Unfalsifiable Claims

[Vi_Type]

I only read the first post.

You can prove that an invisible is not in the chair, because the cat is invisible but still is physical. So all you have to do is go touch it.

Same thing with God. You can’t prove that a god does not exist. But because the God of the Bible has specific qualities and characteristics. He is falsifiable.

This is a classic straw man from the atheists. They are not dealing with my God, the God of the Bible, they are dealing with a general god which I do not believe in. Which leaves me wondering why they are so dishonest .

 

[Hitetlen]

RyanL:

My point exactly! If things are as you claim, and nothing is right or wrong, why the appeal?

You are wrong. I never said that there is no right or wrong. I just said that they are subject to one’s view of the world. There are beneficial and harmful actions, which are not “absolute”, but they are dependent on the circumstances. (A cactus needs little water, an impatient needs a lot).

RyanL:

Why state that it is insulting, as if I should now stop because of this? It is only because there are absolutes that I can actually be a hypocrite, or rather an unjust slanderer who preaches moral laws but acts inconsistant to them. It is only because there are absolutes that I can properly be called a schmuck for paralleling Atheists with Klan members (if, in fact, it’s an unjust parallel).

Your point is wrong. Just because different moral systems exist, that does not mean that they are all identically acceptable for everyone. In the time of cavemen, it was moral practice to leave the old and sick ones to die, lest they prove to be burden to the meager resources of the healthy ones. It was moral to practice cannibalism, because it provided much needed protein.

Those morals do not apply today. Morality is defined by the soceity, in its written and mostly unwritten rules of behavior. If sometime in the future technology would allow to resurrect people even after a few hours of being killed, then in that society murder would be a relatively minor offense.

You would be justly offended if I compared you to Inquisitors who burned heretics just because they they were different. I am offended to be compared to the racists, because I do not subscribe to their violent actions, not just because I disagree with their views.

Even with different views about the world there are common behavioral patterns that civilized people should adhere to: namely not insulting others.

RyanL:

Ever question why you take offense to it? Oops, better not – it might lead to thinking about morality, which as you’ve already said is only important to people who believe in God.
Quick - don’t think!

That was just another insult… oh well. But I will answer: Morality not restricted to believers, as I said above.

 

[Contarini]

nucatholic:

I recently have come into contact with some strong arguments against the existence of God. The fact that something is unfalsifiable is a testament to the legitimacy or lack thereof of its claims e.g. example the invisible cat in the chair argument. Suppose that there is an invisible cat in a chair. We cannot see the cat and have no proof that there is a cat in the chair. We also cannot prove that the invisible cat is not in the chair. The claim that there is an invisible cat in the chair is therefore unfalsifiable. Is it still rational to believe that there is an invisible cat in the chair?

If there is other, indirect evidence which points to the conclusion that there is such a cat, yes. Or if we catch a glimpse of a cat which then vanishes when we try to take a picture or get our friends to come look as well. That may mean that our eyes are deceiving us–or it may not.

I don’t accept the falsifiability criterion, and I understand that many professional philosophers (which I am not) reject it as well.

Note that the falsifiability criterion is itself unfalsifiable. It’s an assumption about reality rather than something that can be checked against reality.

Edwin

 

[RyanL]

Hitetlen:

That was just another insult… oh well.

Don’t play the victim - it doesn’t become you. If you’re feeling sanctimonious, don’t. If you need a reason why not, please re-read your response to Ruthie (post #4) that initially brought me onto this thread.

But I will answer: Morality not restricted to believers, as I said above.

You also said that basic moral theology is only relevant to believers. So your position is that morality is relevant to everyone, but enlightened thinking about morality is only relevant to believers? Seems like a…not very enlightened position. But hey, it’s all relative, right? As long as it’s relative only to relative and changing things (like society), you simply can’t be wrong! It’s relative, but if you get pinned down on the question of what, exactly, it’s relative to…change the subject!

My suggestion? If I were you I would simply say the following:

“You’re right. There are moral absolutes. Because this is true, I can say with absolute certainty that you are a hypocritical schmuck for comparing Atheists with Klan members and not following the objective moral values you preach. Further, thanks to moral absolutes, I can say that this is objectively true and will continue to be true as long as you continue to act accordingly.”

And that, my friend, would be a response I would be proud to get (and it would all be true!).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Hitetlen]

RyanL:

You also said that basic moral theology is only relevant to believers.

I did, because there is no need to drag theology into it. Morality is not contingent upon believing in a supernatural.

RyanL:

So your position is that morality is relevant to everyone, but enlightened thinking about morality is only relevant to believers? Seems like a…not very enlightened position.

