(November 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: What other method can we falsify God or is this the only way to falsify God? If I define an internally consistent God, does that make him exist?
If the God that you define is internally consistent, that would make "his" existence POSSIBLE. But whether or not this entity actually exists, that would depend on something else.
(November 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm)Surgenator Wrote: For something to exist, internal consistency is necessary but it is not sufficient. If you claim there is no way to falsify an interally consistent definition of God, then your God claim is similiar to the orbiting-tea-pot claim.
Well, we are talking about the distinction between necessary existence, and contingent existence...the "god" could be internally consistent, but its existence could be actually false.
The possibilities are endless, but there is only one reality. So to say something is possible isn't saying much at all. Stating the likelihood is where you can acutually get somewhere.
What is the likelihood that abiogenesis is true? It is based on chemical reactions which we know exist. It's also based on self-replicating molecules which we also know to exist (e.g. RNA). So the likelihood is pretty high.
What is the likelihood that God created life? Well it is based on an intelligents that doesn't have a physical body which we have never seen that. It is based on a being that can break physical laws of nature which we have never seen either. So God's likelihood is pretty small.
