There is no God

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

I am just a bit cautious with my wording, esp. when discussing stuff that may get others very upset.

ok.

AnAtheist:

Ah, I understand what you mean. And I agree, that an integer number of “10^200” exists in a different way than “5” apples. The five apples exist in realiter, the “10^200” exist as a concept, as does the “5”. But there is no way, that 10^200 apples could exist.
In that sense God of course exists as a concept. I’d follow Anselm of Canterbury’s definition of God here. He is just not real.

I was just focusing on establishing the logic that there is more to existence than the visible universe. In addition to what is visible, we recognize concepts and ideas, which are invisible until made manifest in some way. So “existence” involves more than just a physical object, force, or energy.

And the theory of the Big Bang, which is itself a concept, doesn’t explain the origin of concepts, how they came to be, or where they are maintained in existence for all to access.

So even if the big bang happened, it is not sufficient to account for all existence. We must delve further into this, to know what is common between the existence of concepts and the existence of matter and energy. For it only stands to reason that they share a common source since they both exist.

Also, I would like to point out that concepts are more real than objects. An object is temporary, but a concept is permanent. An object is localized in time and space, a concept is universal to all times and in any location. The concept of 5 cannot be destroyed. (I hope you can also discern that it must have always existed). Thus, while not all concepts are manifested in the visible universe, they nonetheless exist and cannot be destroyed.

As for God as a concept, I would say logic requires that God be more than a concept. Concepts don’t do anything by themselves. We recognize and grasp them. We make use of concepts as we think and do things. Now, the concept of atomic elements being differentiated by the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom could not have implemented itself, and yet neither did any person do it. So some other actual existence manifested the concept somehow. This other existence could not have been a visible object, nor could it have been a passive concept. (The same could be said regarding the big bang concept. Some other existence had to have implemented that concept - one that was able to work both with the concept and with matter and energy). So it follows, based on the visible universe containing manifested concepts not manifested by the universe on its own, that there is an even higher form of existence than the indestructible passive concept. So logically, if “God” is to be the highest thing conceivable, then He must be “more than a concept”, because we just conceived something higher.

Notice we just conceived of something higher than a passive concept, and presented it as a passive concept. This shows that a concept can also be like a shadow of a greater reality, even as 2-D cannot ever perfectly portray 3-D. And yet through reason we can know it is of something higher.

We say the universe cannot contain God. He is too immense to be manifested therein. So you can say God is not a “real” (manifested) object in the visible universe. But there are many things too big to be manifested, and yet no one claims them to be God (10^200 is not “God”). So it stands to reason that immensity is not the only necessary attribute of God. From above we see that activity capable of manifesting concepts is a necessary attribute, for that is superior to passivity, and we actually observe a physical universe with manifested concepts therein.

We can go further than this, but I will stop here for now.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

To reject a position solely because someone raised a doubt about it, is unstable.

That is correct. But to claim one position is the only one position, when there are equally reasonable aleternatives, is unstable too.

No, it is not obvious. …] a God with certain naturally knowable attributes

What is the difference between “obvious” and “naturally knowable”? Looks pretty much the same to me.

We can know with certainty that God exists,

We can only know empirical facts with certainty. All other knowledge is theoretical and not certain. I suggest to read or at least read about the works of Karl Popper, that gives some insight on how a theory or explanation differs from evidence.

So, if you want me to take God for granted, show me the empirical evidence, i.e. God himself. Otherwise God is just an explanation for the empirical facts we observe.

It is a logical conclusion based on observed reality.

No, it’s not. God is either fact, then no logic is necessary, or God is a theory, and a model of the observed reality can be logically concluded from that theory. The problem with God is, as a fact he escapes any attempt of detection, and as a theory the observed reality quite often does not logically follow from that theory, the theory is contradictory, or the theory makes no testable statements or predictions. And as long as a theory is not testable, one has to take it by faith. That includes the reasonable theories.

 

[AnAtheist]

I agree to most of what you’ve said except:

hurst:

Also, I would like to point out that concepts are more real than objects. An object is localized in time and space, a concept is universal to all times and in any location.

To be localisable in space and time is a strong indication for being real. Concepts are not real at all, they describe reality.

Example:

Now, the concept of atomic elements being differentiated by the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom could not have implemented itself, and yet neither did any person do it. So some other actual existence manifested the concept somehow.

That concept does not need to be implemented. The concept was derived from observing atoms, and is now used to describe atoms.

