Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Divair]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

And how does that prove to anyone that an afterlife exists?

[Samuraikoku]

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

And how does that prove to anyone that an afterlife exists?

I know there is a hell. But I haven't still encountered it.

(DISCLAIMER: THAT WAS INTENDED AS A JOKE, AND A SMALL ATTEMPT AT DEPRAVITY. MY APOLOGIES IF IT WAS OFFENSIVE.)

[Divair]

And how does that prove to anyone that an afterlife exists?

I know there is a hell. But I haven't still encountered it.

(DISCLAIMER: THAT WAS INTENDED AS A JOKE, AND A SMALL ATTEMPT AT DEPRAVITY. MY APOLOGIES IF IT WAS OFFENSIVE.)

ZOMFG WTF Y U SO OFFENSIVE?!?!?!?!??!

[Vault 1]

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

what repeatable experiment could I do, with A or B as an outcome.

Oh. You'll need to convert to Buddhism for that.

[Norstal]

what experiment would prove OR disprove gods, depending on outcome.

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

You are NSG's most successful satirist. Good job.

[IshCong]

what repeatable experiment could I do, with A or B as an outcome.

Oh. You'll need to convert to Buddhism for that.

No, because you aren't aware of your prior incarnations in a repeatable manner.
Now, come up with a real test, or admit you don't have one.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Oh. You'll need to convert to Buddhism for that.

No, because you aren't aware of your prior incarnations in a repeatable manner.
Now, come up with a real test, or admit you don't have one.

Vault 1 is playing a game with you. Aren't you bored of it yet? Why are you continuing to subject yourself to this?

[The Cummunist State]

1. Sin
2. Die
3. Go to Hell

You are NSG's most successful satirist. Good job.

That's the really sad thing about religious people in debates. Most people couldn't tell he was a satirist.

[IshCong]

No, because you aren't aware of your prior incarnations in a repeatable manner.
Now, come up with a real test, or admit you don't have one.

Vault 1 is playing a game with you. Aren't you bored of it yet? Why are you continuing to subject yourself to this?

I'm more bored of everything else at the moment. :T And cheap amusement is cheap amusement.

[Norstal]

You are NSG's most successful satirist. Good job.

That's the really sad thing about religious people in debates. Most people couldn't tell he was a satirist.

Yeah, I know. I weren't able to tell he was one either. >_<

[Hallistar]

That's the really sad thing about religious people in debates. Most people couldn't tell he was a satirist.

Yeah, I know. I weren't able to tell he was one either. >_<

Ditto.

[Sociobiology]

exactly, they do nothing, they cannot be given the attribute of having an effect on the universe.

No, cannot be proven to do something, and not doing anything are not equitable. You can't prove my shirt is brown at this moment,

sure I can I can go to your house ans look at your shirt, or I could photograph it, or get several independant reliable witnesses, or take a spectragraphical measurement by remote, or ect.

unfalsifiable means impossible to test, because it makes no falsifiable claims.

its the invisible dragon argument.
Religion "I have an dragon in my garage"
Science "well can I see it"
religion "umm he's invisible."
Science "well i can test for volume displacement of the air, or or test for interruption of sound waves."
Religion "UH, he's intangible too, so there"
science "well I could test for heat radiated form the dragons body"
Religion "he' doesn't interact with this world in any way"
science "well than how is he any different from something that doesn't exist"
Religion "I know he's there"
science "prove it"
Religion "YOU CANT PROVE I DON'T"


note only at the end there does it become unfalsifiable.

You cannot prove god does anything

I am not the one claiming it does.

, nor can you prove he does nothing.

I don't have to the burden of proof is yours.

Which doesn't mean he does nothing, it means you do not know.

sure they can, as soon as you say they do do something, that IS testable.

It would be, were they not so durn omnipotent, and apparently undetectable by Human means without intentionally revealing themselves.
Which, apparently, they loathe to do to any concrete extent.

as I said does nothing

no it means it is immune to testing because it makes no testable claim, claims of actual effects ARE testable.

If you can't test it, you can't know.

but claims of effects ARE testable

You can make a claim, if said claim is not testable, and have that claim remain unfalsifiable.

of course you can not testable means unfalsifiable.

For example, claiming a being that cannot be detected exists would be untestable, because the being in question can't be detected, and so results can't be conclusive either way.

then it is indistinguishable from nonexistent, so there is no justification to claim it exists.

Or god. Or any number of things aside from all of the above.

