Difference between revisions of "Talk:Falsifiability of God"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→The Point?: Disagreeing just a little.) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:And it's a straw man argument at that. Granted, I don't know a lot about the scientific pursuit of God, but no scientist will say that a lack of falifiability will ''disprove'' God. As the author rightly points out in his first rebuttal, falsifiability does not disprove anything. A scientist would more likely argue that since you can not falsify the existance of God, you can not prove that God exists. To use the pork dinner example, if there is no way to disprove you had a sumptuous pork dinner, there is no way to ''prove'' you dined in porcine goodness. (Can you tell I've been eating cafeteria food for the last month? But I digress). | :And it's a straw man argument at that. Granted, I don't know a lot about the scientific pursuit of God, but no scientist will say that a lack of falifiability will ''disprove'' God. As the author rightly points out in his first rebuttal, falsifiability does not disprove anything. A scientist would more likely argue that since you can not falsify the existance of God, you can not prove that God exists. To use the pork dinner example, if there is no way to disprove you had a sumptuous pork dinner, there is no way to ''prove'' you dined in porcine goodness. (Can you tell I've been eating cafeteria food for the last month? But I digress). | ||
:I'm not in any way saying that the scientists are right or wrong, but I believe the author is misrepresenting the scientists' view. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT) | :I'm not in any way saying that the scientists are right or wrong, but I believe the author is misrepresenting the scientists' view. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::I'll disagree just a little. First, the article has "scientists" in quotes, suggesting that it's not really scientists that are intended. Second, although the point of your logic is sound, I guess the counter-point, and the point of the article, is that many people ''don't'' follow sound logic. And scientists are no better—or not much better—in this regard. For example, although this is not as blatant, they do argue that (a) God is not falsifiable, therefore (b) the creation view is not falsifiable, therefore (c) the creation view is not science, and therefore (d) the creation view is wrong. Now this last point (d) is not often stated explicitly, and is even denied if it's pressed, but is nevertheless the "take-home message" that is put, as well as the conclusion that they seem to draw. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:47, September 21, 2007
The Point?
I'm not sure what the point of this article is. "Falsifiability of God" refers to being able to falsify His existence, yet it reads as though the issue is the unfalsifiability of God.
Secondly, which "scientists" "often cite" this as evidence that He doesn't exist?
The article appears to be making an argument more than documenting a real phenomena, and if it's not intended as a parody, might be better off as an essay.
Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
- And it's a straw man argument at that. Granted, I don't know a lot about the scientific pursuit of God, but no scientist will say that a lack of falifiability will disprove God. As the author rightly points out in his first rebuttal, falsifiability does not disprove anything. A scientist would more likely argue that since you can not falsify the existance of God, you can not prove that God exists. To use the pork dinner example, if there is no way to disprove you had a sumptuous pork dinner, there is no way to prove you dined in porcine goodness. (Can you tell I've been eating cafeteria food for the last month? But I digress).
- I'm not in any way saying that the scientists are right or wrong, but I believe the author is misrepresenting the scientists' view. HelpJazz 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
- I'll disagree just a little. First, the article has "scientists" in quotes, suggesting that it's not really scientists that are intended. Second, although the point of your logic is sound, I guess the counter-point, and the point of the article, is that many people don't follow sound logic. And scientists are no better—or not much better—in this regard. For example, although this is not as blatant, they do argue that (a) God is not falsifiable, therefore (b) the creation view is not falsifiable, therefore (c) the creation view is not science, and therefore (d) the creation view is wrong. Now this last point (d) is not often stated explicitly, and is even denied if it's pressed, but is nevertheless the "take-home message" that is put, as well as the conclusion that they seem to draw. Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)