Og3 wrote: ↑
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:42 pm
The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable, and I have told you how. The Apostle Paul told you how in 1 Cor. 15, nearly 2000 years ago. Show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There's your falsification.
You are throwing me a red herring. My point was how can you falsify an undetectable God? What is a God anyway? It is your claim that it is possible to raise somebody from the dead after 3 days. Prove it.
What was my evidence? My evidence was philosophical, because science could not address the question.
Or a more honest answer would be there is no scientific evidence or even a definition of what such a god (if it exists) consists of.
Evidence is neither scientific nor unscientific.
It is scientific when this definition is applied:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Try living a day in your life ignoring scientific evidence.
What makes you think that life has a purpose?
Well, if it doesn't, then you and I are having a remarkably pointless discussion, aren't we?
Another red herring
Answer the question please.
Science is the wrong tool for the job.
Why? If science can't detect something, why worry about it?
Tell your wife that on Valentine's day when she asks if you love her.
Ah, but it is easy to detect my wife with all my senses. I can produce photos and videos of her and can see images of her throughout her life. I can talk to her and she immediately talks back to me. She has told me that she has loved me and has provided proof of that love in innumerable ways. Your God falls way short of all those things. Plus I know for sure that she has NOT cruelly killed millions of innocent people - unlike your God.
Suppose you address miracles. Science will tell you that given the set of natural laws, a man cannot walk on water. But a miracle is assumed to be a suspension of natural laws. No one ever says, "Jesus experimentally walked on water and therefore we should be able to replicate that experiment in a laboratory, and when we do, we will change our understanding of natural laws."
I don't know what "suspension of natural laws" means. Have you any evidence of what you mean by this?
Evidence of what [ ... I .... ] mean by this?" Are you expecting a PETN scan of my brain activity when I use the phrase? Do you see how you're throwing words around without assigning them meanings? I will assume you meant to type "example:"
A suspension of a natural law would be a miracle. For example, let us say that we attempt to make feldspar, (Na,K)AlSi3O8 into bread, for example, a very simple flour and water combination cooked as a flat cake. fairly revolting as a foodstuff -- at best a dry tasteless cracker -- but can we do that through chemical processes without adding anything else? Well, let's take inventory. Feldspar is
Si, silicon, and
Bread (flour C6H10O5 and water H2O) requires:
The only element in common is oxygen, so we're SOL (Simply Out of Luck).
Now, there is a theoretical natural way to make bread -- C, H, and O -- into stone, though not vice versa. We would need to take the hydrogen, extract the naturally occurring heavy hydrogen -- deuterium and tritium, isotopes of hydrogen that have 1 and 2 neutrons respectively, instead of the usual none -- and fuse these in a nearby star until we produce Na, K, Al, and Si in appropriate proportions to make feldspar. Easy as pie, Bob's your uncle, and we leave the demonstration as an exercise for the student.*
So suppose that we watch someone turn feldspar into sourdough. Well, science tells us that it can't happen by any natural means. When we say that "science tells us" we mean NOT the Scientific Method, but the data we have gathered by using the Matchless Method (Scientific Method).
But we just (as is given) watched someone do so, in violation of the natural laws. So one of two things must be true:
A. The natural law is wrong and must be amended in some way, or
B. The natural laws have been suspended for the purpose of this demonstration.
We will assume, Ad Argumentum, that James Randi was standing by and approved the experiment in advance, then provided his million-dollar award to the person who performed it, because he could find no fault in it, just to rule out the idea that the transmutation was faked. We are examining the narrow case of an actual real event which is apparently in direct violation of natural law.
What determines if the event was A or B? (not that it matters, you stopped reading and skipped to the next item. But anyway) Repeatability. If we can ALWAYS do process x, y, z, and the results will ALWAYS turn feldspar into sourdough, then it is REPEATABLE, and we need to amend our physical laws to reflect the transmutation of elements by this new process.
If we cannot repeat the process -- That is, if one person following a verifiable series of steps did the process ONCE, and it worked, but no one else by any process can replicate it, then it is not a call to amend our physical laws, but a bona fide miracle.
thus I said:
Ok, so miracles is just another word for magic, except God did it. Got it!
We talk about miracles because they are an exception to natural laws, not a new understanding of them. Contrast the development of Newtonian Gravity. Suddenly we understood that there was a limit to the rule, "What goes up must come down." Now we understand that "What goes up, unless it reaches escape velocity, must come down eventually." But in the walking on water, no one is claiming that it was possible but misunderstood: The claim is that it was impossible, and that by doing the impossible, Jesus proved that he was God.
So by that logic, any religion that has claims of a hero performing impossible tasks is also God?
Not merely claims, but actual miracles.
Which most other religions also claim.
And those miracles were performed for the people of that day, to show THEM that He was the Son of God. Here's the thing you seem to get backwards:
You think that I read the Bible, see that Jesus performed a miracle, and say, oh, then He must have been God. But that's backwards.
I reasonably infer that Jesus was the Son of God.
How can you infer that, let alone "reasonably? There is no evidence that a human being can be born from a spirit father, whatever that means and a virgin mother. The very first assumption would be that he was born naturally and people lied by Occam's razor.
From that, by corollary, I am compelled to also believe that the Bible is true as written,
So if the virgin birth claim is false, the Bible is also false.
and from that I am compelled to believe that the miracles therein are bona fide events.
So it all falls apart if someone can convince you that Jesus wasn't born from a spirit father and a virgin mother?
So attacking miracles is not going to chop down my faith, any more than chopping a branch off of a tree will kill the tree. You need to start at the trunk if you're going to chop down the tree. You'll need to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Or you can demonstrate and external meaning of life that is not God, though that would merely raise doubts, not chop down the tree.
Proving Jesus didn't rise from the dead should be pretty easy if he wasn't born from a spirit father and a virgin mother. That would mean that he wasn't the son of God and just a normal human. We both know that humans can't rise from the dead after 3 days. We both should know that it is impossible to impregnate a women without a sperm fertilising an ovum containing DNA coding. So how did God do it?
Science only tells us of natural law; it cannot tell us of times when natural law is suspended supernaturally.
Correct, because the last bit is not falsifiable and a meaningless statement.
It is falsifiable; see my discussion above of feldspar and sourdough. If it can be repeated, and a mechanism found for it, then it merely requires an update to physical laws, and the alleged miracle is falsified as a pure miracle.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
Yes, not entirely, but it does refute silly claims with no verifiable evidence.
Really? Name a silly claim that has no verifiable evidence, and tell me how you would refute it.
Here, I'll give you one: I claim that Australia isn't real: It's a mapmaker's joke from 1606. There you go, use SCIENCE - -the scientific method, and ONLY the scientific method -- to show me how to refute that. Be sure that your experiment includes plenty of controls.
I've even made it easier for you: I've given you something very physical to test. Off you go...
Yeah, right after you prove to me that the USA is real
Ever wonder why no-one writes peer reviewed scientific papers on the existence of God?
Because any competent scientist will say, "This is not something that our field addresses, and therefore we cannot review it."
He might also say that the existence of gods, fairies, gremlins and other supernatural "things" aren't falsifiable and therefore the question of their existence is meaningless.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.