I was referring to things greater than oneself that we can actually demonstrate exist.

People may find one 'thing that is greater than the self' more comforting than another, go figure.

see below

What does that have to do with anything?

see above
wow I predicted your argument, almost as if it is something I have seen many times before?

You and I know perfectly well that everyone defines 'spiritual' in their own way. Spirituality means something different to each individual. Besides, a hard definition isn't necessary in this case. Unless you're debating that people are spiritual.

no a solid definition is important if you are proposing it as evidence.
that would be why I asked how you are using it.

There's no objectively true reasons to believe in the existence or non-existence of god. That's the whole 'unfalsifiable' thing again.
I'll also point out, yet again, what is justifiable to you, subjectively, is not justifiable to another, subjectively, and vice versa.

justification requires evidence
perhaps I should have said empirically justifiable but that just seems redundant.

Again, I listed some reasons people do.
Also again, treat the falsifiable as falsifiable, treat the unfalsifiable as unfalsifiable. Don't confuse the two, and you should be fine.

I am not confusing them you are.

Yeah, the atheist's wager. I like the notion of living a 'good' life regardless of gods, but you'll note in the first case of just gods it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. Likewise, in the case of no gods, it again doesn't matter if you believe or not.

It also makes the most important part, morality is independent of gods.
Personally I don't bother with the wager but I know some find it comforting.

And yet, atheists and theists and people of all stripes and colors are jerks to each other.

but less so than religious folk

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/proof-that-atheists-are-more-moral-than-christians/

Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997

http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/312.pdf

So I fail to see how the discarding of religion would suddenly fix that problem.

see above

Whether a person is theistic or atheistic has little apparent bearing on how they treat people. At least, based solely on that lone criterion.

[/quote]

wrong again

in fact one of my favorite books the science of good and evil shows how one of the major effects of religion is to distort morality making normally unacceptable behavior acceptable because god says so. The effect is measurable.

[Sociobiology]

You are NSG's most successful satirist. Good job.

That's the really sad thing about religious people in debates. Most people couldn't tell he was a satirist.

Poes law people, I have heard way crazier shit form religious folk. you can't parody crazy in type. at least not without ;S

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

That's the really sad thing about religious people in debates. Most people couldn't tell he was a satirist.

Poes law people, I have heard way crazier shit form religious folk. you can't parody crazy in type. at least not without ;S

Speak for yourself. I do it all the time.

[IshCong]

No, cannot be proven to do something, and not doing anything are not equitable. You can't prove my shirt is brown at this moment,

sure I can I can go to your house ans look at your shirt, or I could photograph it, or get several independant reliable witnesses, or take a spectragraphical measurement by remote, or ect.

*SIGH* Fine, I'll play into the metaphor a bit longer.
You don't know where I am, who I am, or have any means to get here in short order without dramatically changing your circumstances. Nor do you have any witnesses.
Anyway, the point is that something that is unfalsifiable cannot be tested, which we apparently agree on. It doesn't mean that something is untrue. If it can be tested and found untrue, it isn't unfalsifiable.

unfalsifiable means impossible to test, because it makes no falsifiable claims.

its the invisible dragon argument.
Religion "I have an dragon in my garage"
Science "well can I see it"
religion "umm he's invisible."
Science "well i can test for volume displacement of the air, or or test for interruption of sound waves."
Religion "UH, he's intangible too, so there"
science "well I could test for heat radiated form the dragons body"
Religion "he' doesn't interact with this world in any way"
science "well than how is he any different from something that doesn't exist"
Religion "I know he's there"
science "prove it"
Religion "YOU CANT PROVE I DON'T"


note only at the end there does it become unfalsifiable.

Yeah, and we're already past that end, so I presume you agree it's unfalsifiable. Simply put, you can't test for god. I've yet to see any method that can.

You cannot prove god does anything

, nor can you prove he does nothing.

I don't have to the burden of proof is yours.

The burden of proof is an absolutely ridiculous concept to apply to something that inherently cannot be proven nor disproven. And that is what I just stated, it can't be proven either way. You're trying to apply a burden of proof to a situation in which no proof exists.

sure they can, as soon as you say they do do something, that IS testable.

It would be, were they not so durn omnipotent, and apparently undetectable by Human means without intentionally revealing themselves.
Which, apparently, they loathe to do to any concrete extent.

as I said does nothing

Again, just because something cannot be shown to do something does not mean it does not do something. That's a false equivalence, as I've shown. You've yet to prove my shirt is brown, and yet, my shirt remains brown.

no it means it is immune to testing because it makes no testable claim, claims of actual effects ARE testable.

