasonable? Reasonable in your subjective opinion? This statement (bold) is so woolly I don't know where to begin. You've hardly replicated courtroom conditions here. Someone could just as well respond with a Clearly the answer is yes because there are lots of reasonable people who strongly believe there is a God.

[Phi for All]

Popularity works for me.

It shouldn't, not when it comes to trusting explanations about the phenomena we experience every day. Opinion is fine for many things, but not for science. There needs to be a benchmark that's held to higher standards than how many people like it.

 

That's why mathematicians say physics is too important to be left to the physicists.

 

Too funny.

Just funny enough, imo.

 

I'm not as well grounded in math as many here are, but I can see the importance of not looking for "proof", or even worse, Truth! when it comes to various phenomena. I could never trust explanations that are considered absolutely "True" based on anything, much less mass appeal. Could you, really? Wouldn't that be like using the Nielsen rating system to determine quality when all it really does is measure popularity?

 

I think we would end up with explanations that made people happy instead of informed. That's good enough for TV but not for science.

[Euler's Identity]

 

So, "a huge majority of peoples faith is baseless" is now a fact? So much that it's considered "common sense"?

 

Citation needed, please.

 

How can you really assert that this huge majority of religious people never had any experiences they considered sufficient enough to make them believe? Does it have to be miraculous or just seem miraculous? I've never met anyone who really believed that didn't have a good reason for it, even if the reasoning wasn't up to scientific rigor

 

You've misread my post again, I didn't make the assertion as fact that most peoples faith is baseless based on common sense, I said that blind faith is baseless based on common sense.

[pears]

I think you need to clarify this sentence

 

My stance is that completely blind faith makes no sense, which relies upon common sense, rather than assumptions.

 

Are you saying that your stance is that blind faith makes no sense i.e. that blind faith is not common sense. Or do you mean that your stance is common sense? Or something else? Either way "common sense" is a fairly woolly term. What is the standard for this "common sense"?

[Euler's Identity]

I think you need to clarify this sentence

 

 

Are you saying that your stance is that blind faith makes no sense i.e. that blind faith is not common sense. Or do you mean that your stance is common sense? Or something else? Either way "common sense" is a fairly woolly term. What is the standard for this "common sense"?

 

Hmm I thought despite that it isn't perfectly defined it was quite unambiguous (common sense that is), what I mean is that baseless blind faith with no explanation for why you really believe it is clearly misguided. I don't see why this is so difficult to swallow, if I wanted to believe that a "pile of shit" was going to come down and save me in my time of need with NOTHING guiding me to believe so, I think we could all agree that I am completely misguided. (In this hypothetical that is )

Edited September 19, 2013 by Euler's Identity

[pears]

So you're saying that blind faith is not common sense?

 

It's fine to make such a statement as an opinion. But terms such as "common sense" and "clearly misguided" ARE ambiguous. Appeals to common sense are generally fallacious. It's an appeal to popular opinion. So while your statement is a valid opinion, it's not a valid assertion.

Edited September 19, 2013 by pears

[Euler's Identity]

So you're saying that blind faith is not common sense?

 

It's fine to make such a statement as an opinion. But terms such as "common sense" and "clearly misguided" ARE ambiguous. Appeals to common sense are generally fallacious. It's an appeal to popular opinion. So while your statement is a valid opinion, it's not a valid assertion.

 

So it wouldn't be your strong opinion that I shouldn't take my child to the hospital with a serious illness because I believe that my lord "dog shit" is going to come down and cure her illness based on nothing but 100% blind faith? Should I tell her that if you do not worship my pile of dog feces she will burn in fire for eternity after she dies? Would you not be strongly opinionated that me believing in this dog feces as a deity based on nothing but blind faith is incorrect? The scientific method isn't necessary here, my pile of feces CLEARLY isn't a deity (dodge and say its a matter opinion all you want) and I shouldn't be teaching my children to believe this either. You can say subjective, subjective, subjective and throw that at everything, and yes that is valid within the realm of science, but we're not discussing science. We are discussing the "rationale behind religion" I believe the forum description says something similar to that.

