Difference between revisions of "Falsifiability of God"
(I don't think you could - surely an omnipotent God could create a universe that, to us, would look as if it wasn't his creation? Also, a little Kant is never unneeded.) |
(There's no doubt that this is misunderstanding falsifiability. The question is, does anybody actually make this claim?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The ''[[falsifiable|Falsifiability]] of [[God]]'' is often cited by some [[scientists]], [[philosophers]], [[atheists]], and others as being evidence that God does not exist. | + | The ''[[falsifiable|Falsifiability]] of [[God]]'' is often cited by some [[scientists]], [[philosophers]], [[atheists]], and others as being evidence that God does not exist.{{fact}} However, that those who make such claims misunderstand the quality of falsifiability. |
Just because something is not falsifiable does not make it incorrect. For instance, if a person says "I had pork chops and applesauce for dinner on July 12, 1987," their statement is not falsifiable because there is no test that can be done to prove the contrary. However, that does not ''by any means'' mean the statement is necessarily false. Thus, claiming that the concept of God is not a falsifiable one does not mean the concept is incorrect. Thus, while it may be impossible to use ''Erscheinung'' (to use [[Kant]]'s term) to prove God's existence, this does not bear any relevance to the ''Ding an sich'' of God's existence. | Just because something is not falsifiable does not make it incorrect. For instance, if a person says "I had pork chops and applesauce for dinner on July 12, 1987," their statement is not falsifiable because there is no test that can be done to prove the contrary. However, that does not ''by any means'' mean the statement is necessarily false. Thus, claiming that the concept of God is not a falsifiable one does not mean the concept is incorrect. Thus, while it may be impossible to use ''Erscheinung'' (to use [[Kant]]'s term) to prove God's existence, this does not bear any relevance to the ''Ding an sich'' of God's existence. | ||
[[Category:Religion]] | [[Category:Religion]] | ||
Revision as of 02:46, November 5, 2008
The Falsifiability of God is often cited by some scientists, philosophers, atheists, and others as being evidence that God does not exist.[Citation Needed] However, that those who make such claims misunderstand the quality of falsifiability.
Just because something is not falsifiable does not make it incorrect. For instance, if a person says "I had pork chops and applesauce for dinner on July 12, 1987," their statement is not falsifiable because there is no test that can be done to prove the contrary. However, that does not by any means mean the statement is necessarily false. Thus, claiming that the concept of God is not a falsifiable one does not mean the concept is incorrect. Thus, while it may be impossible to use Erscheinung (to use Kant's term) to prove God's existence, this does not bear any relevance to the Ding an sich of God's existence.