If you can't test it, you can't know.

but claims of effects ARE testable

Again, you run into the omnipotence issue.

You can make a claim, if said claim is not testable, and have that claim remain unfalsifiable.

of course you can not testable means unfalsifiable.

Good, agreed on that point.

For example, claiming a being that cannot be detected exists would be untestable, because the being in question can't be detected, and so results can't be conclusive either way.

then it is indistinguishable from nonexistent, so there is no justification to claim it exists.

There's also no justification to claim it doesn't exist because there is no proof either way because it cannot be tested.
It goes both ways.

Or god. Or any number of things aside from all of the above.

I was referring to things greater than oneself that we can actually demonstrate exist.

I noticed. My point remains. People can find comfort in things that are greater than they aside from things that can be proven to exist in concrete terms. Indeed, the very fact it is not concrete may make it more comforting.

People may find one 'thing that is greater than the self' more comforting than another, go figure.

see below

What does that have to do with anything?

see above
wow I predicted your argument, almost as if it is something I have seen many times before?

That in no way explains why your serial killer comment was relevant, nor did it address the fact that different people find different things to be more comforting. Try again?

You and I know perfectly well that everyone defines 'spiritual' in their own way. Spirituality means something different to each individual. Besides, a hard definition isn't necessary in this case. Unless you're debating that people are spiritual.

no a solid definition is important if you are proposing it as evidence.
that would be why I asked how you are using it.

Except I didn't claim it was evidence for god. That would be counter to the innumerable times I've said god has no evidence for or against his existence. I claimed it was a reason people chose to believe in god. And, it is.

There's no objectively true reasons to believe in the existence or non-existence of god. That's the whole 'unfalsifiable' thing again.
I'll also point out, yet again, what is justifiable to you, subjectively, is not justifiable to another, subjectively, and vice versa.

justification requires evidence
perhaps I should have said empirically justifiable but that just seems redundant.

Empirical justification does. As I've said innumerable times, empirical evidence and empirical justifications mean nothing when the topic is inherently unfalsifiable. You cannot treat the unfalsifiable as falsifiable anymore than you can treat the falsifiable as unfalsifiable.

Again, I listed some reasons people do.
Also again, treat the falsifiable as falsifiable, treat the unfalsifiable as unfalsifiable. Don't confuse the two, and you should be fine.

I am not confusing them you are.

Says the guy who wants falsifiable evidence for an unfalsifiable being.
You're funny.

Yeah, the atheist's wager. I like the notion of living a 'good' life regardless of gods, but you'll note in the first case of just gods it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. Likewise, in the case of no gods, it again doesn't matter if you believe or not.

It also makes the most important part, morality is independent of gods.
Personally I don't bother with the wager but I know some find it comforting.

Yeah, it is independent. So whether you believe or not doesn't matter.

And yet, atheists and theists and people of all stripes and colors are jerks to each other.

but less so than religious folk

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/proof-that-atheists-are-more-moral-than-christians/

Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997

http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/312.pdf

This would be so much more convincing if morals weren't totally subjective, and thus, mean nothing.
Or if going to prison meant you were immoral, which is debatable given the presence of immoral laws.

Which part of the very long second link do you even want me looking at?

Whether a person is theistic or atheistic has little apparent bearing on how they treat people. At least, based solely on that lone criterion.

wrong again

in fact one of my favorite books the science of good and evil shows how one of the major effects of religion is to distort morality making normally unacceptable behavior acceptable because god says so. The effect is measurable.

Go on.

[Sociobiology]

Double post
so some quotes for fun


"One day [] I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. [] As I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while it was of course still alive, the body split and and I remember to this day the sweet pinkiness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of natures wonders , gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And thats when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior." Lord Vetinari


"Ginger: You know what the greatest tragedy is in the whole world?... It's all the people who never find out what it is they really want to do or what it is they're really good at. It's all the sons who become blacksmiths because their fathers were blacksmiths. It's all the people who could be really fantastic flute players who grow old and die without ever seeing a musical instrument, so they become bad plowmen instead. It's all the people with talents who never even find out. Maybe they are never even born in a time when it's even possible to find out. It's all the people who never get to know what it is that they can really be. It's all the wasted chances."
— Terry Pratchett (Moving Pictures)

[Sociobiology]

sure I can I can go to your house ans look at your shirt, or I could photograph it, or get several independant reliable witnesses, or take a spectragraphical measurement by remote, or ect.