[pears]

Whoa, where did all that suddenly came from? I was merely commenting on your conversation with Phi over a very specific statement and asking you to clarify a point which I thought was ambiguous in its use of English. I also commented on your appeal to common sense in the same post. You have now completely moved the goalposts and asked me to comment on something entirely different.

 

My advice to you on whether you should take your child to hospital would be based on my understanding of and trust in medical care, because I know it is based on scientific understanding.

 

Do you think I think blind faith is good? It seems you do. If so perhaps you can point me to where I said any such thing?

Edited September 19, 2013 by pears

[Phi for All]

Why must religion live up to truth, what, besides deduction, is truth bound?

 

Why do so many religions treat their teachings as Truth? Christianity even went so far as a branding campaign, making scripture synonymous with it ("The Gospel Truth!"). This alone has caused many science-minded people to avoid it.

 

Yes there is a semantics issue. We certainly have different definitions of the word 'evidence' and that has led to some frustration within the discussion. I can see that in a science context then evidence takes on a special meaning, but it also as a more general every day usage which is far less formal. If we were discussing a science experiment then I would fully accept your usage in that context. But since we are not I don't think it's entirely fair to impose a scientific usage of the word on the conversation. Yes I know this is a science forum, but we aren't discussing science. We're discussing theistic scientists and what leads people to believe.

Well I think that's the whole point. Why would any scientist hold beliefs he trusts to one standard of evidence, and beliefs he has faith in to another? For our purposes here, this is what causes so much wasted discussion, since most aren't willing to let religion get a special pleading pass when it makes assertions that science would have to back up with solid evidence.

 

Am I wrong or isn't that what is really being discussed here for the last several pages? Whether people can assert ANYTHING without supporting it? If I say "All doctors are men", evidence can refute that assertion. If I say, "The doctor didn't cure my mother, God cured my mother", you seem to be saying I get to make that assertion without being held to the same rigor as the first claim. Does that really seem right to you, especially when religion starts making claims science has simpler, natural explanations for?

 

Not entirely or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. This seems to impose a digital view on faith. Faith is either 'pure' and doesn't need "evidence" or evidence is scientific and does not require faith. I.e. it's either all pure faith, or pure empiricism. I would view faith as a much greyer area than this. It's all about what can be known for certain. The more empiric the evidence the higher degree of certainty. Then there is a scale where faith may be based on "evidence" in a much less formal sense, e.g. testimony, personal experience, history etc or perhaps on pure philosophical reasoning. Forming an opinion in the middle or lower end of that scale is a personal judgement, and the amount of faith required probably varies along the scale.

 

Isn't purity of faith the goal, whether it's attainable or not? Isn't faith supposed to be strong and abiding, complete and without doubt? If you tell your priest you have doubt, isn't he going to try to fix it, help you remove your doubt?

 

I disagree with "I would view faith as a much greyer area than this". I think this treatment is what allows faith to appear so strong to believers even though it's built on feelings more than reputable evidence. Faith is believing with confidence despite a lack of evidence. It's special but it's not "gray". It seems to turn on whether you think this type of belief is stronger for having no basis or weaker because they're asserting things they can't possibly know.

 

I also disagree with "It's all about what can be known for certain". More definition problems, sorry. Certainty is knowing for sure, established beyond doubt. I don't think it's a good word to use with "degrees" in this context. Just an opinion, motivated by the desire for clarity.

 

*edit to add: I really do appreciate your clarity and input on this subject, despite my disagreements. Arguments can be good discussions and thank you for showing that.

 

You've misread my post again, I didn't make the assertion as fact that most peoples faith is baseless based on common sense, I said that blind faith is baseless based on common sense.

Dude, you went too far, that's all. Own it.

 

And using terms like "common sense" is not only insulting, it's vague and subjective. Faith is already defined as belief despite a lack of evidence. I said that waaaaay back when you first brought this up, and you've been trying to assert that this makes theists wrong or stupid ever since (how else are we to interpret a lack of "common sense"?).

