Proof A=A

[tavarish]

Though I do understand and agree with your point, to make the definition of God "being outside of anything testable", even methods we haven't devised yet, is utterly dishonest and at best a ploy to dodge internal inconsistencies and discount any empirical evidence that points to the contrary. The sheer fact that people who claim that God is outside testable claims, usually then go on to name his attributes and maintain that he can manifest in the physical world (and that he has done so in the past), means that he is testable (at least subjectively) and has a certain amount of verifiability, if only through means of faith. They assign attributes to this God, give him a nature, speak at length about what his intentions are, but then say he is untestable.

That is simply stupid and a pretty blatant cop-out. I'm talking mostly about the theists who do this very thing.

You're absolutely right and I absolutely agree. This is why I don't see an untestable God as being plausible in any sense, and don't believe such a God could ever have any influence on anything in the known universe past the point of creation. Alas, the non-testable God tends to be the one that people go by. A cop-out indeed.

Also, how do you accept that this definition of God is correct?

I don't particularly accept any definiton of God as being more correct than any other. To me, none of them make sense. I believe the "God is untestable" version to be mainstream enough for it to be my default, regardless of the sense it makes (or doesn't in this case). If somebody wants to offer up a different definition though, I'll play ball on their field instead. The reason I made the comment on your post to Adrian was just to say that as I understand it, theists will always say that God is outside of the testable realm and as such define God as untestable, no matter the advancements in science. Because of this, your idea that God will one day be testable falls flat by the very (albeit ridiculous) definition of God. This doesn't even address the limitations of science which you and Adrian are currently debating.

I think me and Adrian got off on the wrong foot, and I probably should have worded some things a bit better and explained myself with more detail.

I've been on Christianity.com enough that I understand that "God" has many definitions, and most of them are in the realm of being testable, as the claims have to do with physical manifestations, historicity and unexplained events occurring in reality. Most Christian definitions of God can be thoroughly disproven. I can say, without the shadow of a doubt, that the Christian God of the bible does not exist. The purely unobservable and untestable claim that encompasses fr0d0's definition is a cop-out, since BY DEFINITION it assumes things we have yet to know in terms of scientific study. This is not a traditional or particularly popular Christian definition, especially not one of an evangelical that is based on a sola scriptura view.

The fact that fr0d0 just happens to latch on Christian ideology to his impossible definition doesn't make it any more valid or any less of a cop out. It's also in the same realm as the IPU or celestial teapot.

What I'm trying to conclude is that something outside the realm of Christianity; an objective definition of God. Based on current and past trends, I don't think it would have anything to do with being "unobservable" and "untestable", if such a definition was at all possible.

---

I do agree that I'm guilty of straw manning a bit. I also completely understand that your definition of God is at its essence, something that is not observable. However, how do you know that this definition is the correct assessment?

God is defined differently by many societies, regions, and religions. Not one of the dictionary definitions I looked up had any mention of being unobservable and untestable by nature.

It doesn't matter if my definition is correct, I already addressed that. My contention was that using my definition, you cannot use science to determine the existence of that God. If you have a God that is observable and testable, then evidently there may be ways of determining whether it exists through science, but it still wouldn't say anything about the other definition.

So yes, to put it this way, if we had two definitions of God:

1) A being that created the universe and resides in the non-temporal realm.
2) A being that created the universe.

The 1st definition is a more strict definition of a God, and this definition defies scientific evaluation. The 2nd definition however is open to interpretation, and science could be used to evaluate it as an existence claim. If the 2nd claim is found to be true or false by science, it still says nothing about the 1st claim unless something in the 2nd claim contradicted the 1st. Nothing does in my example (they both have a claim to have created the universe, but nothing prohibits them from doing that together, etc).

Agreed. I've said that in your definition, proof would be impossible. My point was that this definition is impossible and dishonest and makes assumptions about unknown unknowns. Theists can use that as a basis to latch on any motives or beliefs they see fit, and all of it is non-verifiable by default.

I do agree with your 2 points though.

