It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As you said, if we dig deep enough into the description of these beings there would be a way to test for their existence.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
my issue here is I believe you are wrong when it comes to things like invisible magic unicorns. As you said, if we dig deep enough into the description of these beings there would be a way to test for their existence.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The problem here is not that these things are impossible to disprove as negatives can be proven
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are much more on the reductionist side of things, which leads one to question how your world view would even begin to justify the idea that we can know what is true.
Perhaps with the 'invisible magic unicorns' example, yes. We could equally form a more generic claim though, and truly make something unfalsifiable. The concept of god certainly isn't the only unfalsifiable claim out there
If you say "god created bananas" we can prove this to be a false claim because we have a well documented history of how modern bananas came to be, and it is within human history. We have not proved a negative, but we have shown how the claim is a false one.
there absolutely is. the question has always been that of accepting the results.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't think God is an unfalsifiable claim. I think that is what people say because they are regurgitating some of the more popular atheist speakers.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I don't think simply describing the mechanism behind the creation of a banana is enough to explain away its creator.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I get that your trying to get a point across
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I understand that you are saying you are showing the claims by the religion to be false but in order to do that you must show something else to be true.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
When you try and disprove a claim you are also presenting a claim of your own.
So god is falsifiable then?
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Any of the ones that actually have holy books and traditions to judge off of and aren't just people making stuff up when stuff needs to be made up to prove they can come up with an unfalsifiable God yea they are normally falsifiable somewhere in their lore.
Precisely the reason for the existence in the OP.
You seem to agree with the logic within the OP, I'm not quite sure what you're responding to then? Perhaps one of us is at a misunderstanding
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm
there absolutely is. the question has always been that of accepting the results.
I quit watching at a minute....had he actually researched the Bible and seen what it said about prayer I might actually have listened but this is just a waste of time.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you thought I was attempting to debate but it was more of just my two cents.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Under the circumstances such a position falls into the general category of being irrelevant.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
To these people they would have responded and documented such an event as a world flood not that they comprehended what Earth was.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
"How is the position that 'it wasn't a literal global flood' irrelevant when the claim is 'there was a literal global flood'?"
Because the people who make such claims are literally "FOS". All things considered given evidence as offered
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The problem here is not that these things are impossible to disprove as negatives can be proven..ask any legitimate logician.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: namelesss
by that logic, everything is equally factual, which is a paradox and does nothing but distract from the discussion.
...that wouldnt be the point, would it?