If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[Kylie]

Neither is there evidence that God does not exist. It is easier to find evidences to prove something as false than it is for something true. (Especially something invisible) If atheists cannot prove God's existence as false, they have no valid reason to say God does not exist.

By that logic, if you are unable to prove fairies existence as false, then you have no valid reason to say that fairies don't exist.

So, do you think fairies exist? Yes or no please.

All hinges on whether that someone can prove his claims like Jesus did. Can this man do miracles that surpass the miracles done by Jesus as said in the Bible? That means doing miracles even greater than raising people from physical death. This is not a ridiculous claim since God is believed to be all powerful and nothing is impossible with Him. So for someone to be valid, he needs to show that he can do miracles that surpass those before and during his time, just like how Jesus' miracles surpassed those before and during His time. Not a single man could do that today or since the time of Jesus.

So much of the technology we have today would be considered miraculous by the standards of the people alive back then.

In any case, we do not KNOW that Jesus did any of those things, we merely have the claims that he did them. I can claim that my husband raised people from the dead last week as well. You would demand supporting evidence to support those claims; likewise, I demand supporting evidence before I accept that the claims made by the Bible are correct.

An atheist brought up two sources on this forum, I need to dig it up first.

I look forward to reading them.

I don't believe in fairies because there is concrete evidence that they are invented and are myths. It isn't hard at all to prove that something is a myth. No one, however, has succeeded in proving that God is myth.

And what is this evidence which PROVES that they are a myth?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Unfalsifiable means the idea can not be distinguished as true or false no matter what evidence is present.

An unfalsifiable idea is free to be false.
Falsifiable and non-Falsifiable Ideas - Less Wrong

Regardless of definitions, I have given you criterion for proving that God does not exist and it involves mere examinations of the known universe. It is therefore the atheists' part to provide the evidence for their unbelief.

Even with your definition of unfalsifiable, it is still failed logic to insist that something unfalsifiable is automatically false.

 

[variant]

I give you a few choices.

1) Prove that electromagnetism and all other forces present in the universe came into existence by pure randomness or independent of an invisible Force-Setter.

2) Prove that inanimate objects like the Planets set their own orbits, rotation speeds etc and can alter them freely, independent of an invisible Creator.

3) Prove that every life form with DNA codes originated from randomness, independent of an invisible Creator.

If mankind can offer concrete evidence for any of the above criterion, they have proven that God does not exist.

Those would simply require that I show the universe is "independent of an invisible creator" so they are just restatements that I show there is no invisible creator.

As I just said, proving a negative with an unfalsifiable idea isn't logically possible.

To make your idea falsifiable you have to define it so that it will predict things that will or wont be observed if God does or does not exist.

So I need a single criterion that could reasonably show that God does not exist.

 

[Conscious Z]

If something is unfalsifiable, the only logical explanation is that it is not false. Why is it so hard to admit that?

I have to jump back in on this one. Imagine I claim that there is an invisible (to everyone but me) unicorn that visits me every night. He leaves no physical effects, and I'm the only one who can see him. I then ask you to prove that it is false that such a unicorn visits me.

You can't do it because such a claim is unfalsifiable. Is the reasonable conclusion then for you to say it is not false?

 

[variant]

Regardless of definitions, I have given you criterion for proving that God does not exist and it involves mere examinations of the known universe. It is therefore the atheists' part to provide the evidence for their unbelief.

No you required that I rule out the unobservable and indefinite from the universe.

Your scenarios correctly posited that I needed to show them "independent of an invisible force setter", as even if I could show the universe was seemingly sparked out of seeming randomness God is free to exist and seemingly create the universe out of seeming randomness.

So, your scenarios don't give me a distinction.

Even with your definition of unfalsifiable, it is still failed logic to insist that something unfalsifiable is automatically false.

It would be, luckily we who use logic place the burden of evidence on people making positive claims for the reason that unfalsifiable negatives aren't disprovable in any event.

Positing the unfalsifiable and then deriding others for not being able to disprove your ideas is actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.

It is the mark of an charlatan and serious people don't knowingly do this. So, you, should stop if you wish to be viewed as a person of integrity.

 

[WoundedDeep]

By that logic, if you are unable to prove fairies existence as false, then you have no valid reason to say that fairies don't exist.

So, do you think fairies exist? Yes or no please.

To answer that question, I will need time to study the subject of fairies. I will not give abrupt conclusions like the atheists do about the existence of God.

I demand supporting evidence before I accept that the claims made by the Bible are correct.

The fact that Jesus' tomb was empty and His body was never found, not even by the then Roman authorities responsible for His crucifixion. Some non-Christian sources testify to the empty tomb are quoted here: Is the empty tomb of Jesus historical?|Scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[WoundedDeep]

I look forward to reading them.

You can ask the sources from this guy:

What you are not discussing, is the method used by historians to determine of written records are indeed historically credible and it is called; the historical method.