 

[alms]

TySixtus, I don’t know if you have covered this but for a non-theological approach open your college physics text and study the second law of thermodynamics. I will not go into the details but it concludes an end of the universe via entropy by “heat death”. Thus, in our three dimensional world moving though space and time the universe is proven by the 2nd law to have an end. By the same logic that if there is no high without a low, no big without a little, no under without an over, no yes without a no, (I could go on and on) there is no end without a beginning. And what started that beginning?

If this is not satisfactory check out all of the in your face circumstantial evidence around you:

Free will and reason: have you ever seen an organism besides Homo sapien in the animal or plant kingdom commit suicide? Answer: no. All other organisms do not have free will. They are programmed or live by what biologist call “instinct”.

Order: the perfect tilt of the earth’s axis and distance from the sun to create life, the cycles of the earth (CO2, N2, O2, C, etc.), the organization of organs in the body, I could go on and on.

Lack of scientific evidence: where’s the “missing link”, all the suppositions and assumptions (i.e. faith) in science to explain natural phenomena such as evolution, the lack of disproof of the existence of God.

With all this aside to really know the existence of God one needs the gift of faith because God transcends all the earthly metrics we may use to prove his existence. It’s a gift that I value more everyday not in spite of the hundreds of hours of math and science I’ve studied but because of it. And God offers the fullness of this gift trough the Catholic Church.

 

[mikew262]

alms:

TySixtus, I don’t know if you have covered this but for a non-theological approach open your college physics text and study the second law of thermodynamics. .

I think TySixtus has surrendered from this thread. He hasn’t posted here in many days. Hopefully, he is busy reconsidering his current position.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Although I am getting very tired of this…

Alois:

Self-refutation? How did you even come to think that? Did you read what I wrote?

He used the Christian faith to push a Nazi agenda. Show me the self-refutation in this statement.

I wasn’t referring to that statement. The statement I was referring to… well, refer to my post to see what I was referring to (this is advice for the readers, I gave up on Alois, he is obviously teasing me).

Alois:

One true Scotsman fallacy. What’s a true Christian?

(Readers: notice this oldie atheist rebuttal. Defense against this one is quite simple as it is obvious). No true scottsman. A “true Christian” is one who follows Christianity. A false one is someone who doesn’t. Just like a “good citizen”: one who observes the laws required of all citizens.

(Readers: The intention of this typical “no true scottsman” attack is to elliminate the difference between true and untrue Christians, so that, for example, if Larry Flint decides himself to call himself a Christian, the enemies of our faith can point and “Aha! Christians are capable of being great pornographers!” Lame. But if you can’t spot the error, it could misguide you).

 

[Alois]

I’ll split this into two parts as well to stay consistant with your format.

hurst:

Let me explain. When we count apples, we have to select a number from the set of Integers. So the set is the source for that activity. Same for when we solve equations.

Not exactly. When applying a logical part of a set to something, you use the set itself. In the case of one apple, we use 1. You don’t take a part of the set, you use the set itself.
Keep in mind that source it not analogous to creation.

No infinite set is made that way, if you think about it. Usually there is a pattern or formula which is used to “create” the definition of the “INS”. We could never populate it otherwise.

You’re correct. Perhaps not created, but consisting of.

I don’t follow you here.

Essentially, numbers do not provide possibilities that can necessarily be manifested. They are a logical concept applied to the possibilities of existence.

The set has already distinguished them in that they are separated by commas

Numbers flow smoothly. The only distinguishment is that which humans have applied.

The set of Integers is complete in that it is not missing any integers. Perfect is another word for complete.

Ah, that is correct. I was assuming you were using a different definition of perfect.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Why does there have to be a source? … [snip]

The same could be said for an infinite universe. You assume it needs a “start” point, but that the starter doesn’t? That’s illogical.

This is a bit confusing. Let us distinguish between visible existence and invisible existence. Sometimes an existing object is the source of another existing object, perhaps by composition, perhaps by imitation, etc. An invisible design can be the source of a visible sculpture. A block of stone can be the source of the sculpted bust. Its existence subsists in the other.

The block, in this case, is the base not the source. The human carving that block is the source, the God. The sculpture would still be a part of that block after it is sculpted, and would still be a part of it. This is consistant with existence.

This analogy is inaccurate however, because a block of stone in not an infinite set. There are only so many things you can make out of it. If n is the amount of the smallest particle in that block, then n! is the amount of possibilities from that block. The number is absurdly large, but finite.