*SIGH* Fine, I'll play into the metaphor a bit longer.
You don't know where I am, who I am, or have any means to get here in short order without dramatically changing your circumstances. Nor do you have any witnesses.

It is still a testable claim, it is possible to demonstrate. you are confusing testable in general, and testable by me right now.

unfalsifiable means impossible to test, because it makes no falsifiable claims.

its the invisible dragon argument.
Religion "I have an dragon in my garage"
Science "well can I see it"
religion "umm he's invisible."
Science "well i can test for volume displacement of the air, or or test for interruption of sound waves."
Religion "UH, he's intangible too, so there"
science "well I could test for heat radiated form the dragons body"
Religion "he' doesn't interact with this world in any way"
science "well than how is he any different from something that doesn't exist"
Religion "I know he's there"
science "prove it"
Religion "YOU CANT PROVE I DON'T"


note only at the end there does it become unfalsifiable.

Yeah, and we're already past that end, so I presume you agree it's unfalsifiable. Simply put, you can't test for god. I've yet to see any method that can.

Only for gods that have no testable claims, hence my original statement.
IF there is a claim of effect it is testable.

I don't have to the burden of proof is yours.

The burden of proof is an absolutely ridiculous concept to apply to something that inherently cannot be proven nor disproven. And that is what I just stated, it can't be proven either way. You're trying to apply a burden of proof to a situation in which no proof exists.

no it precisely for things on the borders of evidence, any proposed addition to the model of the universe bears the burden of proof, because doing it otherwise is functionally impossible. Things that are untestable cannot have evidence so there is not reason to propose them in the first place since they do not increase the accuracy of our predictions.

I don not need to disprove a claim if no evidence is given to support it, because then it is opinion not a claim.

as I said does nothing

Again, just because something cannot be shown to do something does not mean it does not do something. That's a false equivalence, as I've shown. You've yet to prove my shirt is brown, and yet, my shirt remains brown.

how do I know this?
Your shirt could be blue or you could not be wearing a shirt. You make the positive claim, you must show evidence.
The only way to reliably show anything is by the method I am using.

but claims of effects ARE testable

Again, you run into the omnipotence issue.

something you have to demonstrate to claim, you can't even demonstrate omnipotence is possible so how can you claim it as an attribute.
I have X sold gold apples, X being a whole number between 6 and 7.
the more outrageous claim is not that I have solid gold apples.

For example, claiming a being that cannot be detected exists would be untestable, because the being in question can't be detected, and so results can't be conclusive either way.

then it is indistinguishable from nonexistent, so there is no justification to claim it exists.

There's also no justification to claim it doesn't exist because there is no proof either way because it cannot be tested.
It goes both ways.

No, you do not have to disprove that I am a unfrozen cave man scientist, I must demonstrate it. If I can't the claim ends there, I could not overcome the burden of proof.
look up something called the null, all proposals start as incorrect (asymptotically unlikely) and must be demonstrated as correct (or more likely)

I was referring to things greater than oneself that we can actually demonstrate exist.

I noticed. My point remains. People can find comfort in things that are greater than they aside from things that can be proven to exist in concrete terms. Indeed, the very fact it is not concrete may make it more comforting.

but claiming that comfort justifies that belief is incorrect, as demonstrated below with the serial killer who believes himself a hero. Either he is a hero and should be treated as such or he is finding comfort in something false and should be discouraged from doing so.

no a solid definition is important if you are proposing it as evidence.
that would be why I asked how you are using it.

Except I didn't claim it was evidence for god. That would be counter to the innumerable times I've said god has no evidence for or against his existence. I claimed it was a reason people chose to believe in god. And, it is.

then why bring it up, it is a total non-sequitur if you are not using it as justification for a belief.

justification requires evidence
perhaps I should have said empirically justifiable but that just seems redundant.

Empirical justification does. As I've said innumerable times, empirical evidence and empirical justifications mean nothing when the topic is inherently unfalsifiable. You cannot treat the unfalsifiable as falsifiable anymore than you can treat the falsifiable as unfalsifiable.

I am not confusing them you are.

