This is the problem of the theory itself. If the theory doesn't have concrete predictions to test, it is, once again, unfalsifiable. That's sort of the point.
But in general, testing God's power in the obvious ways (blaspheming, prayer, etc.) does not consistently generate a response (from an omnipotent being, no less, so not something that could conceivably be busy.) If you have better test suggestions, by all means, but the theory itself should be providing tests that can falsify it. Every other scientific theory does.
You may think you find the idea intelligible, but I find that hard to believe as actually true.
For example, and just one example, it raises a million questions about the morality of such a being, who needlessly allows suffering on an unbelievable scale every damn day- and don't tell me "they deserved it," that's disgusting and a cop out, as is "but God was actually busy with xyz," because that's against the definition of omnipotence. If there were such an omnipotent being, I would imagine it to be closer to an eldritch abomination that a friendly, human-sympathetic entity, to the extent I can imagine it at all.
Anyways, you've misunderstood the way I used "supernatural" as a placeholder for a word that does not exist in my previous post, despite outlining it. So I shall use a new word, "supranatural". There's things we can observe and measure in some form here in one category, and "superanatural" is in the other. Everything falls into one or the other.
I'm trying, you see, to split the argument over god into the two common fundamental approaches- one that is physical manifestations or has expected physical consequences, and is therefore testable and falsifiable, and another that is "beyond human understanding/etc." that people often propose as a way to signal their unwillingness to continue in a strictly logical debate.
That depends on your definition of God. The theory is supposed to bring the definition to the table, not me. But yes, many people's definitions of God includes "unobservable", as De Marquis' apparently does. Other peoples' do not, and therefore the God they define is testable and falsifiable. Specifically how depends on what ways they think God interacts with the physical universe.
If you doubt P2, bring the reasons. You don't believe a stone can revive the dead just because you haven't tested every stone to see if it can. You believe a stone cannot revive the dead because you've tested thousands and not a single one has managed it.
P2 is entirely on the believers to bring the evidence, because negative evidence is obviously impossible, as with the stones. If I think there's insufficient evidence, it's because I haven't seen it yet in all my searching, despite having been presented with many many pieces. Every piece of evidence I've ever seen doesn't point to God, it points to evolution and measurable physical interactions that have amazingly strong predictive power, as well as fitting quite well with other established explanations.
Again, you don't favor the hypothesis adding another component (God) to our universe model unless it explains phenomena and brings predictions to the table; aka Occam's razor. That way lies the path of invisible fairies that move electrons around and undetectable gremlins that turn light into particles and then back into waves when the mood takes them- these things "explain" these phenomena in a superficial sense, but they aren't falsifiable since they bring no predictions to the table.
Fair enough.
edited 2nd Aug '11 10:10:06 PM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.Yes, this. Sorry guys, I was coming off an all-nighter and couldn't figure out how to accurately articulate what I wanted. Basically, you take an argument, and realize that for the interpretation you put forward, there is an equal and opposite one. Newton for the win. And the fun part (read: not fun) is that you can't prove yours anymore than they can theirs.
I am now known as Flyboy.The burden of proof of a positive statement and a negative statement simply are not the same. Not at all. Actually it's more than that. The burden of proof of "I know there is a God" and "I have no reason to believe there is a God" (That's generally what atheism actually is) are entirely different, even if you don't assume that the positive claim has the burden of proof, because one is much more declarative than the other.
The big problem with these discussions is that the definitions of "God" and "Theism" are something that are very individualistic, and also very fluid. For example, the idea of a non-falsifiable deity, as he exerts no influence on our existence, is something that I qualify as deism, not theism, but many people portray it as theism. Another popular thing is the idea that God is everything, or in everything. This is more of a pantheistic belief than a theistic belief.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
This, times a thousand.
Or disproven. I think the most annoying thing in the world is the people—not accusing you, talking in general here—who equate the word "secular" with "atheist." No. No, no, no. Get a dictionary, and, for fuck's sake, stay the hell out of politics.
I'm the reverse (agnostic leaning... theist? Whatever...), and yes, I think God should be kept out of science. Can you say God causes science, or some other kind of philosophical justification? Sure. Can you prove it? No. Can I prove you wrong? No. So keep it out of the science books, since they're all about proof. Write an essay about it, but keep it out of the textbooks. It's that simple.
I can agree to that. Do we have agreement that people shouldn't try to impose religious views on others, though? I reserve the right to make my own judgment calls on matters which can't be proven either way.
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating LiveblogOh, indeed, I agree that people shouldn't try to impose their views on others, merely persuade. However, there are some interesting areas which come into play when two people with different ideas interact. If what you do has no affect on me, believe whatever you want (you will anyway, I can't control your thoughts). If you try to, say, make a law which will affect what I can and can't do and it's based on this idea that we don't share... well, I tend to think the idea which is less restrictive should win out. And, sorry to say, when religious and secular ideas clash, that's it's usually the secular perspective that's the less restrictive of the two.
(Edit and note: less restrictive when there isn't some proven harm. If there's harm, and we both agree it's there, but someone wants to go ahead anyway... that's a different kettle of fish.)
edited 3rd Aug '11 10:30:11 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars
She of Short Stature & Impeccable Logic My Skating LiveblogWell I do agree with that, it's just that blaming secularists for it is barking up the wrong tree.
My basic rule is, anything that's less offensive than "If you don't believe this you're bad and deserve eternal punishment" probably is not the problem.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveSorry De Marquis, I'm actually carrying on two threads of conversation here. That was addressed to Arthur. Your response is at the bottom of the post (i.e., I can see we hold a fundamental difference way down at the base level and that's that. Hopefully you haven't been offended by anything I've said, despite me pressing pretty hard.)
More like nihilism for the win. However, that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as an objective reality or truth.
Nihilism is a nice way to end debates,
but that doesn't make it particularly useful in every day life. Most people just seem to use it as an excuse to not ever challenge their own preexisting views and justify whatever they wanted to do anyways.
edited 3rd Aug '11 11:26:59 AM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.S'ok, I got a thick skin.
Why is that Nihilism? He's not arguing that reality is subjective, only that our arguments about it are. If we know of no objectively correct answer, what is the alternative?
edited 3rd Aug '11 2:50:53 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.So, the idea that we can't know for certain, including because "all our arguments are subjective", is definitely Nihilism. But,
There is still "more correct" and "less correct", and some of the former are to the point where it might as well just be held as objectively true- macro scale gravity, for instance, has a theory that F=(G*M_1*M_2)/R^2, and that's got so much observational support/ has been observed so many times it's not really worth arguing about.
We need some model of reality, whether you hold it's a subjective model or a subjective reality. It's in our best interest in terms of surviving and advancing to have a model that most closely matches our observations of reality.
edited 3rd Aug '11 3:03:54 PM by deathjavu
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Cant argue with that. Such people annoy me no end. "Well, you're a bigot, so you shouldn't be allowed to raise children." Never actually had the guts to say that, of course...
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.