Unfalsifiable Claims

[Hitetlen]

Mike O:

Enough with your nonsense… a wave of your bigoted wand… your ridiculous arguments in debate… the way you attempt to weasel out of admitting it… you are consistent in your wild mistakenness… in customary big-headed arrogance… the acidic garbage you spew forth…

Why don’t you tell me how your really feel? Please do not restrain yourself in expressing your opinion. Keep it coming, no need to hide it behind polite words. Out with the kid gloves, no need for false pretenses.

You and doomhammer provide the most entertaining contrast to the other posters on the board. But beware, the moderators might consider your style out of line, and take steps. I hope it will not happen, because the board would be less “colorful” without your “kind” words.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Hittite,

Good to see you again.

Mijoy sed:
" To be atheist is to be boiling over with pride, it would seem."

Maybe true of some, but I wouldn’t presume to judge. I’ve known many skeptics who become so because they feel betrayed and abused by their experience as a believer. I used to get an atheist newsletter. It was a gift subscription from an acquaintance, an “evangelical atheist.” Anyway,invariably the background of the writers was that of a disaffected fundamentalist. One way or another they felt deceived and betrayed and ill-served by their experience as a believer. So they went from one extreme to another, it seems, and the result was an angry, fundamentalist type of atheist completely unwilling to discuss nuttin.

But there are many types of atheists. During my fallen away period, when I was trying to be a “soceeologist,” I was taught to not totally buy into any school of thought. My theory prof used to mock those who became so enamaored and immersed into an perspective that they lost their ability to think outside of it. He encouraged constant skepticism. give a theory its due, but don’t beomce a true believer. This maybe is good advice for a social scientist, but it is not universally applicable. Sooner or later a skeptic has to learn to be skeptical of his skepticism. But I always admired those that tried to practice such objectivity. It seemed that they were more honest seekers of truth than the type that champion one sociological perspective or other.

anyway, God bless you all and have a great weekend.

kordially

karl

 

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

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.

Oh but it is a meaningful question. The question is answered in Genesis. It’s admittedly nearly impossible for us to fully comprehend but the answers are there. Probably not to the atheists satisfaction, true.

Hitetlen, if God never revealed Himself (as I said in an earlier post this becomes another debate) then IMO the theists perspective grows weaker, of course. But (according to the theist) He did. According to the theist decisively so.

Hitetlin, I think I understand the athiests perspective (actually that’s not completely true. I understand the strong agnostics perspective I do not understand the strong athiests) as well as anyone where I spent the better part of my life as one. When I sum all of the evidence; scripture, history of Christianity, grassroots thiest vs. athiest theories, life of the saints, evidence of what attempting to turn from sin has done it my life, I come to the conclusion that to discount the possiblity of a God is (for me) lacking of integrity.

I understand your opinion. Although, respecfully, I hope it changes.

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

Why don’t you tell me how your really feel? Please do not restrain yourself in expressing your opinion. Keep it coming, no need to hide it behind polite words. Out with the kid gloves, no need for false pretenses. You and doomhammer provide the most entertaining contrast to the other posters on the board. But beware, the moderators might consider your style out of line, and take steps. I hope it will not happen, because the board would be less “colorful” without your “kind” words.

A convenient (and predictable) avoidance of the question.

It’s wonderfully edifying to see that the amount of time you invest lambasting the Catholic Faith is devoted to “amusing” yourself, but, your sarcastic diatribes notwithstanding, I think it’s about time YOU dropped the false pretenses about why you devote said time.

The only recognizably substantive statement you made in your sweeping denunciation of those arguments and philosophers falls apart immediately.

I’m afraid that when you begin dismissing the driving questions of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa as “meaningless,” you expose an embarassing arrogance and put yourself in well over your head.

Case in point:

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.

Experientially, the universe and its temporal realities are your only frame of reference. Atheism revels in those same arguments–so delightfully hypocritical–for which it faults Christianity’s conception of certain incomprehensible attributes of God. Specifically, you have said hree that the question of the Cause is “not meaningful.” The argument *ad ignoratum *, the very same that leads you to start up with theodicies.

Causality’s definition within the universe has no bearing on the argument identifying the existence of the Uncaused Cause. This is precisely why, in defining His attributes, we speak of His existing outside of time and space, being Himself uncaused, and hence, NOT subject to the temporal nature of the universe.

One would imagine that you would understand that your nitpicking on a Catholic message forum in the year 2006 has already been taken up by many other belligerent anti-Catholics in the past, all of whom have failed.

One would, in that case, be wrong.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

You and doomhammer provide the most entertaining contrast to the other posters on the board. But beware, the moderators might consider your style out of line, and take steps. I hope it will not happen, because the board would be less “colorful” without your “kind” words.