[LukeMC]

I've been on Christianity.com enough that I understand that "God" has many definitions, and most of them are in the realm of being testable, as the claims have to do with physical manifestations, historicity and unexplained events occurring in reality. Most Christian definitions of God can be thoroughly disproven. I can say, without the shadow of a doubt, that the Christian God of the bible does not exist. The purely unobservable and untestable claim that encompasses fr0d0's definition is a cop-out, since BY DEFINITION it assumes things we have yet to know in terms of scientific study. This is not a traditional or particularly popular Christian definition, especially not one of an evangelical that is based on a sola scriptura view.

The fact that fr0d0 just happens to latch on Christian ideology to his impossible definition doesn't make it any more valid or any less of a cop out. It's also in the same realm as the IPU or celestial teapot.

What I'm trying to conclude is that something outside the realm of Christianity; an objective definition of God. Based on current and past trends, I don't think it would have anything to do with being "unobservable" and "untestable", if such a definition was at all possible.

Then my greatest fear has been realised. I've listened to fr0d0 so much that my brain has accepted his version of theism as the mainstream O.o

All points considered, you're probably right and it was my mistake to assume "untestable" was part of the mainstream view. When I think about it more fully, yes, I can see that most definitions of God do allow for testability in that so many theists are willing to put forth their proofs (beauty of nature, cosmological argument, transcendental argument, human eye, green grass, etc). It was a mistake on my part. Though I suppose it could be said that I was merely subscribing to Adrian's idea of an untestable god as context for my point, and as such, my comments on the untestability of that god should still stand.

[Violet]

What I'm trying to conclude is that something outside the realm of Christianity; an objective definition of God. Based on current and past trends, I don't think it would have anything to do with being "unobservable" and "untestable", if such a definition was at all possible.

An objective definition? Possible, but we wouldn't know we had it.

[fr0d0]

All points considered, you're probably right and it was my mistake to assume "untestable" was part of the mainstream view. When I think about it more fully, yes, I can see that most definitions of God do allow for testability in that so many theists are willing to put forth their proofs (beauty of nature, cosmological argument, transcendental argument, human eye, green grass, etc). It was a mistake on my part. Though I suppose it could be said that I was merely subscribing to Adrian's idea of an untestable god as context for my point, and as such, my comments on the untestability of that god should still stand.

Don't I also submit those aspects as testable proofs of god? I think you define inconsistencies where there is consistency. Where literalists falter is moving outside of the precise texts they're referencing.

@Tav my definition isn't just impossible - because in science it's just unreachable. My theology doesn't 'assume' something we're yet to know. Something 'unknowable' isn't ever going to be discovered.. or it wouldn't be unknowable would it? This is you still struggling to use the wrong tool.

[tavarish]

All points considered, you're probably right and it was my mistake to assume "untestable" was part of the mainstream view. When I think about it more fully, yes, I can see that most definitions of God do allow for testability in that so many theists are willing to put forth their proofs (beauty of nature, cosmological argument, transcendental argument, human eye, green grass, etc). It was a mistake on my part. Though I suppose it could be said that I was merely subscribing to Adrian's idea of an untestable god as context for my point, and as such, my comments on the untestability of that god should still stand.

Don't I also submit those aspects as testable proofs of god? I think you define inconsistencies where there is consistency. Where literalists falter is moving outside of the precise texts they're referencing.

@Tav my definition isn't just impossible - because in science it's just unreachable. My theology doesn't 'assume' something we're yet to know. Something 'unknowable' isn't ever going to be discovered.. or it wouldn't be unknowable would it? This is you still struggling to use the wrong tool.

No, this is you being dishonest as always. You're making the assumption that something can never be known objectively, then saying it can be known only through belief and questionable evidence. How do you know it will never be testable?

It's a cop out and an attempt to avoid an argument that you know you can't back up.

[fr0d0]

You calling me names is you demonstrating your intellectual position right?

You assume it will be testable. How do you know that? Where did you get that info?

[tavarish]

You calling me names is you demonstrating your intellectual position right?

You assume it will be testable. How do you know that? Where did you get that info?

I don't assume it will be. Read carefully. I withhold judgement, as I have no evidence. I don't assume that we will know, I'm just saying it would be foolish to make a positive claim that assumes the future.

I'm not calling you names for fun, I'm calling it like I see it. You seem to misunderstand the term "intellectual dishonesty".

[Welsh cake]

My question, now that you understand where it is coming from... is why did you even ask that question?

Responding to fr0d0's claim that logic alone can't disprove the concept of god? Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question right? My bad.

If logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts (Read: concepts logic has already refuted)... then the concepts weren't logically impossible to begin with.

Okay... then what's stopping you from arguing that a square is also a circle?

If logic can (which if you are already considering logically impossible concepts it must be true that it does)

Err, no. Logically impossible concepts aren't ever true, that's why they're refutable and not supported ideas to begin with, they're simply subjective conceivable ideas that sounded clever at the time, but have no basis objectively whatsoever in the real world. You probably already know this much.

This seems to be another diversion. The trinity is something that needs to be taken on faith, as it isn't explainable through logic. God is also a woman - the creator.

Firstly, your rebuttal was God wasn't contradictory by its defintion; well, I've given you but one example that the concept is by its own definition a logical contradiction, one entity cannot be simultaneously three individual entities yet still singular, its perfectly valid, which I hope you can at least be bothered to acknowledge first.

Secondly my counter-arguments are not red herrings. >.>

Thirdly, when was God ever called Our Mother and Our Father? He's not the Rainbow Serpent after all, who according to mythology of Aboriginal Australia was both male and female giving birth to all the creatures of the Earth.

God isn't logically impossible, or we'd be able to dismiss God like you do.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you and eternally rid your mind from Appeals to Common Belief.

We cannot know for sure if God is.

How in the IPU's name did you acquire the knowledge we can't know God's existence for certain is what the rest of the world would all like to know.

Logically, you have to DEFINE your god concept FIRST, before debating if it can be proven with absolute certainty or not, which at every given opportunity you've so far failed to do.

Assuming 'God' we can logically deduce outcomes. That's what the bible is, and that's what lived Christianity is.

How do you know that you've evaluated all the other possible outcomes?

What's also funny is that I've never thought that way as you do even as a Christian. God was no 'god of the gaps' clause, or argument from personal incredulity to me at that time. Whenever pressed for answers I'd simply say "I don't yet know" (don't quote me on that please). Before I deconverted from Christianity I always wanted to help prove to the world through science my magic-man belief was actually real and convert everyone to that mindset, and bring everyone to his presence for the betterment and salvation of mankind. At one time I wholeheartedly believed he was 'good'. I so desperately believed someday we'd grow, live, and understand our 'holy father', eventually becoming one with him as is Jesus Christ. I was sorely mistaken. Mankind ill needs a saviour like a murdering tribal god. However, its seems your current sky-daddy concept is only good for practicing cowardice from scrutiny and dishonesty when faced with enquiry. I suppose that's the only real difference between us in a retrospective light.

How can you make the claim that we cannot, in time, prove or disprove God's existence through scientific means?

In fr0d0's defence, that's not what he's arguing at all, he's dismissing logic as being able to refute the concept of god, not the scientific method.

[fr0d0]

@ Tav: I know you withhold judgement. I also know you place an illogical prerequisite in the way. Convenient, if dishonest.

@ cake: what exactly did I rebut? you know a rebut has to counter an actual claim right? You made a baseless assertion which you refuse to backup. I'm assuming by now that your position is lost.

The Trinity isn't a contradiction at all. It's just something held by faith. Something entirely different. How is it contradictory? Your statements make no sense whatsoever. One entity = God. there are 3 personalities of the godhead.

If you looked into the exact translations you'd see that God isn't always masculine. So your assertion of maleness is ill founded.

That we cannot know for sure is biblical. I'm not saying anything new here.

I have failed to define God now have I? I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to you at all. All you do is doggedly avoid the question.

I have no God of the gaps understanding. Yes I can say I don't understand everything. that doesn't mean I dismiss anything or consider it beyond contemplation. Everything's up for critique.

As a Christian you never deduced the nature of God from biblical reference? I find that hard to believe. You blindly misunderstand the concept and have the nerve now to call me dismissive? well thankyou for sharing your deep thoughts on the subject. I'm sure such a thorough and enquiring mind will be a huge advantage in your understanding of the world. just be careful not to open your eyes to reality k?

Good luck with the shoelaces

[tavarish]

@ Tav: I know you withhold judgement. I also know you place an illogical prerequisite in the way. Convenient, if dishonest.

What illogical requisite do I put in the way? Can you tell me how you know something is, and forever will be untestable objectively?

Please elaborate how I'm being in any way dishonest.