Do you think I'm trying to convince you to be a theist? Heavens, NO! I expect you to give more validity to your experience than you do to the experience of others. We all do.My "hypothesis" holds equal weight with yours.
However, I have to tell you that, overall, your hypothesis is much weaker because it requires you to ignore or dismiss evidence. That is never a strong position, in science or anywhere else.
We are not doing that. We are looking at alternatives for your personal experience! Why is your personal experience be different than that of theists? One hypothesis is that deity does not exist, therefore your experience correctly reflects reality. However, there are other explanations for your experience in which deity does, in reality, exist.I'm not going to asses all the alternatives of what we would never know exist.
Also, aren't you trying to "know" whether deity exists or not? Why would you throw out alternatives that affect that question?
You don't know? Think about it and I'm sure it will come to you. Otherwise, I did that in the post following the one you are responding to.How is Thor falsifiable?
You aren't getting it. Yahweh didn't "step outside" of being falsifiable. Rather, science is unable to do the testing required to falsify. Yahweh is falsifiable. Science cannot do the experiments. It's science's problem, not Yahweh's. Remember, the statements about Yahweh were made long before modern science was discovered.If something wants to step outside of being falsifiable, then it rightly can do so. But if it wants to enter into the realm of existing, that is its problem.
Also, if you insist that things cannot exist unless they are falsifiable, then you shut down a lot of scientific research and scientific theories! As I said, tachyons are not falsifiable, but that is not the problem of tachyons or indicate that tachyons don't exist. It's science's problem.
If you mean the above, no, you didn't. Or, if you are serious, then you throw science under the bus. Do you really want to do that?Already addressed the issue of un-falsifiable claims.
In science, if something is unfalsifiable, it remains as a possibility unless and until it is falsified. Tachyons, quite frankly, are a pain in the __s for physics. Since they travel faster than light, they violate causality. Still, because they travel faster than light, we can't very well see them, can we? So we are stuck with them:
"1. Tachyons: can we rule them out.
The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable. Yet tachyons are a problem. Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties. Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof. Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't suddenly be discovered." Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.
This is more fundamental. You are talking about new technologies. The problem with Yahweh stems from the basics of how we do experiments. If you do not understand how that is so, then ask.I'll even grant you that it may not even be falsifiable right now, but possibly later. But then again, aren't a lot of things?
You mean #1 or #2 possibilities that I wrote: Hebrews got the truth or got lucky as humans made up versions of deity? Now, I don't mind if you choose #2 to believe. If you state "I believe #2" that is OK.One should have no more weight than the next.
However, in general, wouldn't you agree that we do give more weight when we have supporting evidence? That is, after all, how we do it in science and the rest of our lives. If you go to a restaurant 10 times and each time you get great service and great food, don't you think that the hypothesis "these people know how to run a restaurant" deserves more weight than "they just got lucky tonight"?
What we have is more supporting evidence for the existence of deity --even Yahweh -- than for the "they just got lucky". You have to decide what you, personally, are going to do with that. Again, let me emphasize I am not trying to lure you away from atheism. If you decide to stay with atheism, that is fine by me.
Upvote
0