You seem to be saying that in a number set, the set is not its own source of members. This may or may not be true, but is beside the point.

I was saying that the set is the source of numbers for use outside of the set… [snip]

We apply the set though, we don’t take something from it. For instance, when we see discernable objects that we wish to count, we apply to set. After applying it we find that there are four discernable objects. We didn’t look at some infinite “thing” and pull four out of it, we looked at the infinite set of numbers and applied it to show four objects.

At a minimum it means those parts subsist in that existence… [snip]

I agree.

This may be beside the point, but I view the INS as infinite basket full of an infinite amount of eggs. How is that inconsistant with the view of existance as infinity?

Given that I have now addressed your points (sorry for the delay),
I hope it is clearer that if all existence in the visible universe subsists in the eternal existence, then it is simple logic to call that eternal (invisible) existence the “source” of such (manifested) existence.

It is not. Much as a single number is still a part of the INS, visible existence is still a part of the invisible existence. The “eternal existence” as you label it is the base in which everything exists, and therefore, everything that exists is the eternal universe. It is not the source, it is

Not quite true. The eternal qualities of God I am covering are certainly of the Christian God.

How so? Explain how the God you’ve created is a God under any sense.

But I am not pursuing that. I am only reasoning with you about what is possible for one without faith to know: that God exists as omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect, will, and in every perfection.

Some of these traits are true, but you haven’t shown me how some others are.

Explain to me how the God you’ve described is omnipotent, sentient, if sentient - infinite in intellect, holding of its own will, and omniscient. These are all used in the definition of a monotheistic God.

We make up the set of manifested existences, but we subsist in the eternal existence, analogous to a sculpture subsisting in the rock. Also, computers subsist in clocked signals and pictures subsist in tiny colored dots.

We also make up that existence. Much like tiny colored dots make up a picture.

Yes, but it is more. It is eternal existence, one which has always existed. I see that the comparison to the INS fails with you in that you see it as a composition of parts instead of an eternally existing infinite substance of distinguishables. But I have submitted some additional comparisons for your consideration.

It doesn’t make a difference if it is a composition of its parts. If there are an infinite amount of these parts, then your view of it and mine are the same. You make the mistake of claiming that by its own nature, the number system is distinguishable. It is not, it is an infinitly flowing body that only humans have distinguished for ease of use. You can take a decimal down to an infinitely small number.

Not quite. I am not proposing a pantheistic model. It is as if we were nothingness surrounded by existence in such a manner that we exist in the eternal existence while not being it itself. We are like the “hole current” in a solid-state substrate, if you know what I mean.

I understand what you mean, but are you stating this as the position you’re arguing from?

 

[Alois]

Filius Prodigus:

Although I am getting very tired of this…

Then stop?

I wasn’t referring to that statement. The statement I was referring to… well, refer to my post to see what I was referring to (this is advice for the readers, I gave up on Alois, he is obviously teasing me).

To me claiming that he put up “a good front”? That was also sarcastic, which is why I pointed you to his quote below.

Explain how I’m “teasing” you. Is this a cop out, or do you have reason to believe I am?

No true scottsman. A “true Christian” is one who follows Christianity. A false one is someone who doesn’t. Just like a “good citizen”: one who observes the laws required of all citizens.

For the defense being “quite simple as well as obvious”, you didn’t do a good job at it. You’ve failed to define a true Christian, and failed to define the authority that could define a true Christian.

(Readers: The intention of this typical “no true scottsman” attack is to elliminate the difference between true and untrue Christians, so that, for example, if Larry Flint decides himself to call himself a Christian, the enemies of our faith can point and “Aha! Christians are capable of being great pornographers!” Lame. But if you can’t spot the error, it could misguide you).

You’re still missing the point. Who defines what a true Christian is? You? The chruch? Protestants? Anyone? What gives the definer the authority to make that claim?

 

[kev7]

Alois:

You’re still missing the point. Who defines what a true Christian is? You? The chruch? Protestants? Anyone? What gives the definer the authority to make that claim?

moral relativism.

 

[ThisOne]

TySixtus:

Yes, but you make one mistake. Causality is a property of the universe. The Universe itself is not subject to the primary cause idea, simply because it transcends cause itself. Cause itself springs from the universe.

