What would falsify creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

I am wholly biased against their nonsense. I freely admit it.

What nonsense would that be?

 

[Jan Volkes]

So that would be bad for the other animals? Why just us?

Because the other animals do not know they are going to die one day, we do.

 

[Jan Volkes]

That's right, what a God needs, does or can do is limited only by the imagination of the believer, after all none of the Gods exist in the dimensions of the believers so what else is a believer supposed to do other than use their imaginations.

Given the number of people who do believe our world exists, then likely it does.
The same goes for God.

Why did you feel the need to twist that to read people believe our world exists? every one alive and aware knows our world exists but the same can not be said for gods, gods by their very nature can not be of this world so can only be imaginary.

I am often startled when my completely deaf dog starts barking from a sound sleep.
Evidently her imagination is working fine.

You dog is not using her imagination she in using her memory, she is recounting what happened to her and not what will happen to her.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because the other animals do not know they are going to die one day, we do.

We are going to die unless of course the rapture happens first, so dying is something we have to face anyway.

 

[Kylie]

Creationism is the idea that a force outside of natural laws has had an impact on our reality.
The only way to test a theory or concept available to us is a "natural" set of tools.
So Creationism exists outside of the boundaries of the scientific method.
The Scientific Method can only examine that which is natural and duplicatable.

For example, if a scientist in a labcoat was able to instantly create an apple,
say, pull one out of a tabletop wormhole, he could say "There! That might be how God did it!"

But if it affects reality, how can it be completely outside the natural laws we know? If creationism is able to influence IN ANY WAY any aspect of reality, that influence can be measured and is subject to the scientific method. And if it can be studied by the scientific method, it must be falisifable, yes?

 

[Kylie]

There is no way to falsify creation because God is maximally potent. As there is nothing he could not logically do there is nothing that could exist that was not potentially his creation.

This causes some problems...

Now, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "there is nothing he could not logically do".

If you mean that it is illogical to say there is something God could not do (in other words, you name it, God can do it, even if it is nonsensical), then everyone should be a believer. God could simply make everyone believe in the correct religion. Of course, believers often counter this by saying that such an action on behalf of God would violate our free will. However, if God can do ANYTHING you can name, then surely God can make atheists into believers in a way that does not violate their free will.

On the other hand, you may have meant that God can do anything that was logically possible (and I suspect that this is indeed what you meant). In other words, God can't do things that are logically IMpossible. But this raises the question of why God would limit himself in this way. Surely, if logic exists, then it is something created by God. Why would he create something that would bind his hands ever after?

And also, anything that is logically possible is something that can be potentially explained by science (we may not have an explanation right now, but it is possible to explain it in a scientific fashion). So, if God created the universe, then the creation of the universe is something that can be explained by science. And if it can be explained by science rather than religion, than why is a God required for it at all?

 

[Kylie]

After you listed up items included in Creationism, then you can easily see on yourself what would it take to falsify them. How many items can you list? Just one which happened to be unfalsifiable?

Before you want to falsify anything, you need to understand it FIRST!

Since I obviously haven't done that, perhaps you can give an example of something that would falsify creationism?

 

[Kylie]

i believe as soon as science proves abiogenesis, this would put to rest forever a notion of a god.
despite its best efforts, science has been unable to do that.
science doesn't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.

I've read a couple. Self replicating molecules like some kinds of enzymes would be subject to natural selection and thus evolution. And it's not that hard to get basic materials.

 

[Kylie]

None: creationism ≠ science.

I'm not talking about science, AV, I'm talking about evidence.

 

[Kylie]

OTOH, organometallic compounds require an intelligence to create, they are not naturally occurring compounds.

Have you got a valid scientific source to support this claim?

 

[ScottA]

What evidence do you have that evolution is anything other than a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no goals or plan? what could be guiding it? someone's imagination?

Other animals do not have Gods because they have no imaginations with which to imagine Gods.

Imagination is a funny thing. One only imagines what they do not know. Is that not exactly what you are doing when you say God is just "someone's imagination?"

I'm sure you didn't even know what you were implying, but that is quite a profound statement against those who do not know God.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Because the other animals do not know they are going to die one day, we do.

We are going to die unless of course the rapture happens first, so dying is something we have to face anyway.

You missed the whole idea of the conversation, either that or you deliberately changed it to fall in with what you want to believe.
It seems you not only see what you want to see you have the ability to make even that mean what ever you want it to mean.

People have been promised the rapture for at least two millennium so what makes you think it's going to happen in your lifetime? even Jesus lied [if he was a god he must have known] when he told people it would come in their lifetime.
Although saying that, no one knows exactly what Jesus said or didn't say because everything in the bible he is supposed to have said is only hearsay, unless you know something no one else knows.

 

[Larniavc]

This causes some problems...

Now, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "there is nothing he could not logically do".

