For cryin out loud. Stop it, enough already.
I’m convinced that we are talking past one another and one of us is guilty of an unwarranted assumption. What I have here is a failure of cognition and it’s my fault entirely. I am such a poor communicator that I failed to consider our shared reality and where our world views diverge. It is a glaring flaw in my attempt at dialogue about beliefs and why people view the world differently. I just assumed what is obvious to me was, well, just obvious. Then it occurred to me that the ground rules for any conversation require an understanding of each person’s baseline for deductive reasoning is and for clarity a simple preamble in said understanding is required.
I’ll think that for most things that truly matter we share the same reality. In my paradigm or worldview all that is or ever was is our natural world. It is our senses alone that provides us access to the universe we occupy. Our brains make cognitive processes possible by consolidating, categorizing and prioritizing an uninterrupted stream of sensory input provided by our bodies. It’s quite remarkable we can process information at all. Sensory signals arrive with varying time delays, level of intensity, conflicting patterns, chemical overrides, it’s equivalent to balancing tea cups on your nose while spinning plates on a pole as you walk on a tightrope in a gusting breeze. It’s an evolutionary adaptation of our marvelous malleable brains.
We know that this is an imperfect collection system that leads to erroneous hypothesis, and as a result we often find we act on flawed assumptions. I doubt this is why he did it but the deep thinker, Ibn-al Haytham, in 965 BCE, wanted to impress everyone with his 40+ mind bending discoveries of our natural world but more importantly wanted to show the world how he did it. His method inquiry is what we now call the scientific method. If a hypothesis can not be evaluated using this method of inquiry I feel justified in rejecting it out of hand.
What this means is that the entire edifice of supernatural and/or meta-physical paradigms will be excluded from my consideration until such time as claims for the existence of a separate realm outside of nature has manifested. Further, and by definition, the belief in the supernatural is delusional and at this point I expect that the knee jerk reaction to my world view is immediate, defensive and understandable. “Delusional” is a strong and loaded word, so please, take a moment to consider what I said about how we perceive the world through our less than perfect data collection organs and their well understood limitations. Consider the conclusions you reach when viewing your own mirrored reflection. Each and every one of us is truly delusional when considering our own personage. We deceived ourselves by our own desires and insecurities. In a very real sense we are all delusional by consequence of our biology. Delusional thinking is also the mental state that allows for creativity and persistence of purpose. We are nothing without certainty for our personage and our capacity for learning, overcoming obstacles and realizing individual aspirations. I want to be clear about beliefs and how we arrive at our conclusions. At the very least for your hypothesis to be considered plausible it must be *falsifiable.
If you want me to consider your proposition you need to be able to provide me with a more edifying conclusion than its effect on how you feel emotionally about it. It must be devoid of special pleading, circular reasoning and logical fallacies. It should be observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. These are not present in arguments for the supernatural that theistic apologists of all faith based persuasions have on offer. Frankly, their performances are difficult to watch and chilling by the implication that the majority of humans seam inured to questions challenging their methodology for discovery.
Until a more reliable method for investigation of supernatural claims are found I have concluded that there are no such things as gods, demons, pixies, fairies, trolls, smurfs, angels, ghosts, saints, nor afterlife. Other imaginary things include miracles, prophesies, omens, signs, poltergeists, souls and zombies. When you pray you are communing with yourself. Morality is not prescriptive or non contextual. When people die, they stay dead.
Caveat; this obviously can’t apply to supernatural characters because they have whatever characteristics their authors have decided to imbue them with.
*The fallowing is the answer given to the question;
Why is God not falsifiable?
“But he is falsifiable! Using logic one can easily show that he is impossible, not just unlikely.
In science we always try to prove a theory is false before we can ever accept it. This is only the first step towards an accepted theory. This deliberate attempt to demonstrate something is not true is called falsification. When the definition of something conflicts with its own consequence of existence then we can simply declare that theory false.
Example: I claim that I have an invisible round square in my pocket. How can you prove I am not telling the truth? Easy, something that is round can not simultaneously be square. That is impossible, and thus my claim to have one in my pocket is easily falsified. You need not consider any details beyond that one singular fact. Never mind that it is said to be invisible, and the fact that I refused to show it to anyone. Those details do not matter here. You can still be 100% confident I do not have one. Ok?
Your God is exactly like my round square. He has many attributes assigned to him in the Bible (his official definition in black and white print) that are mutually exclusive and can not simultaneously exist in a single being, God or otherwise. He can not be all those things at the same time, so his definition as detailed in the Bible is self falsified, by the Bible itself, and we don’t need to consider any details beyond that.
He simply can not exist. Google “the problem of evil” if you want an easy example. By just that one example, if he did exist he would be defined as a psychopathic monster in modern day terminology, and would not nearly represent the God that people believe is described in the the actual Bible.
By the way, some people should really try reading their Bible, cover to cover, skipping nothing, to see exactly what they are required to believe in. You might be very supprised.
Can any deity exist? One would unfortunately need to learn enough about each possible deity (over 4000 of them exist) to prove them wrong each individually in the same way. Zeus likely has a non zero probability of existing, where as your God has 0%. Therefore Zeus has a much much higher probability of existing than the God you worship, and everyone is pretty darn sure Zeus is a mere fable.”
*Steve Coleman, Analyst at John Hopkins university applied physics lab.
Answered Oct. 19, 2017.
Author has 186 answers and 97.8K answer views.
For your consideration;
“Why should anyone feel compelled to be subservient to a benevolent benefactor?
Put another way, what kind of mind demands to be worshipped for doing what came naturally?”