What is “enlightened” about believing that a supernatural being’s orders constitute moral behavior? Even if his orders mean wholescale slaughter of people who believe in some other deity?

RyanL:

But hey, it’s all relative, right? As long as it’s relative only to relative and changing things (like society), you simply can’t be wrong! It’s relative, but if you get pinned down on the question of what, exactly, it’s relative to…change the subject!

I did not change the subject. I explained why different societies have different moral codes.

RyanL:

My suggestion? If I were you I would simply say the following:

“You’re right. There are moral absolutes. Because this is true, I can say with absolute certainty that you are a hypocritical schmuck for comparing Atheists with Klan members and not following the objective moral values you preach. Further, thanks to moral absolutes, I can say that this is objectively true and will continue to be true as long as you continue to act accordingly.”

And that, my friend, would be a response I would be proud to get (and it would all be true!).

No, you were wrong because your observation is contradicted by reality. Atheists are not necessarily racists, though it may happen that some of them are. As a matter of fact, the members of the KKK are all practicing Christians (though not Catholics), and their “reasoning” is based on the Bible. No need to assume absolute morals, a simple observation of reality is enough to prove your error. Occam’s razor shaves off the beard of hypocrisy again.

 

[Mike_D30]

No, you were wrong because your observation is contradicted by reality. Atheists are not necessarily racists, though it may happen that some of them are. As a matter of fact, the members of the KKK are all practicing Christians (though not Catholics), and their “reasoning” is based on the Bible. No need to assume absolute morals, a simple observation of reality is enough to prove your error. Occam’s razor shaves off the beard of hypocrisy again.

You’re not getting it, he’s saying the mere fact that you are upset about being associated with the KKK shows a standard of morality, that’s his point. If there was no set standard you wouldn’t have any right to be upset, if it were subjective. Read C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity" if you are really interested. He was a former atheist turned Christian, he explains it better than is being explained here.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike_D30:

You’re not getting it, he’s saying the mere fact that you are upset about being associated with the KKK shows a standard of morality, that’s his point. If there was no set standard you wouldn’t have any right to be upset, if it were subjective. Read C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity" if you are really interested. He was a former atheist turned Christian, he explains it better than is being explained here.

It shows my standard of morality, which is based on reality. One does not make incorrect comparisions. I am not “upset” about it, I just draw my conclusions, and that is it. Yes, it is subjective, but that does not mean that I have to accept his code of morality as equivalent to someone else’s morality. That is the point.

 

[Mike_D30]

Hitetlen:

It shows my standard of morality, which is based on reality. One does not make incorrect comparisions. I am not “upset” about it, I just draw my conclusions, and that is it. Yes, it is subjective, but that does not mean that I have to accept his code of morality as equivalent to someone else’s morality. That is the point.

Just read the book I suggested, it’s 200 pages, a very easy read. If you won’t then I can just assume you want an argument, which no doubt you will get.

Take care

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike_D30:

Just read the book I suggested, it’s 200 pages, a very easy read. If you won’t then I can just assume you want an argument, which no doubt you will get.

Take care

The trouble is that reading some books is not the same as having a discussion with live partners. One cannot debate with a book. I have an aversion to atheists who converted. I read the book “The case for faith” by Lee Strobel, who is another self-acclaimed converted atheist, and did not get anything from it, except a lot of frustration.

He pretended to be a skeptic, and presented some very good questions to Christian apologists. He presented his questions properly, but then really messed up. His pretense was so naive (translate: dumb); he folded his cards so prematurely, that I had the urge of crawling into the book, and really wring his stupid neck. Since that is impossible, I was left with a lot of frustration. I have no need to repeat the experiment. Sorry, I will stick to talking. If you wish to make a short summary of his views, I will be glad to read it, but I would prefer to hear your opinion.

 

[RyanL]

Hitetlen:

I read the book “The case for faith” by Lee Strobel, who is another self-acclaimed converted atheist, and did not get anything from it, except a lot of frustration.

I was also very frustrated with many parts of the book - I thought it wasn’t that well written and the questions were often softballs or worse.

His pretense was so naive (translate: dumb); he folded his cards so prematurely, that I had the urge of crawling into the book, and really wring his stupid neck.

I can sympathize, if not wholeheartedly agree. Lewis, however, is much better. Next time you’re in Barnes & Noble you might pick up his “Screwtape Letters” and see if you like the writing style (read: don’t buy it, just pick it up and read for 10 min). If you like it, buy Mere Christianity. If you don’t, that’s only 10 minutes wasted.