If you mean that it is illogical to say there is something God could not do (in other words, you name it, God can do it, even if it is nonsensical), then everyone should be a believer. God could simply make everyone believe in the correct religion. Of course, believers often counter this by saying that such an action on behalf of God would violate our free will. However, if God can do ANYTHING you can name, then surely God can make atheists into believers in a way that does not violate their free will.

On the other hand, you may have meant that God can do anything that was logically possible (and I suspect that this is indeed what you meant). In other words, God can't do things that are logically IMpossible. But this raises the question of why God would limit himself in this way. Surely, if logic exists, then it is something created by God. Why would he create something that would bind his hands ever after?

And also, anything that is logically possible is something that can be potentially explained by science (we may not have an explanation right now, but it is possible to explain it in a scientific fashion). So, if God created the universe, then the creation of the universe is something that can be explained by science. And if it can be explained by science rather than religion, than why is a God required for it at all?

So god could not create an object he could not lift in the same way that an I moveable object cannot exists in a universe with an irresistible force.

Basically my intent was to say that any eventuality in the universe could be described as "yeah, goddidit".

Appearance of age in the universe? Goddidit.

Nested hierarchies? Goddidit.

Any evidence we uncover about anything in the future about anything?

Yeah, God did that, too.

It's an intellectual dead end.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Imagination is a funny thing. One only imagines what they do not know. Is that not exactly what you are doing when you say God is just "someone's imagination?"

I'm sure you didn't even know what you were implying, but that is quite a profound statement against those who do not know God.

I don't think you know a God I think you only imagine you do.

I knew exactly what I was saying, Gods are nothing more than figments of people's imaginations, even tribes who knew nothing of other tribes invented their own Gods to protect them from unseen dangers, overcome problems they could not overcome and answer questions they could not answer, that's why thanks to science Gods have been in most cases made completely redundant.

Gods are consolations and pacifiers, a train wreck kills a hundred people and one survives, believers do not blame their God for killing the 100 they thank their God for not killing the one, there are very good reasons why people invented Gods.

Can any religion answer this very simple question? Where were we before we were born?

 

[SkyWriting]

Is what beneficial or not imagining gods? to a certain extent yes if it reduces anxiety.

Most all critics of religion claim that preachers increase anxiety
and consider Christianity to be fear based so you'll have to be
selective when you document any support for your position.

 

[SkyWriting]

But if it affects reality, how can it be completely outside the natural laws we know? If creationism is able to influence IN ANY WAY any aspect of reality, that influence can be measured and is subject to the scientific method. And if it can be studied by the scientific method, it must be falisifable, yes?

Nope. As you know the scientific method requires repeatable actions
or repeatable observations, on demand, by "hostile" inquiry.

Well known examples are prayer studies. If groups of people praying
for devine intervention was an effective "force" then the results could
be measured. While some studies have indeed documented results
others have not been able to reproduce the same results. So, the cases
where results have been documented, can not be repeated by hostile
inquiry. So such successful studies are considered inconclusive or null
random results.

And nothing is despised more than random success in science.

 

[SkyWriting]

People have been promised the rapture for at least two millennium so what makes you think it's going to happen in your lifetime? even Jesus lied [if he was a god he must have known] when he told people it would come in their lifetime.Although saying that, no one knows exactly what Jesus said or didn't say because everything in the bible he is supposed to have said is only hearsay, unless you know something no one else knows.

Sorry. You may not make the complaint that Jesus lied,
and also make the complaint that His recorded statements
are not accurate. You must pick one type of complaint
or the other.

From now on you must restrict your challenges to the validity
of the scriptures OR the content of what is written. Please
pick a side today.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Most all critics of religion claim that preachers increase anxiety
and consider Christianity to be fear based so you'll have to be
selective when you document any support for your position.

Preachers do increase anxiety because they know Christianity is a fear based belief, what else can it be? [all religion do it]
if you don't believe you will go to hell, talk about being made an offer you can't refuse, even the Mafia got this idea from religion, you either believe in me or I kill you, the choice is yours, some choice, that's why religions always target children to put the fear of God in them, if they are made really afraid they will believe the lies forever.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Sorry. You may not make the complaint that Jesus lied,

Was Jesus God and did he promise that the rapture would come in his disciples lifetime? did he know that it would not happen in their lifetime?

and also make the complaint that His recorded statements
are not accurate.

Jesus telling lies and the fact that his recorded statements are not accurate are one and the same thing...... Was the N/T written after Jesus died? was anything written down about what Jesus said when he was alive? how long after Jesus died were the gospels written?

You must pick one type of complaint
or the other.

If all complaints are valid why would you not want to hear them all? I think it's all lies so I don't think I need to pick anything.

From now on you must restrict your challenges to the validity
of the scriptures OR the content of what is written. Please
pick a side today.

If the content is wrong then the validity is also in doubt so you decide, does the N/T give a true account of what Jesus is supposed to have said or not? I think not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Was Jesus God and did he promise that the rapture would come in his disciples lifetime? did he know that it would not happen in their lifetime?

That's only an issue if the words are accurately recorded.
So is that your premise?