Well, you were the one who had the “account under review”….
The only thing “out of line” here are your pointless arguments. But this is absolutely logic, because the whole life of an atheist is pointless. And you are the living proof of that. Your void pride and egotistical superficiality are outstanding facts. Just to pick up one “idea” from your “compendium” of blasphemies, heresies, misconceptions, errors and absurdities:
“I realized how unacceptable the religious worldview is.”
So, it is very clear about your purpose here: refuse, ridicule, mock, and show your absolute disdain for truth. This disdain for truth is in perfect line with atheism: atheism wants to constitute (rather than recognize) truth. Probably some people misunderstand your role here.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mijoy2:

Oh but it is a meaningful question.

Meaningful in what respect? There are many questions, syntactically well-formed sentences, which are not meaningful, in the sense that they ask about undefined and undefinable problems:

What “caused” the universe?
What is “outside” the universe?
What happened “before” the universe?
What is to the north from the North Pole?
What is on the reverse side of a Moebius strip?
How much time elapses in a black hole (or singularity)?
When did you stop beating your wife? (Just kidding, this is another meaningless question. )

These are all well-formed sentences or questions, without any meaning to them. Causation, time and space are simply not defined “outside” of the universe. “North” is not defined at the North Pole. “Side” is not defined on a Moebius strip. “Time” and space are not defined in a singularity. Moreover, they cannot be defined, thus these are meaningless questions.

Mijoy2:

The question is answered in Genesis.

The Bible is not a physics textbook. It may be an interesting read, but it is mythology.

Mijoy2:

It’s admittedly nearly impossible for us to fully comprehend but the answers are there. Probably not to the atheists satisfaction, true.

I am glad we see eye-to-eye on this one.

Mijoy2:

Hitetlen, if God never revealed Himself (as I said in an earlier post this becomes another debate) then IMO the theists perspective grows weaker, of course. But (according to the theist) He did. According to the theist decisively so.

There is a problem with revelation. Obviously he never revealed himself to everyone. According to believers he revealed himself to some people, and the account is written in the Bible. Well and good. The question is: how do we verify the Bible? One can accept it on faith, to be sure. But that is all. One can say that the Bible is God’s word, and thus it is beyond questioning. OK, but how do we know that the Bible is God’s word? It sure does not like it.

Mijoy2:

Hitetlin, I think I understand the athiests perspective (actually that’s not completely true. I understand the strong agnostics perspective I do not understand the strong athiests) as well as anyone where I spent the better part of my life as one. When I sum all of the evidence; scripture, history of Christianity, grassroots thiest vs. athiest theories, life of the saints, evidence of what attempting to turn from sin has done it my life, I come to the conclusion that to discount the possiblity of a God is (for me) lacking of integrity.

No one can prove that some “god” does not exist. The word “god” is too vague, and a universal negative cannot be proven (outside a formal system).

Mijoy2:

I understand your opinion. Although, respecfully, I hope it changes.

Thank you. May I reciprocate your hope?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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?

Actually, the claim that there is an invisible cat in the chair is not unfalsifiable. “Falsifiable” means that the proponents of a position can state conditions under which they would be willing to admit their position is false.

In this case, if you sit down in the chair, and something doesn’t go “ROWR!” and take a chunk out of your hide, I admit there was no cat in the chair.

Similarly, if you can demonstate that all the canonical gospels are made up of whole cloth, I would be willing to accept that Christianity is false.

 

[nucatholic]

vern humphrey:

Actually, the claim that there is an invisible cat in the chair is not unfalsifiable. “Falsifiable” means that the proponents of a position can state conditions under which they would be willing to admit their position is false.

In this case, if you sit down in the chair, and something doesn’t go “ROWR!” and take a chunk out of your hide, I admit there was no cat in the chair.

Similarly, if you can demonstate that all the canonical gospels are made up of whole cloth, I would be willing to accept that Christianity is false.

Ok, so lets say that there is a cat goddess in the chair. It has no body or nervous system because it is a purely metaphysical being. It does not take up space. I made the assumption that if it was invisible it would have these qualities. That was my fault. However, NOW the belief in our cat goddess is unfalsifiable. We have just as much justification to believe in the cat goddess as we do in God. They are both based on faith and not on empirical evidence. At first glance it seems ridiculous to believe in a cat goddess, but there have been numerous societies with beliefs very similar to this one. So why are we right about our unfalsifiable claims and yet those who believe in the cat goddess are wrong?