Says the guy who wants falsifiable evidence for an unfalsifiable being.
You're funny.

no I said there is no falsifiable gods that have evidence supporting them.

but less so than religious folk

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/proof-that-atheists-are-more-moral-than-christians/

Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997

http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/312.pdf

This would be so much more convincing if morals weren't totally subjective, and thus, mean nothing.
Or if going to prison meant you were immoral, which is debatable given the presence of immoral laws.

which would matter if the statistics did not hold consistant

Which part of the very long second link do you even want me looking at?

whoa so sorry, it was supposed to link to this.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
Damn you copy/paste
it shows how this difference is consistent over things like spousal abuse and is reversely correlated with racism (IE it correlates with not being racist), things generally accepted as moral. It also correlates with modern states that are safer, healthier, and less violent.

wrong again

in fact one of my favorite books the science of good and evil shows how one of the major effects of religion is to distort morality making normally unacceptable behavior acceptable because god says so. The effect is measurable.

Go on.

most of the book is about how much of our morality is instinctual and consistant across culture, but there is one strong factor that can change that.
There is a great study done using school children in various countries they found that children in religious schools would judge the same act differently if the perpetrator shared there religion than if they did not, this was repeated in adults in a survey. The children were most telling because they articulated why murder was acceptable for a religious figure of your religion but not another religion, god told him so is only acceptable if it is your god because other gods are not real.

basically they asked them the same question but changed two terms;
the name of the perpetrator, the name of the god that told them to commit the act, (the act being the slaughter of all men, women, children, and animals in a city.)

the adults however would only give this justification about half as much even thought they often had the same % on acceptance.

now it is important to note most almost always picked the universally instinctual moral position, but there was an abberation in that there was a 30% or even more increase in acceptance when it was ordered by their god, sometimes even reaching a majority.

It really is a wonderful book, I highly recommend it.

there is also a noticeable change in thinking between people who had a formal education and those who had not, which was how likely they were to think abstractly (contingently) to find an unknown answer.

there have been a couple other studies like this which convinced me that religion was less the superstition only harmful to yourself and and really actually harmful to everyone because of the type of thinking it expressly encourages. Basically all known religions teach it is OK to accept a position on faith and ignore evidence, and this faith is the underlying cause of the problem, religions is just the main encourager of the problem.

religion does the worst thing you can to humanity it removes doubt. Doubt that what your doing is right or wrong.

I also recommend the Science of liberty which talks about how tightly linked advancments in science and human rights are in history, it is weird but both are reliant on plurality and evidence.

[New Unsociety]

In the "battle" between fairy tales and scientific theories backed by evidence, the second has to win.

Otherwise it's back to the caves.

[Farnhamia]

In the "battle" between fairy tales and scientific theories backed by evidence, the second has to win.

Otherwise it's back to the caves.

I would call dibs on the cave I grew up in but I think it has a mall on it now.

[New Unsociety]

Also, for non-falsifiability:

Anything obeying the laws of the universe can be possibly falsified by new evidence.
If something doesn't obey the laws of the universe then it doesn't exist, as otherwise the laws would simply change to support the new item.

Thus nothing existing is unfalsifiable.

Actually, god is false, as evident by the fact that if it follows the laws of the universe by definition it isn't supernatural and thus isn't god. And if it doesn't then it doesn't exist, as if it did then the laws would have to change as stated above.
Thus there is no "paranormal" and thus no god.

This is your falsification.

[New Unsociety]

Also, it would only be possible for something to have created the whole of existence (what is meant by most as "universe") only if either

1)It created itself (impossible due to temporal restrictions).
2)It didn't exist (contradiction with it creating anything).

Thus, nothing could have created the "universe".

Thus, the universe has always existed (as the latest scientific thepries by among others Stephen Hawking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

state)

[IshCong]

*SIGH* Fine, I'll play into the metaphor a bit longer.
You don't know where I am, who I am, or have any means to get here in short order without dramatically changing your circumstances. Nor do you have any witnesses.

It is still a testable claim, it ispossible to demonstrate. you are confusing testable in general, and testable by me right now.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that certain things can happen regardless of whether or not certain individuals can test for them.

Yeah, and we're already past that end, so I presume you agree it's unfalsifiable. Simply put, you can't test for god. I've yet to see any method that can.

Only for gods that have no testable claims, hence my original statement.
IF there is a claim of effect it is testable.

Not all claims of effect are testable, especially not by current technologies.

The burden of proof is an absolutely ridiculous concept to apply to something that inherently cannot be proven nor disproven. And that is what I just stated, it can't be proven either way. You're trying to apply a burden of proof to a situation in which no proof exists.

no it precisely for things on the borders of evidence, any proposed addition to the model of the universe bears the burden of proof, because doing it otherwise is functionally impossible.