Now, you can claim that your idea of god fits this definition. The problem you run into is that you’re left explaining the other characteristics people have made up (omni-benevolent, etc) which, according to Occams Razor, make your explanation more complex than it needs to be. Ergo, I’ve more reason to believe that that Universe has always existed.

Ty

There is no evidence to support your claim that the universe has always existed.

 

[ThisOne]

TySixtus:

At their core, with the idea of a transcendant being? Sure. Catholics pride themselves on being rational, what with their acceptance of Evolution among other things.

This is deceptive though, because despite all the concessions you guys make to rationality and science, you still believe in an invisible sky man.

Ty

Don’t tell me you don’t believe in X-rays!!!

 

[ThisOne]

EnterTheBowser:

How does God make life meaningful?

When He touches you and you become aware of His call, you will know the answer. We believe more because of His action on our minds and souls. We gain a “new” sense – the sense that recognizes the touch of the Beloved. It is an experience of joy that you will never want to be parted from.

 

[kev7]

ThisOne:

When He touches you and you become aware of His call, you will know the answer. We believe more because of His action on our minds and souls. We gain a “new” sense – the sense that recognizes the touch of the Beloved. It is an experience of joy that you will never want to be parted from.

This is very true.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

Your logic does not follow. To define something that is observed (such as a monkey) is different from defining something that is not yet manifest (such as a new widget). The very nature of invention is to specify something new (e.g. patent). So in that sense, it does have something to do with inventing it. But we digress.

God is manifest in a sense. He is defined in the Bible, by Jewish hymns, and in the Koran. Are these definitions produced by the imagination of man, or are they defined by God himself? None of us can know for certain. Do you believe that these were created by the imagination of man?

There are certain aspects of God that can be known by using the natural light of reason… [sic]

What is your purpose is posting these? What is the argument you’re positing?

Other aspects require faith in divine revelation. But the naturally knowable aspects are in the same God, and I do expect you to be able to at least accept that much as being logical, if you will follow reason.

Yes I do accept that much. However, this does nothing to show that the unknowable aspects exist, or even that the “knowable” ones do. Perhaps I am missing your point? Clarify please, if that needs to be done.

I think you lost track of that line of thought.

I am not using an analogy or its results when I tell you what the Christian God is, which you deny as being the Christian God. I countered with an actual definition made by the Church of what the Christian God is.

You have assumed an infinite set to contain certain traits of the Christian God when it did not, and continued to assume it to the conclusion that the Christian God is the God you’ve shown. I have stated that this is false, because certain traits you listed were not contained by an infinite set. (refer to my two earlier posts) I hope this clears up some muddied waters.

This is simply not true, based on my understanding of history. For example, the pagans certainly did not always define God as such, nor even today do all men define God as such.

I am not here to debate polytheistic gods. I’m here to debate a God. Otherwise known as a monotheistic God. A monotheistic God contains these traits.

Also, what is your definition of “supernatural”?

That which is beyond the natural world, or does not behave by natural laws.

The similitude I made some posts back was focused mainly on the aspect of infinite existence. It fails in regards to some other aspects, even though I put some references to them. But I never intended to be limited to that analogy for the definition of God.

We are now mixing two separate points: 1) existence considered in itself, and 2) differences in definition of “a God”

Then you will have to propose ideas that further define God, and show the rationality of his existence. Your basis for the rationality of a God was that existence causes recognition of Him. You have known shown this to be the case, even hypothetically. If you have more arguments for this God, I would love to hear and continue to debate them.

–

1.) Clarify please.

2.) I hope I have clarified my position on this.

Yes, He is, and must be. He is His own existence, and everything exists in Him. “In Him we live and move and have our being”. But this existence is more than the recognizable universe.

You again make the claim that He is more than existence, when you have shown only that He has traits of existence. You have no basis to say anything else about Him, because (so far as you have shown) He is nothing more than hopeful speculation.

It is reasonable and logical to conclude that we are made from the eternally existing existence, even though we are nothing of ourselves. Just as an atom is mostly empty space.

Eternally existing existence is what it is. There is no need for it to be a God, and indeed no logical, rational, or reasonable proof that it is a God. Much like how an infinite set is not thought to be God because it contains certain traits that could be considered Godly.

No.

Then how can you use your analogy to claim that God exists when this version of Him would not contain the central trait: sentience?

I already agree that nothing can come from nothing. It is logical.
But I think you misquoted yourself. Do you mean “the possibilities that something can come from nothing”? If so, then I would think we’d both agree that such a notion is not logical.

