(January 8, 2015 at 10:32 am)robvalue Wrote: This is something I've been wibbling about recently so I thought it's time for another challenge, following the amazing success of the worship one. Here's my challenge to theists.
To my understanding, there are two factors of any claim which decide whether or not the claim is of any use at all. If it fails on any of these, it's pointless and not even worth addressing with argument or evidence. Here we go:
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. If it's not coherent, there's nothing to test, I don't know what you are even claiming. If it's not consistent with itself, it's impossible. If it's not consistent with reality, it's also impossible, because we would have to throw out everything we think we know already just to consider this new claim. The reason for throwing out any conventional theory would have to be included to make this consistent.
2) Testable: The claim must be able to be investigated, in some way. If you are saying your claim is true, then you are saying you have reached that conclusion via some sort of method. So there must be some clear way in which the claim can be tested to find out whether it is true or not. If there is no way to test it, then that means the claim is either only true "for you" which makes it meaningless to anyone else, or it's just an assertion not backed by anything as you've refused to say how you even got to it in the first place. If there is no way to test your claim, no one can determine whether it is right or wrong. And if this is the case, no one can prove whether the opposite claim is right or wrong, either. So you are just arbitrarily choosing one of two positions, with no rational reason.
So my challenge is, can anyone come up with a non-trivial claim about God that meets these criteria? I have yet to see a single one. Only at that point does it make sense to even consider the evidence being presented, and to find out whether the claim is true, or most likely true.
Also, if you want to present a case that claims which don't meet these criteria are still of any value to people other than yourself, please do.
Might I take a whack at it? I'm orthodox Christian btw and let it be known I'm not going to be writing necessarily about the Christian god.
1) Consistent - I believe that there could be a deity somewhere outside any physical limits of the universe/multiverse that was in some way responsible for the start of it all. Doesn't have to be humanoid or a spirit or anything because since it's outside of any physical definitions/ calculations. Call it a unicorn for all I care. So an unidentifiable entity beyond what we can see, touch, hear is the thing I'm trying to talk about. Since it's outside the "physical" universe/ sphere we can't sense it the way we sense humans or animals. But no harm in believing.
Testable- has anyone seen the matrix? He says something like "how do you define real? What you think is real is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain."
For all you know everything you see, hear, taste is not really there but something is tricking your brain with electrical signals.
That means there is the possibility that when you're walking you're not really walking but your brain thinks that you're walking. Maybe in reality you're lying in a forest and a little goblin is watching over you and controlling your brain signals. Imagine . . . you think you're smelling flowers but actually an elf is looking straight at you.
Maybe God is looking at you in heaven as you think you live your life in a small point in a universe that doesn't really exist. Maybe life is just a training program for heaven? Maybe there is no Omniverse but just one plane of existence in singularity- heaven?
BUT that makes no sense. Everything in this world is testable because it is made of matter. But a deity need not be made up of atoms. Maybe it's just some "thing" that isn't matter. Maybe it's just energy or something else. Sooo . . . Hope I answered sufficiently.
If not please write your point of view.