 

Please don't keep using "common sense" as some kind of objective measurement. It used to be common sense to throw spilled salt over your shoulder to ward off the devil.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Phi for All
additional thought

[john5746]

Please don't keep using "common sense" as some kind of objective measurement. It used to be common sense to throw spilled salt over your shoulder to ward off the devil.

That's so stupid. If you do that, it might get in the eyes of your invisible dragon and make him angry. That's what causes headaches - angry dragons.

[pears]

 

Am I wrong or isn't that what is really being discussed here for the last several pages? Whether people can assert ANYTHING without supporting it? If I say "All doctors are men", evidence can refute that assertion. If I say, "The doctor didn't cure my mother, God cured my mother", you seem to be saying I get to make that assertion without being held to the same rigor as the first claim. Does that really seem right to you, especially when religion starts making claims science has simpler, natural explanations for?

 

Noooooo, that most certainly is not what I'm saying. If someone claims God cured their mother that is fair game for scientific investigation. If they had been receiving treatment and are cured afterwards then the reason seems clear. If someone wanted to view the provision of medical care as the provision of a God (because they feel all things come from God) then that would be their interpretation of events, but it would be an interpretation rather than a claim. If someone saw someone get better against all odds (i.e. with a high degree of improbability) then perhaps they would want to view that as a miracle. It might be natural in the sense that it was a series of unlikely events that caused it within the natural order, but I could imagine someone interpreting that as God rather than nature. That would be up for debate. The alleged improbabilty of it would be something science would have a say in.

 

Isn't purity of faith the goal, whether it's attainable or not? Isn't faith supposed to be strong and abiding, complete and without doubt? If you tell your priest you have doubt, isn't he going to try to fix it, help you remove your doubt?

 

I don't know. It depends on someone's definition of faith. My personal view is that faith goes hand in hand with doubt. It seems healthier to me. That's my opinion. But then I have a suspicion of anything that is "too certain" because I don't think we can ever be certain about anything.

 

I disagree with "I would view faith as a much greyer area than this". I think this treatment is what allows faith to appear so strong to believers even though it's built on feelings more than reputable evidence. Faith is believing with confidence despite a lack of evidence. It's special but it's not "gray". It seems to turn on whether you think this type of belief is stronger for having no basis or weaker because they're asserting things they can't possibly know.

 

Hmmm. I like your point. I can see your point. But I don't view faith that way. I do see degrees of certainty or uncertainty going hand in hand with degrees of faith. But I tend to view things in shades of grey generally anyway.

 

I also disagree with "It's all about what can be known for certain". More definition problems, sorry. Certainty is knowing for sure, established beyond doubt. I don't think it's a good word to use with "degrees" in this context. Just an opinion, motivated by the desire for clarity.

 

You're right. The word certain is wrong here and is rather sloppy use of language on my part. I think what I mean is "It's all about what can be known with as much certainty as possible". Again certainty may not be the perfect word here either but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head. I hope you understand my meaning.

Edited September 19, 2013 by pears

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Euler's Identity - Could you tone down the invective please? There are ways to argue the self-same points without seeming to brow-beat or resorting to inflammatory language . Many thanks.

 

please do not respond to this modnote within the thread - report it if you feel it is unjust.

 

[iNow]

Popularity works for me.

I will take this as your concession that assertions that god(s) exist are not functionally different than assertions that corndog pooping dragons exist, or at least that you (and others) are completely unable to cite a relevant functional difference between the two and for our purposes here they ought to be considered equivalent.

 

As was already debated many pages ago in this very thread, popularity is not demonstrative of the truth or validity of a claim.

 

 

 

This also feels like a good time to repeat this contribution from ydoaps, especially given the exchanges btw Phi and Pears:

 

Observation o counts as evidence for h iff P(h|k&o)>P(h|k) where k is our background knowledge. It's really that simple. Faith is precisely the rejection of that and popularity doesn't meet the requirement.