God Bless,
RyanL

Afterthought: I just remembered that I actually read “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for a Creator”. I imagine “The Case for Faith” was much the same.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I have an aversion to atheists who converted.

why don’t you say “I have an aversion to Truth”?
how do you feel being… condemned?

 

[Mike_D30]

Hitetlen:

The trouble is that reading some books is not the same as having a discussion with live partners. One cannot debate with a book. I have an aversion to atheists who converted. I read the book “The case for faith” by Lee Strobel, who is another self-acclaimed converted atheist, and did not get anything from it, except a lot of frustration.

He pretended to be a skeptic, and presented some very good questions to Christian apologists. He presented his questions properly, but then really messed up. His pretense was so naive (translate: dumb); he folded his cards so prematurely, that I had the urge of crawling into the book, and really wring his stupid neck. Since that is impossible, I was left with a lot of frustration. I have no need to repeat the experiment. Sorry, I will stick to talking. If you wish to make a short summary of his views, I will be glad to read it, but I would prefer to hear your opinion.

If you leave no room for God, God will remain an impossibility. I don’t know what else to say, if you’re looking for scientific proof of God, I don’t know that you’ll ever be close to satisfied. Best of luck in your search, and God bless!

 

[doomhammer]

Mike_D30:

Best of luck in your search

wish there was a search…

 

[Hitetlen]

RyanL:

I was also very frustrated with many parts of the book - I thought it wasn’t that well written and the questions were often softballs or worse.

I can sympathize, if not wholeheartedly agree. Lewis, however, is much better. Next time you’re in Barnes & Noble you might pick up his “Screwtape Letters” and see if you like the writing style (read: don’t buy it, just pick it up and read for 10 min). If you like it, buy Mere Christianity. If you don’t, that’s only 10 minutes wasted.

Afterthought: I just remembered that I actually read “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for a Creator”. I imagine “The Case for Faith” was much the same.

I am glad my assessment did not strike you as “far out”. Since our view is close concerning Strobel, I will follow your advice, and check out the recommended book, probably from the library Cheaper that way.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mike_D30:

If you leave no room for God, God will remain an impossibility. I don’t know what else to say, if you’re looking for scientific proof of God, I don’t know that you’ll ever be close to satisfied. Best of luck in your search, and God bless!

Thank you for your kind words. They are a most welcome contrast to the posts of some others.

 

[nucatholic]

Mike_D30:

If you leave no room for God, God will remain an impossibility. I don’t know what else to say, if you’re looking for scientific proof of God, I don’t know that you’ll ever be close to satisfied. Best of luck in your search, and God bless!

Thats not very comforting at all. So God created us with the amazing ability to reason and use our intellect but ultimately there is no justification for belief in God from these tools of humanity? If that is what you are saying, then God is playing some kind of misleading trick on humanity. If an Atheist wants proof for God, then I say we should try to find some. After all, we demand proof for everything else we believe in this world correct?

 

[Hitetlen]

nucatholic:

Thats not very comforting at all. So God created us with the amazing ability to reason and use our intellect but ultimately there is no justification for belief in God from these tools of humanity? If that is what you are saying, then God is playing some kind of misleading trick on humanity. If an Atheist wants proof for God, then I say we should try to find some. After all, we demand proof for everything else we believe in this world correct?

Yes, this is the question without answer. On one hand God “gave” us these amazing tools, on the other hand he demands to suspend their use and rely on authority, heresay and blind faith.

This is amply demonstrated in the Bible and your own posts, when you quoted that we must become like children (trusting and without our critical skills), where you quoted that the wisdom of the world is folly in the eyes of God.

To all who may feel compelled to jump in and start to bring up rational evidence for God’s existence, please don’t bother. None of them is even remotely compelling, and at the end you will have to apply to “faith” anyhow as the only method to accept God. Some of you even went further, and said that to have sufficient “faith” one must rely on God’s “grace”, which he did not give to everyone.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

Yes, this is the question without answer. On one hand God “gave” us these amazing tools, on the other hand he demands to suspend their use and rely on authority, heresay and blind faith.

Enough with your nonsense.
Pick up a book. St. Thomas Aquinas dissected your objections centuries ago. That you would try to reinvent the wheel is only the more astounding given your claim to occupy the position of “reason” in this debate.

This is amply demonstrated in the Bible and your own posts, when you quoted that we must become like children (trusting and without our critical skills), where you quoted that the wisdom of the world is folly in the eyes of God.

