Talk:Falsifiability of God

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Point?

I'm not sure what the point of this article is. "Falsifiability of God" refers to being able to falsify His existence, yet it reads as though the issue is the unfalsifiability of God.

Secondly, which "scientists" "often cite" this as evidence that He doesn't exist?

The article appears to be making an argument more than documenting a real phenomena, and if it's not intended as a parody, might be better off as an essay.

Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

And it's a straw man argument at that. Granted, I don't know a lot about the scientific pursuit of God, but no scientist will say that a lack of falifiability will disprove God. As the author rightly points out in his first rebuttal, falsifiability does not disprove anything. A scientist would more likely argue that since you can not falsify the existance of God, you can not prove that God exists. To use the pork dinner example, if there is no way to disprove you had a sumptuous pork dinner, there is no way to prove you dined in porcine goodness. (Can you tell I've been eating cafeteria food for the last month? But I digress).
I'm not in any way saying that the scientists are right or wrong, but I believe the author is misrepresenting the scientists' view. HelpJazz 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I'll disagree just a little. First, the article has "scientists" in quotes, suggesting that it's not really scientists that are intended. Second, although the point of your logic is sound, I guess the counter-point, and the point of the article, is that many people don't follow sound logic. And scientists are no better—or not much better—in this regard. For example, although this is not as blatant, they do argue that (a) God is not falsifiable, therefore (b) the creation view is not falsifiable, therefore (c) the creation view is not science, and therefore (d) the creation view is wrong. Now this last point (d) is not often stated explicitly, and is even denied if it's pressed, but is nevertheless the "take-home message" that is put, as well as the conclusion that they seem to draw. Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
True, I missed the "scientist" vs. scientist part, though the word is wikilinked. I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree that your point (d) is argued often by scientists, but as I said I'm not very familiar with the subject so I'll trust your judgement in that area. However I think we both agree that the lesson of the whole thing is that this article either needs to be clarified, sourced, moved or deleted. :) HelpJazz 00:05, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps an article on Falsifiability including the first point would be better. It's your call. Learn together 02:31, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
There's already an article on Falsifiable, as well as one on Falsifiability of evolution. The latter is something that's quite an issue, unlike, I believe, this article. Philip J. Rayment 03:11, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be interesting to explore this topic more, as many scholars and philosophers, and of course theologians, have come to the conclusion of the existence of God, falsifiable or not. However the original author was banned for being a parodist so... I dunno. HelpJazz 09:44, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Two sides of one coin

I suppose there is a near and a far side to 'obvious things'. An example of a near one would be that the sum of 2-and-2 is 4. This is not falsifiable. But, it is trivial.

Now, whatever ultimately is true regarding the cosmos, or regarding the idea of a Creator of the cosmos, such is the furthest side of the coin. Like the trivial example above, this furthest side is not falsifiable. But, because its details are obscure, unlike the details of the trivial example above, this furthest side is subject to be misunderstood and, hence, subject to seem to be falsified. Nevertheless, this furthest side is not only non-trivial, it is the most universally important thing there is. PatternOfPersona 11:14, 19 September 2011 (EDT)