Dr. Craig, in his debate with Professor Sean Caroll, a cosmologist and physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology, stated that,

Quote:Both the naturalist and the theist can be stubbornly committed to their worldviews and not allow contrary evidence to overthrow it. Naturalists are just as adept as theists at explaining away evidence that they find inconvenient—I mean, even to the extent of asserting that the universe popped into being out of nothing! So that's a charge that, I think, goes both ways. It would be possible to falsify theism, for example, by showing a contradiction in the concept of God, as some have sought to do – that there could not be, for example, an omniscient person or a timeless person or something of that sort. So that would be a means of falsifying theism if one could go that route.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#ixzz44RSeDZ8D

However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o...robability

Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true.  If Craig is 100% certain the god exists, then that would mean that he is 100% certain that no evidence exists to the contrary, which means that Craig's belief in god is not falsifiable.

Craig is an idiot.  Luckily for him so is his audience.

Drumpf has the same happy dilemma.

(March 30, 2016 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Craig is an idiot.  Luckily for him so is his audience.

Drumpf has the same happy dilemma.

I posted this in the Religion -> Christianity subforum, because I had hoped that one of Dr. Craig's followers would take the bait here and defend Dr. Craig.  But, let me generalize my proposition, that is, to consider a proposition to be falsifiable is to have some doubt about its truthfulness.  In other words, while we may be 99.99999999% certain about naturalistic evolution, we can at least imagine finding a fossil that would call into question the whole theory.  Now, of course, the "f-word" ("fraud") is always a possibility here, but evolutionary theory is, at least in principle, falsifiable.  I would not, however, say that the diurnal rotation of the Earth is falsifiable, in that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the Earth, in fact, rotates about its axis.

(March 30, 2016 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Craig is an idiot.  Luckily for him so is his audience.

Isn't that true for every apologist?

Every team has its superstars and its role-players.  Craig is a bullshitting champion.

(March 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Dr. Craig, in his debate with Professor Sean Caroll, a cosmologist and physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology, stated that,

Quote:Both the naturalist and the theist can be stubbornly committed to their worldviews and not allow contrary evidence to overthrow it. Naturalists are just as adept as theists at explaining away evidence that they find inconvenient—I mean, even to the extent of asserting that the universe popped into being out of nothing! So that's a charge that, I think, goes both ways. It would be possible to falsify theism, for example, by showing a contradiction in the concept of God, as some have sought to do – that there could not be, for example, an omniscient person or a timeless person or something of that sort. So that would be a means of falsifying theism if one could go that route.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#ixzz44RSeDZ8D

However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o...robability

Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true.  If Craig is 100% certain the god exists, then that would mean that he is 100% certain that no evidence exists to the contrary, which means that Craig's belief in god is not falsifiable.

You might get a response in the forum at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

(March 31, 2016 at 12:09 pm)athrock Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Dr. Craig, in his debate with Professor Sean Caroll, a cosmologist and physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology, stated that,


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#ixzz44RSeDZ8D

However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o...robability

Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true.  If Craig is 100% certain the god exists, then that would mean that he is 100% certain that no evidence exists to the contrary, which means that Craig's belief in god is not falsifiable.

You might get a response in the forum at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

I'm an atheist; and besides, there are only so many hours in a day.  I would rather post here than there.  Humor me -- can one believe in god with 100% certainty and yet still hold the existence of god to be a falsifiable proposition?

Quote:However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:

Not precisely the case. Falsifiability doesn't necessary imply doubt as to the truth of the proposition being considered. Craig isn't saying that he's unsure of the existence of God. He's saying that theism could, theoretically be falsified.

A good comparison would be evolution. I am 100% convinced that the diversity of life on Earth is best explained by natural/sexual selection and genetic drift operating on the raw material of mutation. But evolution is falsifiable. If someone could, for example, demonstrate that mutation doesn't happen or that the fossil record is false or that genetic similarities don't prove the existence of daughter species, then I would be forced to admit that the current model of biological evolution is false (or at least has some drastically serious problems).

But based on his past statements, I don't think that Craig really - in what passes for his heart - believes that theism is falsifiable. He's clever enough to grasp that falsifiability is what makes a theory a theory, and he's trying to give his barbarian world-view a veneer of respectability by putting it on a par with science.

Boru

(March 31, 2016 at 6:34 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 12:09 pm)athrock Wrote: You might get a response in the forum at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/

I'm an atheist; and besides, there are only so many hours in a day.  I would rather post here than there.  Humor me -- can one believe in god with 100% certainty and yet still hold the existence of god to be a falsifiable proposition?

Wow. I'm waaaaaay out of my wheelhouse here, but since you asked:

It seems to me that the only way one can be 100% certain of God's existence is to have direct experience of Him. I happen to think that God does reveal Himself to people to varying degrees. And if a person has a direct experience of God, how would that same person be able to say that God is falsifiable?

Now, I haven't spent any time on this, but perhaps Craig has had a personal experience of meeting the Risen Jesus and therefore knows (assuming he was not hallucinating, etc.) that Jesus is alive. Okay, fine. But what can Craig say of value to you about what is a non-verifiable, non-repeatable experience? Just "See for yourself?"

Well, in this case, he might, as a professional philosopher, be able to argue that YOU might be able to consider the existence of God falsifiable if you are able to demonstrate an internal contradiction in God's nature. The problem of evil was one attempt at this, but it has been refuted by Plantinga, and no one considers the intellectual problem of evil to be the knock-down argument that it was previously. The emotional problem of evil still seems to have some punch simply because hearts ARE obviously moved by the pain they experience and observe.

Whew! That's about all I can manage, I think.

(March 31, 2016 at 7:32 pm)athrock Wrote: The problem of evil was one attempt at this, but it has been refuted by Plantinga, and no one considers the intellectual problem of evil to be the knock-down argument that it was previously. The emotional problem of evil still seems to have some punch simply because hearts ARE obviously moved by the pain they experience and observe.

Maybe Plantinga considers it to be "refuted", but I certainly do not, and there are atheistic philosophers who do not agree with Plantinga on this.  It's a sidebar, yes, but I have listened to Plantinga (on the Closer to Truth series), and I find his arguments wanting, if not somewhat pathetic.