| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:05 PM |
I'm not a theist, but I found this on a Catholic website and it may help answer your question; assuming you legitimately want answers.
"Some opponents of theism try to argue that the claim of God’s existence is unfalsifiable — hence indicating that a belief in God is intrinsically irrational and should not be given any merit. I agree with them on one point: If a given proposition is unfalsifiable, then it is irrational to accept it. Hence, a rationalist would want to commit a deal of effort to assuring that he does not hold any unfalsifiable convictions. The hypothesis “God exists” is unfalsifiable: Premise 1: All unfalsifiable claims are intrinsically irrational. Premise 2: The claim that “God exists” is an unfalsifiable claim. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that “God exists” is intrinsically irrational. I agree with premise 1. Any claim that is unfalsifiable should not be given any merit or serious thought. I also agree that the argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows. However, I do not agree with premise 2 that the claim “God exists” is unfalsifiable. For a claim to be falsifiable, it must be logically possible to prove it false — something that many atheists and agnostics seem to hold an impossible task. The hypothesis that “God exists” is a falsifiable claim; it can be proven false. Therefore, it is not intrinsically irrational to hold the conviction that God exists." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:08 PM |
| Also, religion and theism can give people hope, happiness, and morality. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:10 PM |
Again, from the Catholic website:
Proof by Contrapositive
The theist who makes the claim that “God exists” has the burden of proof. They must provide evidence and/or philosophical arguments to support their hypothesis. An opponent can attempt to identify flaws in the theist’s argument, and reject the hypothesis on the grounds that there are no sound arguments, but this is wholly different from claiming “God does not exist.” To show that the claim “God exists” is false, or rather, “God does not exist“, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The atheist who says, “God does not exist” or “The hypothesis that ‘God exists‘ is false” has the burden of proof. If a valid argument can be made concluding that “God exists“, then it follows that the contrapositive of that argument can also be made, concluding that “God does not exist“. Therefore, the hypothesis that “God exists” is a falsifiable claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; i.e., “ God exists” or “God does not exist“. The hypothesis “God exists” is falsifiable:
Premise 1: Every modus ponens argument has a contrapositive argument. Premise 2: A modus ponens argument can be made for God’s existence. Conclusion 1: Therefore, a contrapositive argument can be made against God’s existence. Conclusion 2: Therefore, the claim of God’s existence is a falsifiable claim.
Proof by Contradiction
The hypothesis that “God exists” is falsifiable for another reason as well. It can be proved via reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction) that the hypothesis that “God does not exist” must be true, or else it implies a contradiction. To give a clear and analogous example of this, consider this claim of the inexistence of married bachelors: “married bachelors do not exist” Argument against the existence of married bachelors:
Premise 1: Men who are bachelors are unmarried. Premise 2: Men who are married are not unmarried. Conclusion: Therefore, there are no men who are married who are bachelors. In this example of a proof by contradiction, the argument demonstrates that the hypothesis “there are no married bachelors” must be true or else it leads to a contradiction. Therefore, if someone were to claim “married bachelors exist“, the claim is falsifiable, and therefore its analogous claim is also falsifiable; “God exists” — because it can be shown that a contradiction would arise if its contrapositive were false. The hypothesis “God exists” is falsifiable:
Premise 1: The claim that a thing does not exist can be shown to be true if a consequence of its falsehood leads to a contradiction. Premise 2: If a claim can be shown to be true if a consequence of its falsehood leads to a contradiction, then the contrapositive of that claim is falsifiable. Premise 3: The claim that “God does not exist” can be argued to be true if the consequence of its falsehood leads to a contradiction. Conclusion: Therefore, the contrapositive of the claim “God does not exist” is a falsifiable claim.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:15 PM |
>Religion doesn't give anyone morality. You have to decide yourself that the religion is moral before adhering to it.
But it certainly can help guide people's moral values, even if it doesn't create them.
>And what hope? How that billions of people are burning to death for all eternity?
The hope that there can be a life after death, and a paradise which you can go to if you believe. I'm not saying it's rational, but I'm saying it can provide hope.
>And even "happiness" doesn't make it rational. None of your arguments justify RATIONALITY. No matter how happy it makes you to believe a lie, if it is still untrue and you know it is then it is still unreasonable.
I'm sure theists can give you a much more eloquent answer as to why they believe it's rational. As I stated previously, I'm not a theist and I can't really argue that something I view as irrational is rational. But as I said previously, there are still reasons people become religious and why they stay religious. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:37 PM |
you do realize
monotheistic =/= beleiving in hell
or
spiritual =/= believing in heaven
right
Hindus believe in reincarnation. Jews don't beleive in hell or heaven
Also, I don't have a problem with LGBT, not that it matters
violently beyond |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:39 PM |
>Telling LGBT they'll all burn in hell. Yeah, very moral.
And before you say, "omg not all crstians do dis!" It DOESN'T MATTER. It's what their Bible says.
This can be viewed as morally correct to some people because they view LGBT as a sin/abomination. Some people also follow the Bible non-literally, but still believe in a god.
>It specifically says to KILL anyone who is g
ay and that they are an abomination. It also says that you can own slaves and beat them as much as you want just as long as they don't die within the day you beat them (if they have internal injuries and die a few days later then it's morally acceptable).
Morally acceptable, I guess?
>Again, hope that billions of people are burning to death? Why can't people hope that there is an after life without all the immoral and irrational dogma?
They could, and some do.
This is from conservapedia:
"The Falsifiability of God is often cited by some scientists, philosophers, atheists, and others as being evidence that God does not exist.[Citation Needed] However, that those who make such claims misunderstand the quality of falsifiability.
Just because something is not falsifiable does not make it incorrect. For instance, if a person says "I had pork chops and applesauce for dinner on July 12, 1987," their statement is not falsifiable because there is no test that can be done to prove the contrary. However, that does not by any means mean the statement is necessarily false. Thus, claiming that the concept of God is not a falsifiable one does not mean the concept is incorrect. Thus, while it may be impossible to use Erscheinung (to use Kant's term) to prove God's existence, this does not bear any relevance to the Ding an sich of God's existence. What the falsifiability of god actually means is that God does not lie under the realm of science, since all scientific matters must be falsifiable." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:44 PM |
| Also, theists don't all follow the Bible. Theism is merely the belief that a deity exists. So just because the Bible says something illogical or irrational doesn't necessarily make the entire idea of theism so. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:44 PM |
"eed I quote myself? If you claim to believe in a Judeo-Christian religion then it doesn't matter what you say. Your Bible (also in the Torah) explicitly says to kill g
ay people. It also calls transpeople an abomination. Doesn't seem to say anything about les, though." It also says pork, clothes with multiple fabric and premarital for----- is a sin. I've broken like 2/3 of those
Again, not that it matters. I'm not being ironic, just don't refute this, I already see the flaw.
violently beyond |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:52 PM |
| If you want me to explain to you how an unfalsifiable hypothesis is reasonable, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can only give you some sources that make arguments for it. As I said, I don't believe it's rational and so I'm not going to defend those arguments. You'd probably have a much more lively debate if there were any theists who responded. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 06:57 PM |
>Then don't post on a thread asking for specifically that. -.-
Nobody else was responding and it looked like an interesting topic.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|