[Euler's Identity]

 

 

Dude, you went too far, that's all. Own it.

 

And using terms like "common sense" is not only insulting, it's vague and subjective. Faith is already defined as belief despite a lack of evidence. I said that waaaaay back when you first brought this up, and you've been trying to assert that this makes theists wrong or stupid ever since (how else are we to interpret a lack of "common sense"?).

 

Please don't keep using "common sense" as some kind of objective measurement. It used to be common sense to throw spilled salt over your shoulder to ward off the devil.

 

Actually, YOU have been interpreting my posts that way every since, NEVER did I say that theist are "stupid" or "wrong". Maybe you should check back with my posts in the past. As we both seemed to agree many theists do not base their faith on nothing, but in my personal experience as I also stated many do, but this has been used against me to say that I believe that theists are "stupid" or "have no common sense".

 

pears:

How am I shifting the goalposts here? We're still talking about blind faith with nothing to support it and I asked you a question to get your opinion, perhaps I did get the wrong impression on you're beliefs, I was already getting charged up anyways. I should probably take a good break from the thread for a while because we don't appear to be getting anywhere anyways.

[Phi for All]

Noooooo, that most certainly is not what I'm saying. If someone claims God cured their mother that is fair game for scientific investigation. If they had been receiving treatment and are cured afterwards then the reason seems clear. If someone wanted to view the provision of medical care as the provision of a God (because they feel all things come from God) then that would be their interpretation of events, but it would be an interpretation rather than a claim. If someone saw someone get better against all odds (i.e. with a high degree of improbability) then perhaps they would want to view that as a miracle. It might be natural in the sense that it was a series of unlikely events that caused it within the natural order, but I could imagine someone interpreting that as God rather than nature. That would be up for debate. The alleged improbabilty of it would be something science would have a say in.

"God cured my mother" is a claim, an assertion. "I think God cured my mother" is an interpretation, an opinion. The former ALWAYS gets pounced on here, as well it should. The latter can be questioned like any opinion but not held to the same standard as an assertion.

 

Just once I'd love to hear, "God regrew my mother's amputated leg". He seems to be very good with cancer and pneumonia.

 

Perhaps the root of the problem is the inherent non-falsifiability of god(s). When we try to apply scientific methodology to an entity that chooses to remain unobservable by that methodology, it predictably fails. And every miracle I've ever heard of can more easily be explained naturally.

 

I don't know. It depends on someone's definition of faith. My personal view is that faith goes hand in hand with doubt. It seems healthier to me. That's my opinion. But then I have a suspicion of anything that is "too certain" because I don't think we can ever be certain about anything.

I like that concept of belief inextricably linked to doubt. It reminds me of the scientific method. A suspicion of anything people claim as certain is healthy, imo too.

 

Hmmm. I like your point. I can see your point. But I don't view faith that way. I do see degrees of certainty or uncertainty going hand in hand with degrees of faith. But I tend to view things in shades of grey generally anyway.

This is why I separate belief into trust, faith and hope. I feel it's important to identify whether my belief is based on evidence (which I can check if I doubt it enough), a gut feeling or wishful thinking.

 

I can live with my wishful thoughts. I make no assertions about them and I don't try to mold my life around them.

 

I still define faith as certainty without support. And I just can't invest that kind of belief in something I can't possibly know about.

 

You're right. The would certain is wrong here and is rather sloppy use of language on my part. I think what I mean is "It's all about what can be known with as much certainty as possible". Again certainty may not be the perfect word here either but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head. I hope you understand my meaning.

I do understand. So many words have nuances that tag along whether we want them or not. Perhaps it's because certainty isn't a scalar quantity. It has direction ("I'm certain you're explanation is right" or "I'm certain your explanation is wrong"), and all else in between is really degrees of doubt. Maybe?

[pears]

Just once I'd love to hear, "God regrew my mother's amputated leg". He seems to be very good with cancer and pneumonia.