You’re correct, I made an error. I meant something from nothing. As has been explained before though, string theory proposes some interesting ideas on how something could come from nothing. It is just a mathmatical hypothesis with no empirical evidence, of course, but it is still a step ahead of the “God in the Gaps” game and worthy of looking in to.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

So you meant to say “Why is an existence created by an infinite God more logical than an existence that is infinite?” ?

I don’t see how that makes better sense. Please clarify.

Existence is simply a clearer definition. It contains all that exists, while the universe is the manifestation of all that is. I think this is the source of our main confusion.

By definition, existence is actual, not potential. The visible universe is filled with potential existence, as well as a lot of actual existence. (e.g. people)… [sic]

The universe is a physical ream filled with all actual existence, but no potential existence. Existence is a logical realm filled with all possible existence.

I think of a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron being analogous to a person. The electron is actively encasing it in a shell, with mostly empty space. The proton itself is made of 3 quarks (last I read). So the electron shell is like our body, and the proton shell is like our interior soul with the three powers of memory, intellect, and will.

This is a similie, not an analogy, because there is no shown connection between the traits of the two compared objects. It is however, a very interesting one.

You substituted the word “universe”. Are you now saying that you agree there is more to existence than the visible universe? I am not sure I understand you here.

Yes, but what isn’t in the physical universe is contained in a logical realm, not a physical one. It resides with things such a numbers. We do not need to store them, because they are simply a logical process.

You bring up a new question regarding the relative sizes of different infinities, and this only further enhances my point that infinite existence cannot be represented by the visible universe, but is only manifested in part therein.

Yes, I have stated many times that I agree there is more to existence than what is, and that is what could be.

My point is that those possibilities have to be kept in existence somewhere, and it can’t be the visible universe. I do not dispute that existence is infinite properly so-called.

But the “existence” of the visible universe is only a composition.

They are kept in existence, but in a logical form. They are not subject to space constraints.

But the “existence” of the visible universe is only a composition.

Clarify please.

I don’t follow this comparison. Just because a computer doesn’t need to store all possible results, those results still exist.

They exist in a logical format, they do not exist in a physical one. A formula is simple, yet produce complex results. These results aren’t held in the formula, they are logical results of the formula.

Existence does in fact need to store all possibilities, somehow, or else they do not exist. It is as simple as that. For example, the 23452353125th prime number exists, but it has not been discovered yet. We know it exists logically, but not because we found it and proved it to everyone. And we can know with certainty that even larger primes exist, though they can not ever be expressed or proven in a manifest way in this universe. But they surely exist.

Something logical does not need to be stored because it is not manifested. It exists within existence, not stored within it.

I have somewhat lost you. I thought you only believed in the visible universe, and I was trying to show that there must be more than that. You now seem to be making a different point, and I don’t fully understand what you mean when you say “existence”.

Existence is all that there is. This includes the actual things that are, in a physical form. And all things that can be, in a logical form.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

I am that I am = I am that I exist. He is “being-ness”. There can be no other, for all existence is comprised in Himself. Thus for us to exist, who are nothing of ourselves, and did not make ourselves, He must be sharing His existence with us, and that can only have happened if He formed us and all we can recognize (both visible and invisible) from Himself. We are like the empty space inside of an atom, and our souls are like empty space inside the proton, surrounded by the image of God Who is reflected in us.

I think you’re stretching this quote very thinly. When you being to assume layers onto something, it becomes your own statement, not the one presented. I’ll leave it at that, as this is a matter of opinion.

We are made of it. We are nothing, and we only exist in the one, eternally existing existence of God. Yet we are participating in His free will, because He Wills it to us.

We are it. We are part of everything. You use the the number analogy so strongly, but then completely drop it here when you try to view the infinity of existence from the outside in. This is impossible. You can not look at the total of an infinite set, as you are trying to do. We are an “application” of existence so to speak, a possibility manifested.

We can share in it like the cake shares the shape of the pan, or the wax shares the image of the seal, or the plastic shares the shape of the mold. Electron current produces hole current in the opposite direction due to the fact that it subsists in atomic structure, which doesn’t move. These are all analogous to us existing in God, yet having a sort of limited freedom to move within that structure.

An example of what frustrates me most in these debates: assuming steps on top of a base before the base is shown to be rational and logical.

Your analogies are, again, similies. A cake inside of a pan, or wax on a seal are not analogous relationships to ours between us and existence. A cake is not part of the pan, it is not something that makes up the totality of the pan. And furthermore, the pan is not infinite. This is merely wishful thinking.