Wrong, yet again. Trusting like children does not entail dispensing with critical reasoning skills. Your jumping to establish this mistaken link points to the fact that you, like almost all atheists, have convinced yourself that you are the reasonable one and that the theists are childlike, stupid, irrational, blindly trusting of fantasies, adherents of the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, and on and on.

Your statement only establishes the remarkable condescension you bear towards posters on this forum (by logical necessity when we consider your prior statements).

To all who may feel compelled to jump in and start to bring up rational evidence for God’s existence, please don’t bother.

That’s right. You’re clearly here on the forum seeking to learn about the faith. That’s why you’ve summarily dismissed proofs of God’s existence with a wave of your bigoted wand.

I’m surprised that people have continued to engage your ridiculous arguments in debate, but people should realize that an atheist frequents the board for 2 reasons:

1. He has a genuine interest in learning of the faith and possibly converting.
2. He is trying to “convert” others to his lamentable falsehood.

You fit into (2), and so much the more reprehensible is the way you attempt to weasel out of admitting it.

None of them is even remotely compelling, and at the end you will have to apply to “faith” anyhow as the only method to accept God. Some of you even went further, and said that to have sufficient “faith” one must rely on God’s “grace”, which he did not give to everyone.

At least you are consistent in your wild mistakenness. There are dozens of proofs for the existence of God, many of which are not only compelling, but meet all reasonable expectations for proving His existence. Contingency is only one example that comes to mind. Mangled attempts to challenge that one have involved virtual particles, imaginary time, and oscillating universes, all of which have failed spectacularly.

Naturally, in customary big-headed arrogance, you seem to believe that “None of them is remotely compelling” meets standards for dismissing all of those proofs. It doesn’t. Your own attemped counterproofs on other threads all involve one theodicy or another and employ erroneous conceptions of God’s justice and the “problem” of evil, which precede your gloating declaration that you “disproved” the existence of God.

Since we know by now that you don’t “engage” people who would ever dare challenge the acidic garbage you spew forth, I propose the question for other posters to ask you; given the vehemence of your atheism, and given that you will not succeed in converting anyone nor do you have any interest in accepting the Truth, why do you remain?

 

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

Yes, that is a sound advice. Where you make a small mistake that you suggest that only the believers can “educate” him properly. Why not suggest to gather all the possible information and encourage him to draw his own conclusions?

I think I can add to this from experience (may and may not apply to nucatholic).

A person who begins weighing in his/her mind Gods’ potential existence based on the data usually presented in the fundemental theist vs. atheist debates receives and overwhelming secular/scientific perspective. There is nothing wrong with this perspective, of course. My point is that this perspective may be a premature perspective when one considers the elements that often brings one to belief in a loving God. These elements consist of His divine revelation for one. A simple yet complex and debatale subject in it’s own right. The prospective believers’ heart for another; an element that seems to infinatley elude the devout atheist.

Once armed with a better understanding of Christianity, the person is more aware of all the elements and thus may not be as quick to come to a conclusion that derails his efforts prematurely.

A side note: There is one thing that I have difficulty in understanding from the athiest point of view. I beleive (and I suppose the atheist may disagree with this) that we will never get to the place in human existence where we can conclusively say we have found the uncaused cause, or that we can now measure with certainty that there was no uncaused cause and verifiably fully explain where we came from.

If one agrees with this premise, why discount a theist as a potential answer? In other words, why not admit the answer is not there, therefore (at least) the potential for a power much greater than our own exists and we are simply incapable of understanding it (Him) without (His) help?

To be atheist is to be boiling over with pride, it would seem.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mijoy2:

A side note: There is one thing that I have difficulty in understanding from the athiest point of view. I beleive (and I suppose the atheist may disagree with this) that we will never get to the place in human existence where we can conclusively say we have found the uncaused cause, or that we can now measure with certainty that there was no uncaused cause and verifiably fully explain where we came from.

The problem with “uncaused cause” is that causality is only defined within the universe. One cannot ask for the “cause” of the universe, it is not a meaningful question.

Mijoy2:

If one agrees with this premise, why discount a theist as a potential answer? In other words, why not admit the answer is not there, therefore (at least) the potential for a power much greater than our own exists and we are simply incapable of understanding it (Him) without (His) help?

There is nothing impossible about this. It is possible that some being played an instrumental role in the formation of our world. But where does that lead us? Does it have any explanatory powers? Let’s use Occam’s razor:

1. “God created the universe.”
2. “God simply exists.”

Applying the razor we get:

“The universe simply exists.”

Mijoy2:

To be atheist is to be boiling over with pride, it would seem.

That is an unsupported assertion.