The NT is a mixed bag when the historical method is applied and much of it, is simply not historically credible.

The majority of NT scholars and historians will agree the following pieces are historically credible, but beyond these few things, the credibility gets very weak:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

The NT is mostly a work of theology, not a work of credible history.

 

[variant]

The fact that Jesus' tomb was empty and His body was never found, not even by the then Roman authorities responsible for His crucifixion. Some non-Christian sources testify to the empty tomb are quoted here: Is the empty tomb of Jesus historical?|Scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Justin Mayter was born in c100 and Tertullian c160 so no.

They and Matthew are also all Christian sources.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I have to jump back in on this one. Imagine I claim that there is an invisible (to everyone but me) unicorn that visits me every night. He leaves no physical effects, and I'm the only one who can see him. I then ask you to prove that it is false that such a unicorn visits me.

You can't do it because such a claim is unfalsifiable. Is the reasonable conclusion then for you to say it is not false?

I will simply not come to any conclusions and label it as an unknown. The difference between your scenario and the case of God's existence is that God left clues in the universe for humans to explore and verify. The unicorn left no physical effects, but God did in the material world. Either unfalsifiability (the way you guys defined it) does not apply in the case of God, or He simply cannot be proven as non-existent (because the effects He left in the universe testifies that He exist). To which do you subscribe then?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Justin Mayter was born in c100 and Tertullian c160 so no.

They and Matthew are also all Christian sources.

I only gave one of the many links that you can use to study the subject. Are you going to stop at 2 sources?

 

[Conscious Z]

I will simply not come to any conclusions and label it as an unknown. The difference between your scenario and the case of God's existence is that God left clues in the universe for humans to explore and verify. The unicorn left no physical effects, but God did in the material world. Either unfalsifiability (the way you guys defined it) does not apply in the case of God, or He simply cannot be proven as non-existent (because the effects He left in the universe testifies that He exist). To which do you subscribe then?

The problem is that you said this:

If something is unfalsifiable, the only logical explanation is that it is not false. Why is it so hard to admit that?

If you can't falsify the unicorn's existence, why are you then not coming to the conclusion that it is not false?

To answer your question, there is no way to look at a physical effect and say "This had a non-physical cause." Thus, it is impossible to falsify the claim that god produced the universe.

 

[variant]

I only gave one of the many links that you can use to study the subject. Are you going to stop at 2 sources?

I'm saying those sources don't show what you claimed.

The people making the argument that enemy sources confirm the empty tomb, why are they giving Matthew, Justin Martyr and Tertullian? (very friendly sources)

The other support was that Christians started in Jerusalem and that Jews were too sexist to claim that women were the first witnesses, so I'm not sure why the best support (actual opposed testimony) would be left out.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Those would simply require that I show the universe is "independent of an invisible creator" so they are just restatements that I show there is no invisible creator.

As I just said, proving a negative with an unfalsifiable idea isn't logically possible.

To make your idea falsifiable you have to define it so that it will predict things that will or wont be observed if God does or does not exist.

So I need a single criterion that could reasonably show that God does not exist.

If God does not exist, then the chances of life form existing at all is almost none since it is an established fact that for life form to exist, an almost impossibly large set of criterion must be put in place to allow for the conditions to sustain life forms. (Scientists prove that the Earth is in such a unique condition) Show me then how we and the any other life forms on Earth could exist for thousands of years continuously and not perish in the next moment due to a subtle change in one of the many conditions necessary to sustain life forms.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It would be, luckily we who use logic place the burden of evidence on people making positive claims for the reason that unfalsifiable negatives aren't disprovable in any event.

Positing the unfalsifiable and then deriding others for not being able to disprove your ideas is actually the height of intellectual dishonesty.

It is the mark of an charlatan and serious people don't knowingly do this. So, you, should stop if you wish to be viewed as a person of integrity.

Show me where I derided anyone and I will apologise.

I use as much reasoning as you guys, I'm sure you can see it. The very reason I said falsehood is easier to prove is because however a lie is covered, it will be exposed sooner or later. The disagreement occurred because how I understood "unfalsifiable" differed from yours and others. I don't believe I have knowingly committed any intellectual dishonesty like you claim.

 

[variant]

If God does not exist, then the chances of life form existing at all is almost none since it is an established fact that for life form to exist, an almost impossibly large set of criterion must be put in place to allow for the conditions to sustain life forms. (Scientists prove that the Earth is in such a unique condition) Show me then how we and the any other life forms on Earth could exist for thousands of years continuously and not perish in the next moment due to a subtle change in one of the many conditions necessary to sustain life forms.

We don't actually know the exact conditions under which life can form (as that how is not known), we have an idea about what conditions are necessary for life "as we know it" to arise.

Billions of years, and the conditions are not particularly fragile just rare.

We also don't really know how rare it is, but you can estimate it forming in this universe:

Ignoring 500 Billion Galaxies: Mathematics vs Common Sense in the Debate About the Probability of Extraterrestrial Life

The issue with saying the earth and life on it are mathematically impossible is that the universe is also unimaginably huge.

