If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

  • propecia prix pharmacie http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/?size=339636&pr... doxycycline vente
  • http://www.smwc.edu/?size=362995&price=3... http://www.smwc.edu/?size=711379&price=7... aldactone comprar online
    viagra cost where to buy kamagra priligy buy
      commander baclofene priligy belgique sildenafil générique
    achat viagra original viagra en vente libre en belgique viagra precio en farmacias
    comprar viagra generico dinheiro http://www.dril-quip.com/cgi-bin/associa... sites fiables kamagra cialis sur le net tadalista forum francais achat viagra vrai kamagra oral jelly compra viagra original viagra online bestellen

    Is God Falsifiable?

    Religious believers often tell me that science can prove God exists. It is at this point that I start laughing in their face. But still they insist on continuing this line of evangelism.

    Next the theist will use the argument by design, the first cause argument, the fine tuning argument, and a handful of other failed arguments to prove their point. I always find it funny that they seem to think I have never heard these arguments before and that they have just invented something new or were imparting some kind of grant revelation to me. But that is really beside the point. The point is that none of their arguments are scientific.

    In order to be classified as science in any sense at all, the proposition must be falsifiable. To the religious believe, God is a non-falsifiable proposition. To prove this point, I often ask the believer what evidence would be required to prove their proposition false. For this they often don’t have an answer. If they are one of the few who has thought about this, then they have already taken their first steps down the road of doubt. All we have to do from here is encourage them to continue to thinking critically.

    Is atheism falsifiable? Hell yeah. Sorry about that, I couldn’t resist the joke. Seriously though, all God has to do to disprove an atheists lack of belief is to provide one hundred percent absolute proof of his existence. In fact, as I pointed out in my recent video, The Ontological Argument for Disproving God, the mere fact that there are atheists actually falsifies and disproves the existence of God.

    Bookmark and Share

    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
    • Tara

      Don’t kill me. I’m hoping you can prove me wrong here, especially considering your philosophy background. But, I think your video uses bad logic:

      If god is all knowing then he would know how to convince me. OK. Let’s assume this is true.

      If god is all powerful then he could convince me. Being all powerful COULD mean he can convince you but you can’t assume he therefore would do so.

      If god is all loving he would desire to convince me. Why do you assume that an all loving god would desire to convince me? Where do you get that? Maybe god put atheists here for a reason that you don’t understand. It’s a faulty assumption.

      God is not (as yet) falsifiable.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      I thought of that and another philosophy friend also brought that up before I released the video. But I think this is addressed by the Christian idea that if God is all-loving, he would desire a personal relationship with those he loves. Without that relationship, it can’t really be love. That is where I was coming from with that.

    • Tara

      You fascinate me. Why would you present “god logic” as evidence? You seem to be caught in this middle world between belief and non-belief.

      I have a double-edged sword blessing – I was raised without religion, so I get pissy when I see videos like yours. You call it a lesson in critical thinking but I call it further indoctrination. At the same time, I don’t have the understanding of those who had religion and then transitioned to atheism. I know I need to be more compassionate and understanding.

      Who is your primary audience? Is it atheists?

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      ???? I don’t know where you see “god-logic” in that video. Nor do I consider myself even remotely “caught in this middle world between belief and non-belief.” I really don’t see where that is coming from.

      The intent is to use their own doctrines against them. The view that all-loving implies a relationship seems logically consistent. Most Abrahamic God-believers would agree with that too. Then to use that as part of a disproof for their God is hardly “further indoctrination.”

    • Tara

      I just remembered when someone accused me of being agnostic simply because I was questioning religion. I apologize for my middle world comment. Sometimes I can be a real asshole! ;)

      I guess it comes down to the questions of “is it logic” and “is it critical thinking” if what you propose is based on a faulty assumption to begin with. It’s as though you’re saying, “OK, let’s assume I believe in god, here are reasons why you should question his existence…” This is god logic. You can’t start from a faulty premise and then propose logical arguments and assumptions based on it.

      If you were to tell me that your audience is Christians who are questioning their faith then I would say the video is helpful. But none of it is evidence.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      It’s not evidence and never claimed to be. It is an argument using logic and critical thinking.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Why are you so interested to not agree with me even when you do? I’m really not getting that.

    • Mike

      I just discovered your video and site. Here’s my input on Tara’s comments.

      1. “If god is all knowing then he would know how to convince me. OK. Let’s assume this is true. ” okay, fine with that.

      2. “If god is all powerful then he could convince me. Being all powerful COULD mean he can convince you but you can’t assume he therefore would do so.” He would do so because of number 3.

      3. “If god is all loving he would desire to convince me. Why do you assume that an all loving god would desire to convince me? Where do you get that?” Well here’s where we can split into other branches. First we’ll use a biblical method of becoming accustomed with this word.

      Romans 13:10 “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

      Funny thing about the bible is it contains contradictions, so depending on where you look you can find different things. That’s basically the reason why Christians who know little to nothing about the bible think fundamentalists are insane. It’s cause they only know some of the good parts of the Bible (generally speaking) without the knowledge of everything else. Anyway back to the topic, if the following is true, “God loves all” and “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour”, or even “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:10, then God would definitely want us to believe in him because as the commandments say, he is the only god and he is a jealous god. We are all supposed to follow the 10 commandments right? They are to last forever and applies to everyone (I can quote more from the bible where it says word of god is forever, but this comment is long already). so therein lies the incentive for him to want to convince me of his existence. If I don’t believe in him in any way, meaning I believe in another god, goddess, gods, or even lack belief, then I am to be killed (depending on where you look in the bible ;) )

    • Mike

      Sorry for splitting this up into 2 comments, I wasn’t sure if there was a limit or not so I decided to play it safe.

      Now, if we instead of following the bible (cause contradictions make it impossible :) ) choose to go with our own interpretation of what love is, then we can still say that God would want to get me to believe in him. Tell me, if you believed in a hell where non-believers (non-believers not just being atheists but anyone who doesn’t believe in this exact deity and its teachings) will go to be tormented for all of eternity. Never to experience happiness again, AND your dad, mom, or anyone else you care for, didn’t believe what you did. Let’s say said person is an atheist. Wouldn’t you really care about whether or not they believed? That was the case for my father. My dad’s dad was an atheist. His mom was a very strict catholic. My dad wept for nights because he was afraid his father would be spending all of eternity burning, being tortured, etc. He really wanted his father to believe. He loved his father, and thankfully he also stopped believing in that crap as he got older. But when he did believe, he wanted his loved ones to believe for their own sake. Would you want your loved ones to suffer forever? Also, if we use that kind of idea as love, then from this, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” 1 John 4:8. would mean that God is how we’re defining it ourselves. If we experience love like that, and God is love, and God made everything the way it is, then surely God would be accepting of that definition. After all, we are made in his image, right? So that also would give God plenty of reason to want to make us become believers. Oh, I should have mentioned in the very beginning of the first post, this only applies to Yaweh, the biblical God.

    • Tara

      Hi Mike,

      Your first message is based on god logic. The bible is not fact so all you are sharing is your opinion about what you THINK the bible and god desire as to my beliefs, but you know nothing for a fact.

      The argument in your second message is completely emotional. Just because you WANT something to be true doesn’t mean it is.

      Tara

    • Pingback: Why I’m not an Atheist… | freethought

    • Pingback: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God | I blog, ergo, I am