 

Good point

[Iggy]

I will take this as your concession that assertions that god(s) exist are not functionally different than assertions that corndog pooping dragons exist, or at least that you (and others) are completely unable to cite a relevant functional difference between the two and for our purposes here they ought to be considered equivalent.

 

As was already debated many pages ago in this very thread, popularity is not demonstrative of the truth or validity of a claim.

 

 

 

This also feels like a good time to repeat this contribution from ydoaps, especially given the exchanges btw Phi and Pears:

 

What an amazing amount of faith you have. You actually believe, based on no evidence, that the world would be functionally equivalent if 85% of humanity had their core belief in god changed to a core belief in corn dog pooping dragons. This is a belief you can't even explain, but you have complete conviction -- complete blind faith. Not only that, now you've convinced yourself that I'm agreeing with you.

 

I think what happened is that a bunch of atheists got together and started saying "god is equivalent to pixie farts" and "god is equivalent to leprechaun erections". They had such a good laugh and felt so good about it that they actually started to believe it. Sort of like mass hypnosis. Someone should do a case study. This is fascinating to watch in real time. A myth is being born and people are willing to have faith in it. Beautiful.

It shouldn't, not when it comes to trusting explanations about the phenomena we experience every day. Opinion is fine for many things, but not for science. There needs to be a benchmark that's held to higher standards than how many people like it.

 

Just funny enough, imo.

 

I'm not as well grounded in math as many here are, but I can see the importance of not looking for "proof", or even worse, Truth! when it comes to various phenomena. I could never trust explanations that are considered absolutely "True" based on anything, much less mass appeal. Could you, really? Wouldn't that be like using the Nielsen rating system to determine quality when all it really does is measure popularity?

 

I think we would end up with explanations that made people happy instead of informed. That's good enough for TV but not for science.

 

No, I don't disagree. I was using the word proof offhandedly. I'm actually a true believer in the cogito. The only thing one can truly prove is "I exist". [ I don't mean that sarcastically ]

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

 

Whoa there. What? You're suddenly making an appeal to popularity? And how are you defining reasonable? Reasonable in your subjective opinion? This statement (bold) is so woolly I don't know where to begin. You've hardly replicated courtroom conditions here. Someone could just as well respond with a Clearly the answer is yes because there are lots of reasonable people who strongly believe there is a God.

No, I'm not making an appeal to popularity, I'm pointing out that courts don't need absolute proof.The definition of reasonable is well documented and is, I grant you, essentially one of vox pop.

It is , as you say, a poor standard of proof.

The point remains that the God squad still can't prove the existence of God beyond reasonable doubt.

And it remains true that, since they can't manager a lower bar, they are not going to meet the gold standard.

 

That the same can be said of the dragon (or, indeed, the lack-of-God or lack-of-dragon) is the point here.

The two stories are equally poorly proven, and are in (at least) that sense, equivalent.

[iNow]

You actually believe, based on no evidence, that the world would be functionally equivalent if 85% of humanity had their core belief in god changed to a core belief in corn dog pooping dragons.

I believe in no such thing. Not only are you attacking a strawman of my position, but you are now also moving the goal posts.

 

I've made no claims about what would happen to people or what would happen to society itself if people replaced their belief in god(s) with a belief in corndog shitting dragons.

 

My point, as made abundantly and repeatedly clear throughout multiple posts in this thread, is that nobody seems able to cite a single functional difference between the assertion that god(s) exist and the assertion that corndog shitting dragons exist.

 

Popularity has been cited, but popularity has also been debunked as a relevant response since it's not a valid input on the veracity or validity of the claim of existence.

 

Nobody is talking about how humans would react if they changed their beliefs nor how society and the world itself would be impacted if this occurred... Nobody, that is, except you. Which makes these other comments you made:

 

This is a belief you can't even explain, but you have complete conviction -- complete blind faith.

... completely moot, irrelevant, and tangential to the actual discussion taking place.

