Disprove god!

[AlpsStranger]

Only if you disprove solipsism first.

That's actually how I counter the presuppositional apologetic. Stupid deserves stupid, so I just claim to be a solipsist and argue presuppositional solipsism.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

First, you must prove to me that your assumptions are correct.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not going to do any testing either am I?

Well, this certainly has been one big disappointment

 

[timtofly]

I'm not going to do any testing either am I?

Well, this certainly has been one big disappointment

I doubt you have missed much.

 

[Ondskan]

First, you must prove to me that your assumptions are correct.

Science does not operate this way.

 

[Ondskan]

I'm not going to do any testing either am I?

Well, this certainly has been one big disappointment

Give me an example of what you wanted tested. God is to us only possible to view as an abstraction such as the negative number or the fourth dimension. He does not exist in our reality. But all that came out of him is real. And we will return to him.

All evidence, all reality, all calculations are real.

Although it may be difficult to suggest that the negative number of something exists the fourth dimension certainly does and in a sense the negative number to.

 

[Leoreth]

You would know.
Otherwise you are god or a part of him.

It matters not.

No, since your mind is obviously the only thing that exists, I am just a part of your mind that's challenging your ideas on an internet forum you're also imagining. Convinced?

 

[History_Buff]

The theory of god is certainly testable. Everything follows god. From his divine spark, all knowing nature and creation all this came about according to his laws and his plan. And his creations up to his divine spark are mostly testable and agreed upon.

Sorry, I should have added, not just testable, but falsifiable as well.

Waving your arms around and saying "god test this" is not a test. In order to be properly testable, your theory must make falsifiable predictions. Of course, doing so is not something religions will ever do, since their whole schtick is to be unfalsifiable. They do not do this by being correct.

 

[Ondskan]

We have already gone through the falsifiability of this.

 

[Leoreth]

We have already gone through the falsifiability of this.

With the conclusion that there isn't any.

 

[Ondskan]

No, since your mind is obviously the only thing that exists, I am just a part of your mind that's challenging your ideas on an internet forum you're also imagining. Convinced?

You do not seem to understand.
Then I am god.

And god is true.
The theory is not objecting to god, just seeing him from a very selfish point of view.
Not to mention that it has a critical flaw. I have created all of this but do not now it?

 

[Ondskan]

With the conclusion that it's not given.

Leoreth, I keep forgetting why I do not reply to you, please don't remind me!

 

[Leoreth]

You do not seem to understand.
Then I am god.

And god is true.
The theory is not objecting to god, just seeing him from a very selfish point of view.

Solipsism doesn't imply divinity, I don't even know why you think so.

Leoreth, I keep forgetting why I do not reply to you, please don't remind me!

Dodging the point it is then?

 

[Ondskan]

Solipsism doesn't imply divinity, I don't even know why you think so.

It implies I am the only thing that exists. I am the creator. If this is your definition of divinity or not I do not care, it is my definition of god, among other things.

But let's keep it simple.

Of course if you mean to say that it is simply so that "it cannot be known" then it is not a theory of anything. Just an agnostic position on yourself and your surroundings.

 

[Leoreth]

It implies I am the only thing that exists. I am the creator.

This is a non sequitur.

But let's keep it simple.

Of course if you mean to say that it is simply so that "it cannot be known" then it is not a theory of anything. Just an agnostic position on yourself and your surroundings.

Exactly. No scientist has ever claimed to have a theory of God, because scientists are aware that such a question cannot be answered falsifiably, and therefore doesn't belong into the domain of science.

 

[Ondskan]

This is a non sequitur.

So you suggest that my creator perished, yet I am the only thing that exists...now we are getting into some heavy stuff I admit, that's fun.
But if I control all that exists and I am real, how could something else have existed outside me? God does not exist outside. He is all.
Understood?

Exactly. No scientist has ever claimed to have a theory of God, because scientists are aware that such a question cannot be answered falsifiably, and therefore doesn't belong into the domain of science.

So you want something to be disprovable to be "provable"?
I do not subscribe to this inferior way of thinking but it certainly is.

If some unknown concept was unveiled, some unknown force, some unknown dimension shown to us, some new type of matter created out of energy (although the beginning of energy remains unclear) then it certainly is.

But I hold this to be implausible. Either way, until it is such God remains the most logical solutions and certainly a true one.

But I know many theories in science that are not falsifiable, like the theory that there is a space fabric in accordance to the GTR. Regardless, we have that topic already.

 

[History_Buff]

First, you must prove to me that your assumptions are correct.

Science does not operate this way.

Yes it does.

We have already gone through the falsifiability of this.

No, you haven't. While some advanced theories like super string theory, describing interactions that might involve higher dimensions, are not currently testable, they are at least possibly testable. What's more, proponents of those theories are spending a lot of time finding ways to falsify the theory. Exercises of this nature are notably absent from theology.

So you want something to be disprovable to be "provable"?

Yes. This is fundamental to the scientific method.

But I hold this to be implausible. Either way, until it is such God remains the most logical solutions and certainly a true one.

Saying X is implausible; thus God, is an argument from uncertainty, and fundamentally worthless. That you insist on making it states wonders about you as a person, and how society has failed you.

 

[Ondskan]

Yes it does.

"No it doesn't."

 

[History_Buff]

Science is about making predictions, and testing them. If the predictions cannot be false, they are not really predictions. This is trivial stuff.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Give me an example of what you wanted tested.

How about the claims you make?

God is to us only possible to view as an abstraction such as the negative number or the fourth dimension. He does not exist in our reality. But all that came out of him is real. And we will return to him.

That's actually probably not true.

Because

All evidence, all reality, all calculations are real.

edit: And to join in, yes it so very does.

edit: Still no link?