Can you make a God claim?

[John V]

1) Coherent/consistent: The claim has to make sense. You have to define what you are talking about, in clear terms. It must be consistent with itself, and with the things we know about reality.

I disagree that a claim must be consistent with what we know about reality.

First, this statement is ambiguous, particularly "we" and "know."

Second, as I understand those terms, this criterion is not generally applied to claims. For example, we knew that time proceeded at a constant rate everywhere. By your criteria, we wouldn't have bothered listening to Einstein, because we knew that his claim was not consistent with reality.

[robvalue]

You missed out the rest of my quote where I said that if you are throwing out current theory, this must be justified. In einsteins case, he did justify it.

That doesn't mean you can just ignore reality as you see fit without justification.

If you are making a claim which is meant to improve on previously established claims, then you need to justify why that is. It's possible the claims before were wrongly accepted.

Maybe I didn't explain that very well in my OP. Sure, there are always issues of epistemology and so forth. But we're dealing with demonstrated knowledge and theories, which we are justified in thinking is correct based on information at that time. I'm not talking about absolute truths, only practical demonstrations beyond reasonable doubt.

[Mister Agenda]

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

God's not going to prove anything to you, it's the other way around, you have to prove something to him.

This is a claim. Why should we believe it?

---

I disagree that a claim must be consistent with what we know about reality.

First, this statement is ambiguous, particularly "we" and "know."

Second, as I understand those terms, this criterion is not generally applied to claims. For example, we knew that time proceeded at a constant rate everywhere. By your criteria, we wouldn't have bothered listening to Einstein, because we knew that his claim was not consistent with reality.

I think we have a different understanding of the terms used than you do. We did not know his claim was not consistent with reality, and it, in fact, was consistent with reality; at least out to enough decimal points as makes no matter until you start having to deal with quantum weirdness. And Einstein made a prediction of an observation that could be made which would falsify his claim if he were wrong. He met his burden of proof.

[Minimalist]

They don't do tests, Rob.

[robvalue]

But if you have a claim that you think is valid, please go ahead, and we can see if you can justify why it doesn't need to meet my criteria to be useful. My point about consistency with reality is that if you make a claim which clashes with what we think we know already, that needs backing up. You can't just proceed as if things work like you want them to.

[John V]

You missed out the rest of my quote where I said that if you are throwing out current theory, this must be justified. In einsteins case, he did justify it.

That doesn't mean you can just ignore reality as you see fit without justification.

If you are making a claim which is meant to improve on previously established claims, then you need to justify why that is. It's possible the claims before were wrongly accepted.

Maybe I didn't explain that very well in my OP. Sure, there are always issues of epistemology and so forth. But we're dealing with demonstrated knowledge and theories, which we are justified in thinking is correct based on information at that time. I'm not talking about absolute truths, only practical demonstrations beyond reasonable doubt.

Fair enough on Einstein, but you still need to define "we" and "know" and justify why others should accept those definitions.

What I'm getting at is that you have certain standards of evidence and knowledge. Other people have other standards. I suspect you're considering your own standards to determine what "we know about reality." Other people believe they know different things about reality than you do.

[robvalue]

I'm not even getting to evidence, I'm seeing if someone can make a claim that makes sense and is testable. I don't care whether or not there is any evidence at this point, I just want to see if a simple claim can be put together. The fact that it isn't utter gibberish is a good start, kind of the point of my standards. I suppose the consistency thing is to weed out claims that cannot be true regardless of evidence. Ignore that bit if you want, and go for testable.

I'm not putting myself forward as an authority on what is and isn't a good claim, just describing what I see as the relevant criteria. Do you have a claim? Can you start with a coherent definition?

Sure, other people claim to know things, but if they cannot demonstrate they are anything other than imagination, then I have no reason to believe them. But I'm not the judge of all things, I'd let the community here see what they think of any claim put forth.

[Crossless2.0]

And Einstein made a prediction of an observation that could be made which would falsify his claim if he were wrong. He met his burden of proof.

Christ, don't even bother trying to bring up falsifiability to a theist. Their entire game depends on never having to produce the goods or propose a means by which their claims could be shown to be wrong, as Einstein had to do. And Karl Popper is simply lost on these people.

[robvalue]

For example, claiming there is an omniscient God who gives us free will is an inconsistent claim (as I think I demonstrated in another thread). So it's pointless to put forward because it cannot be true, unless you are to demonstrate that contradictions can exist and logic doesn't apply, or something.

---

It's also untestable, if I give no way in which this God can be distinguished from nothing.

Hehe yeah. I dunno, might make someone think about what it is they "believe" and why.

---

There has been more productive discussion on this thread than I've seen on many others, I've seen much more thoughtful comments. We may never get to what I asked for, but I feel some people have stopped to think a little bit which is great.

---

I take the point alpha male, I could have done better in my OP. The consistency part was perhaps a bit overdone, it was an attempt to stop absurd claims that make utterly no sense, or which make wild unsubstantiated assumptions. Let's focus on a testable claim. And as cat sniper pointed out, this means it must be falsifiable. Or else it's just a proclamation of truth, or presentation of the unknowable.

[John V]

I'm not even getting to evidence, I'm seeing if someone can make a claim that makes sense and is testable.

Yes, you are getting into evidence. I can't determine if a claim is consistent with what we know about reality unless you tell me how we know things about reality.

I'm not putting myself forward as an authority on what is and isn't a good claim,

You're putting yourself forward as an authority on what we know about reality.

Do you have a claim?

Again, I can't determine if a claim is consistent with what we know about reality unless you tell me how we know things about reality.