 

 

I think what happened is that a bunch of atheists got together and started saying "god is equivalent to pixie farts" and "god is equivalent to leprechaun erections".

Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you suggest they are functionally different from one another?

[Iggy]

That the same can be said of the dragon (or, indeed, the lack-of-God or lack-of-dragon) is the point here.

The two stories are equally poorly proven...

 

"God exists" is not falsifiable. "God does not exist" is falsifiable. You shouldn't compare them like that. The first is a reasonable observation (or could... in principle be), and the latter is a reasonable hypothesis (or could... in principle be). But, an observation is not a hypothesis. They're distinctly different things.

[iNow]

"God exists" is not falsifiable. "God does not exist" is falsifiable.

Only if they first define god and in a way that finds consensus.

[Iggy]

I've made no claims about what would happen to people or what would happen to society itself if people replaced their belief in god(s) with a belief in corndog shitting dragons.

So... functionally equivalent doesn't mean functionally equivalent? To say that belief in one is the same as belief in the other means that switching the beliefs doesn't change anything. Nothing would be functionally different. I think maybe you need to define your words. I'm not following precisely what you mean.

 

My point, as made abundantly and repeatedly clear throughout multiple posts in this thread, is that nobody seems able to cite a single functional difference between the assertion that god(s) exist and the assertion that corndog shitting dragons exist.

No, iNow. That is most definitely wrong. You aren't asking anyone to cite anything when you say this:

 

More specifically, I said that the only difference between claims that god(s) exist and claims that corndog shitting dragons exist is that one is more popular...

and this...

 

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly...

You're clearly saying they're equivalent. You're saying that you can show they're equivalent.

 

Why should I need to cite something in order for you to do that? This isn't my problem.

 

Popularity has been cited, but popularity has also been debunked as a relevant response since it's not a valid input on the veracity or validity of the claim of existence.

Relevant to what?

 

Claim A is equal to claim B only if A is equal to B. Either you can show A equal to B or you can't. What someone finds relevant is completely beside the point. If A is more popular than B then A is not equal to B. It is just that simple.

Only if they first define god and in a way that finds consensus.

 

Consensus makes a definition, not the inverse.

 

If 99% of people disagree with a dictionary then it's the dictionary that's wrong.

 

Falsifiability doesn't need consensus.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

"God exists" is not falsifiable. "God does not exist" is falsifiable. You shouldn't compare them like that. The first is a reasonable observation (or could... in principle be), and the latter is a reasonable hypothesis (or could... in principle be). But, an observation is not a hypothesis. They're distinctly different things.

Since god(s) remain outside what scientists could observe and test, how can we say "God does NOT exist" is a falsifiable statement? What set of circumstances can you envision that could refute the existence of something you're not supposed to be capable of observing and testing?

 

I think both stances are non-falsifiable.

[Iggy]

Since god(s) remain outside what scientists could observe and test, how can we say "God does NOT exist" is a falsifiable statement? What set of circumstances can you envision that could refute the existence of something you're not supposed to be capable of observing and testing?

 

I think both stances are non-falsifiable.

I mean, in principle, "X exists" is not falsifiable (you'd have to search the whole universe over to show it wrong, as I think you previously pointed out to me). "X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong.

 

So, how is God X... well... that's up to whoever is making the claim. Like iNow said, there are many definitions for god. But, in general, whatever the definition it should fit the profile I just laid out

Edited September 19, 2013 by Iggy

[Euler's Identity]

I mean, in principle, "X exists" is not falsifiable (you'd have to search the whole universe over to show it wrong, as I think you previously pointed out to me). "X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong.

 

So, how is God X... well... that's up to whoever is making the claim. Like iNow said, there are many definitions for god. But, in general, whatever the definition it should fit the profile I just laid out

 

Wouldn't you have to search the whole universe to disprove that X does not exist as well? When we discuss the most popular religions, this is even more difficult because God X is outside of the reach of the universe and laws of the universe. Therefore you could never say for sure that God X doesn't exist.