Failure condition for god

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's the whole point of Godism, rob - that it simply cannot fail on its own terms.  It isn't a case of finding evidence for  God, but rigging the game so that nothing can be interpreted as evidence against God.  It's simply the Invisible Pink Unicorn or 'faeries at the bottom of the garden'.

I once had an online mate, a Catholic.  Very bright, very erudite.  He told me (more or less) that it isn't only flowers, love, peace and so on that confirm God's existence, but also things like cholera-infested sewers and Harlequin Foetus Syndrome.  For him, 'all things rebound to the glory of God', and that there was nothing - absolutely nothing - he could see, experience or imagine that he would interpret as evidence against God.

I find that mindset utterly terrifying.

Boru

[Pizza]

But if our universe requires something external to keep it from imploding or having no cause and effect, then what is keeping God and whatever reality he is in from imploding and having no cause and effect? That requires another external controller of some sort, yes?

I know the answer: God.

[robvalue]

Brian: yes, it's ridiculous. The idea that a god would design things to be as they are is beyond insane. Why have any of the weird, annoying, painful stuff? Why have starvation? Why have excretion? Why have bacteria? Why not just have things work as you want them to, without making it look exactly like an evolved system which has to work that way?

Pizza: ahah! God is capable of stabilising himself. So that means some things are capable of stablizing themselves. How do we know the universe is not one of those things? Pzzam! Piaouuu! Bang! Obviously the rebuttal is not aimed to you Nor my little toy gun noises.

[Zen Badger]

Iro: Sure, I don't think it is either. But a Christian can literally point to a tree and say it's evidence for God. I'm saying they have set the bar so low that it can't fail.

I'm asking them to show me there is a bar.

Well, if a tree is evidence for God, then the Loa Loa(a parasitic worm that lives in your eye sending you blind eventually) is proof that he's a malicious cunt.

[John V]

But if there are no failure conditions, then you can show God exists whether he actually does, or not. Hopefully anyone who cares about truth can see the problem with that.

Well, no, not so much.

You're implying that truth requires falsifiability.

Falsifiability is a helpful concept which strengthens a position and IMO is necessary for evidence to count as scientific evidence.

But, it isn't necessary for truth.

One can likewise say that there's no failure condition for atheism. No matter what you observe, you can explain it in some other fashion than god. You know, magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology...The Matrix...

Neither theism nor atheism has a failure condition. Yet, between theism (broadly considered) and atheism, it seems that one of them has to be true.

[jesus_wept]

Atheism has a failure condition, if only god would choose to show himself.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But if there are no failure conditions, then you can show God exists whether he actually does, or not. Hopefully anyone who cares about truth can see the problem with that.

Well, no, not so much.

You're implying that truth requires falsifiability.

Falsifiability is a helpful concept which strengthens a position and IMO is necessary for evidence to count as scientific evidence.

But, it isn't necessary for truth.

One can likewise say that there's no failure condition for atheism. No matter what you observe, you can explain it in some other fashion than god. You know, magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology...The Matrix...

Neither theism nor atheism has a failure condition. Yet, between theism (broadly considered) and atheism, it seems that one of them has to be true.

But the test being considered isn't whether theism or atheism is true, but whether God exists.  If God does not exist, then theism (the belief that God exists) can still be true, contrariwise for atheism.

Boru

[robvalue]

Truth doesn't require falsifiability, but any meaningful claim does. Otherwise we can have no way of knowing anything about whether it is true or not and are simply guessing or making stuff up.

If the god claim cannot be falsified, it is useless and claiming to have belief or knowledge about something we can know absolutely nothing about is irrational.

Whether people care that it is irrational is another matter. The best you have is "it could be true, and I like it, so I'm going to say I believe it". By definition, any reasons you have for believing it are irrational as the claim is such that we can know nothing about it.

Whether you actually believe it, or just say you do, is yet another issue.

If you're just going to assert it is true, god exists, then that is ridiculous.

[John V]

Atheism has a failure condition, if only god would choose to show himself.

And how would he show himself that could not be explained in some other manner?

---

But the test being considered isn't whether theism or atheism is true, but whether God exists.  If God does not exist, then theism (the belief that God exists) can still be true, contrariwise for atheism.

Boru

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If A doesn't exist, then the belief that A exists is false.

[Iroscato]

The failure condition is that causes become divorced from there effects and the universe collapses into nothingness.

Oh, go read some books on physics, for the sake of your brain if nothing else.