 

[WoundedDeep]

The problem is that you said this:

If something is unfalsifiable, the only logical explanation is that it is not false. Why is it so hard to admit that?

I realize that you guys defined the term "unfalsifiable" differently and I changed my original statement to make it understandable in the light of you definitions.

If you can't falsify the unicorn's existence, why are you then not coming to the conclusion that it is not false?

Because to say an unfalsifiable statement is automatically false is a failure of logic. No one should come to a conclusion about something that can't be concluded.

To answer your question, there is no way to look at a physical effect and say "This had a non-physical cause."

Please elaborate.

 

[Conscious Z]

Please elaborate.

There is no way to draw such a conclusion. You can conclude that no physical cause that has been suggested would work, but because you can't prove a universal negative, there would be no way of drawing the conclusion of "This effect has no physical cause."

For example, let's take your example of electromagnetism. Let's say that scientists were baffled at how it existed. That still wouldn't be grounds to say "It has no physical cause" because it is still logically possible the scientists just weren't smart enough or hadn't thought of the right answer yet. At no point could one draw the conclusion that there was simply no physical cause.

That's the problem intelligent design runs into. It is at heart claiming that there is no physical explanation, but that is a claim that science can never make. Science is about testing the physical realm, and at no point can science reasonably conclude that something other than the physical is at play.

 

[WoundedDeep]

We don't actually know the exact conditions under which life can form (as that how is not known), we have an idea about what conditions are necessary for life "as we know it" to arise.

Billions of years, and the conditions are not particularly fragile just rare.

We also don't really know how rare it is, but you can estimate it forming in this universe:

Ignoring 500 Billion Galaxies: Mathematics vs Common Sense in the Debate About the Probability of Extraterrestrial Life

The issue with saying the earth and life on it are mathematically impossible is that the universe is also unimaginably huge.

I have given you a criterion, unfortunately the above is nowhere convincing evidence that God does not exist because:

1) Earth is the only planet in the entire cosmos consisting of billions of stars known to hold and support large amounts of complex life forms, both in terms of the number of species as well as quantity. To claim this as rare is a gross understatement.

2) It has not been proven by any scientist that conditions necessary for life on Earth could be replicated in some other systems and neither had any scientist found evidences of replications of Earth-like conditions in other systems.

3) Even the fact that Earth like conditions could remain relatively static for thousands of years despite a universe that could have supernovas and other changes happening any second should be enough to leave people ignorant of God's existence in awe and unbelief.

Please therefore, show me how the scenarios described above can happen if a/an God/Creator/intelligent Designer does not exist.

 

[variant]

Show me where I derided anyone and I will apologise.

I use as much reasoning as you guys, I'm sure you can see it. The very reason I said falsehood is easier to prove is because however a lie is covered, it will be exposed sooner or later. The disagreement occurred because how I understood "unfalsifiable" differed from yours and others. I don't believe I have knowingly committed any intellectual dishonesty like you claim.

I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am also posting to inform you of the error.

A simple lie might be easy to uncover if you have evidence to judge it with, but if we are going to assert things about things for which no observations will disprove the thesis it is a different matter entirely.

The issue is the Burden of Proof.
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as mentioned earlier, God is defined in an unfalsifiable way, which means proving a negative will be quite impossible.

So, it is up to you to show your ideas are true, not for me, the skeptic to show them false.

I even made it easier by simply asking for a single criterion we could use to judge whether or not God existed in the universe to show you how the definition of God is so nebulous that it could never be contradicted by any observations that we could theoretically have.

 

[Conscious Z]

I have given you a criterion, unfortunately the above is nowhere convincing evidence that God does not exist because:

1) Earth is the only planet in the entire cosmos consisting of billions of stars known to hold and support large amounts of complex life forms, both in terms of the number of species as well as quantity. To claim this as rare is a gross understatement.

2) It has not been proven by any scientist that conditions necessary for life on Earth could be replicated in some other systems and neither had any scientist found evidences of replications of Earth-like conditions in other systems.

3) Even the fact that Earth like conditions could remain static for thousands of years despite a universe that could have supernovas and other changes happening any second should be enough to leave people ignorant of God's existence in awe and unbelief.

Tell me how the scenarios described above can happen if a/an God/Creator/intelligent Designer does not exist.

The anthropomorphic principle in a nutshell: Imagine I've laid thousands and thousands of shot glasses on the ground on a football field. Heck, make it millions of glasses in a massive field. I then fly over the field and throw a marble out the window. That marble will land in a glass. If the marble could talk, it might be tempted to say "How on earth did I end up in this glass? There's no way I just landed here -- what are the odds of that?!"

In other words, we are clearly the exception. Whether there is life elsewhere or not, I do not know. But I do know that, because we are the exception, whatever placed us here faced long odds in doing so.