The question is whether we let Him have His way with us, or if we foolishly try to compete with Him and exist by ourselves. If we do that, we will tend to nothingness, which is essentially destruction.

This makes no sense at all. We can not exist outside of existence, or outside of a God redefined as existence, by “competing” with it. We are existence, and we are our own part in it. We can see the total of infinity, and we can not reach the outside of infinity if we are a part of it. It does not control us, it did not create us.

Let us be sober and see with certainty by the use of our reason that God exists, even if beyond our full understanding, and that His control is not hindered by our free will, but rather enables it.

You have not shown through the use of reason that God exists. If you can, I will join you in your belief. However, I am afraid that it is an impossible task with our current understanding. It might be eternally impossible because it might be flat out wrong. I know one thing for certain though: a plea to emotion will not further this debate, or do a thing to change my position in it.

I am referring again to invisible things that we nonetheless are able to recognize and realize had always existed before we recognized them. But before delving into this, I would like to know your definition of “existence”.

Existence is all that is, and all that can be based on the properties of existence.

Now, explain the things that we have “always” realized.

hurst

 

[Alois]

kev7:

moral relativism.

Do you mean that

a.) I am using moral relativism, or
b.) Moral relativism helps define what a true Christian is?

 

[Alois]

ThisOne:

Don’t tell me you don’t believe in X-rays!!!

X-rays have detectable effects on the world. God does not, or has not used his ability to cause these effects.

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

What is the difference between “obvious” and “naturally knowable”? Looks pretty much the same to me.

By “naturally knowable”, I have meant “knowable by the natural light of reason”. This requires intermediate steps to reach a conclusion that is not obvious. Think of making your way through a dark house with a small flashlight. “Obvious” means plain; evident; apparent. Think of a room in daylight.

AnAtheist:

We can know with certainty that God exists,

We can only know empirical facts with certainty. All other knowledge is theoretical and not certain.

You seem to be making a counter-assertion without any basis…

This is the definition I have for empirical:

Empiric \Empir"ic,Empirical : \Empir"ic*al, a.

1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments.
2. Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory; – said especially of medical practice, remedies, etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies.

To be empirical requires experience… why would you say that only what is obvious is certain? Perhaps you mean only for yourself. Or what do you mean by “certain”?

AnAtheist:

I suggest to read or at least read about the works of Karl Popper, that gives some insight on how a theory or explanation differs from evidence.

Is this the basis for your assertion above?

I took a look at several sources about Popper and his works. (Thanks for the referral.)

It seems his philosophy does not match your earlier assertion, though. In fact, he rejects empiricism, if I understand correctly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

AnAtheist:

So, if you want me to take God for granted,

I don’t think anyone should take God “for granted”. We should be thankful at all times.

AnAtheist:

show me the empirical evidence, i.e. God himself.

If you follow Popper’s philosophy, then you would rather take the view that God exists until you find proof He doesn’t. Be careful not to set up what is known as a “strawman” argument; modus tolens is susceptible to that.

Also note that his approach seems to consider empirical evidence as not so certain, unless it is an example of disproving a theory:

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive

Thus, I don’t think you can say only “empirical facts” are certain, based on Popper.

AnAtheist:

Otherwise God is just an explanation for the empirical facts we observe.

It is proper to say God is the explanation for everything, for it is reasonable to say eternal existence itself is the primary explanation for something existing. It’s just that it won’t help you learn the rate of acceleration of gravity or other such information. And if someone says it as an excuse, then that would be bad, but not make it inherently false.

AnAtheist:

It is a logical conclusion based on observed reality.

No, it’s not. God is either fact, then no logic is necessary, or God is a theory, and a model of the observed reality can be logically concluded from that theory.

I disagree. Logical conclusions can be made based on observed reality, too. It doesn’t have to start at the top as a hypothesis, it can also start at the bottom as recognition.

You are essentially saying that if something is not obvious (“empirical fact”), then it is only a theory. That assertion is simply not true, in general. It may not be obvious to you how to build an air conditioner, but it is an observed fact that they exist and work. When something is not obvious to you, then for you it is both unknown theory and a matter of faith; for all you know, someone could be inside fanning a block of ice. But just because you personally don’t see something does not mean it is theoretical for everyone else also. It just means you don’t see it or understand it yet.

hurst