 

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

Meaningful in what respect? There are many questions, syntactically well-formed sentences, which are not meaningful, in the sense that they ask about undefined and undefinable problems:

What “caused” the universe?
What is “outside” the universe?
What happened “before” the universe?
What is to the north from the North Pole?
What is on the reverse side of a Moebius strip?
How much time elapses in a black hole (or singularity)?
When did you stop beating your wife? (Just kidding, this is another meaningless question. )

These are all well-formed sentences or questions, without any meaning to them. Causation, time and space are simply not defined “outside” of the universe. “North” is not defined at the North Pole. “Side” is not defined on a Moebius strip. “Time” and space are not defined in a singularity. Moreover, they cannot be defined, thus these are meaningless questions.

The Bible is not a physics textbook. It may be an interesting read, but it is mythology.

I am glad we see eye-to-eye on this one.

There is a problem with revelation. Obviously he never revealed himself to everyone. According to believers he revealed himself to some people, and the account is written in the Bible. Well and good. The question is: how do we verify the Bible? One can accept it on faith, to be sure. But that is all. One can say that the Bible is God’s word, and thus it is beyond questioning. OK, but how do we know that the Bible is God’s word? It sure does not like it.

No one can prove that some “god” does not exist. The word “god” is too vague, and a universal negative cannot be proven (outside a formal system).

Thank you. May I reciprocate your hope?

Give your head a rest and think with your heart for just a little while. See what happens. Read C.S.Lewis, Weight of Glory, The Great Diviorce, The Abolition of Man. Listen to Lewis’s heart speak of Heaven.

Just a suggestion no need to reply.

 

[Hitetlen]

Mijoy2:

Give your head a rest and think with your heart for just a little while. See what happens. Read C.S.Lewis, Weight of Glory, The Great Diviorce, The Abolition of Man. Listen to Lewis’s heart speak of Heaven.

Just a suggestion no need to reply.

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately I am unable to switch off either my “head” or my “heart”. They are in good agreement, they point me in the same direction. In my head there is reason, in my heart there is love. They both reinforce the other. What can I tell you? I am a lucky person. Thank you for your participation. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is welcome any time.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I am a lucky person.

Luke 6, 25: “But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry.”

do not get wrong: you are the pathetic example of what we must avoid at any cost.

 

[vern_humphrey]

doomhammer:

Luke 6, 25: “But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry.”

do not get wrong: you are the pathetic example of what we must avoid at any cost.

Please don’t call people “pathetic” or use similar unChristian language.

 

[doomhammer]

Rev 21,8: “But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

 

[vern_humphrey]

doomhammer:

Rev 21,8: “But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

So just who on this thread are you calling “cowards, unfaithful, depraved, murderers, unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers?”

 

[doomhammer]

vern humphrey:

So just who on this thread are you calling “cowards, unfaithful, depraved, murderers, unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers?”

not “me”. rev 21, 8.

 

[vern_humphrey]

doomhammer:

not “me”. rev 21, 8.

So you’re saying Saint John the Devine posted under your name?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You chose the pericope. I ask you again, just who on this thread are you calling “cowards, unfaithful, depraved, murderers, unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers?”

If you are not calling anyone here those things, why the pericope?

 

[doomhammer]

vern humphrey:

You chose the pericope. I ask you again, just who on this thread are you calling “cowards, unfaithful, depraved, murderers, unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers?”

probably you are not so familiar with Hitleten’s “compendium” of blasphemies, heresies, misconceptions, errors, absurdities. Check my other posts, everywhere.

 

[DJB]

When I look through my catechism, I don’t se the section about damning people. Salvation is between God and the individual. I am grateful for all the sacraments and graces that make him more real in my life and his Church which has shown me the way but I truly think that we should avoid pronouncing certain judgement on others. Truly counterproductive in so many ways.

For those who claim that the lack of observable evidence forces them to conclude there is no God, I know where you are coming from, as I have struggled with the same thoughts.

The conclusion that I have come to is that when I look deep into my heart I find a longing and desire to be close to God. This experience is observable only to me and while science does not today have the tools to measure this “evidence” it is no less real to me.

As for discussions about morals being merely relative- no they are not. It is not “civilization” that requires certain modes of behavior but “humanity.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

doomhammer:

probably you are not so familiar with Hitleten’s “compendium” of blasphemies, heresies, misconceptions, errors, absurdities. Check my other posts, everywhere.

Let me see if I understand you. You are calling someone a “coward, unfaithful, depraved, murderer, unchaste, sorcerer, idol-worshiper, and deceiver?”

And that person is the one who posts under the name Hitleten?

 

[doomhammer]

DJB:

Salvation is between God and the individual.

Matt 16, 19: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.