The model of the universe is comprised exclusively of falsifiable things. That's how science works, based on falsifiable facts, details, and tests. God, however, is not falsifiable, and so doesn't fit into a falsifiable model. Obviously.
As I've said time and again, keep falsifiable things and unfalsifiable things separate, and don't get them confused or conflated.

Things that are untestable cannot have evidence so there is not reason

There is not scientific reason. There are plenty of other reasons.

to propose them in the first place since they do not increase the accuracy of our predictions.

So don't use god to increase the accuracy of predictions, as I've said. Obviously. Note that there is a realm of falsifiable things, and a realm of unfalsifiable things, and don't get them confused.

I don not need to disprove a claim if no evidence is given to support it, because then it is opinion not a claim.

Well, now we're just arguing definitions. But, yes, you don't need to disprove it. They don't need to prove it. Because telling someone they must prove or disprove the unfalsifiable is a patently ridiculous notion.

Again, just because something cannot be shown to do something does not mean it does not do something. That's a false equivalence, as I've shown. You've yet to prove my shirt is brown, and yet, my shirt remains brown.

how do I know this?
is so your shirt could be blue or you could not be wearing a shirt. You make the positive claim, you must show evidence.
The only way to reliably show anything is by the method I am using.

That doesn't address the point I'm making, which is that if something cannot be tested or be made testable at any given moment (say, by Humanity 2 millenia ago, or Humanity now), that does not mean it is not true. It doesn't mean it is true. It means you can't know.

Again, you run into the omnipotence issue.

something you have to demonstrate to claim, you can't even demonstrate omnipotence is possible so how can you claim it as an attribute.

You don't have to demonstrate something to claim that it exists. That's backwards. First you claim something exists, then you test to demonstrate it. Or do you mean something else by 'demonstrate' or 'claim'?

There's also no justification to claim it doesn't exist because there is no proof either way because it cannot be tested.
It goes both ways.

No, you do not have to disprove that I am a unfrozen cave man scientist, I must demonstrate it. If I can't the claim ends there, I could not overcome the burden of proof.
look up something called the null, all proposals start as incorrect (asymptotically unlikely) and must be demonstrated as correct (or more likely)

You're applying the standards applied to falsifiable ideas and hypotheses to an unfalsifiable concept. That makes no sense.

I noticed. My point remains. People can find comfort in things that are greater than they aside from things that can be proven to exist in concrete terms. Indeed, the very fact it is not concrete may make it more comforting.

but claiming that comfort justifies that belief is incorrect, as demonstrated below with the serial killer who believes himself a hero. Either he is a hero and should be treated as such or he is finding comfort in something false and should be discouraged from doing so.

Firstly, I didn't say it justified belief, I said it was a reason to believe. Greed is a reason for theft, though not a justification.
Secondly, we arrest serial killers for whatever reason. The simplest being that the majority finds their actions to be harmful and immoral. However, I see no reason why the actions of a theist must inherently be harmful and immoral according to the majority, as killing seems to be.

Except I didn't claim it was evidence for god. That would be counter to the innumerable times I've said god has no evidence for or against his existence. I claimed it was a reason people chose to believe in god. And, it is.

then why bring it up, it is a total non-sequitur if you are not using it as justification for a belief.

I'm using it as a reason for belief, obviously. I've said that many, many times now. Like in the passage you just quoted.
There can be no objective, true justification for belief in god's existence or non-existence, because he's unfalsifiable.

Empirical justification does. As I've said innumerable times, empirical evidence and empirical justifications mean nothing when the topic is inherently unfalsifiable. You cannot treat the unfalsifiable as falsifiable anymore than you can treat the falsifiable as unfalsifiable.



Says the guy who wants falsifiable evidence for an unfalsifiable being.
You're funny.

no I said there is no falsifiable gods that have evidence supporting them.

Indeed, that is true. No falsifiable god has been proven true.
However, you keep on trying to apply standards for falsifiable concepts to an unfalsifiable concept. Which is what I just said. And which you just did in the post I'm replying to now, up above.

This would be so much more convincing if morals weren't totally subjective, and thus, mean nothing.
Or if going to prison meant you were immoral, which is debatable given the presence of immoral laws.

which would matter if the statistics did not hold consistant

You're not addressing the points.
Firstly, that morality is purely relative.
Secondly, that being arrested does not, inherently, make you immoral due to moral relativity.
Those two points remain despite any consistent statistics.

Which part of the very long second link do you even want me looking at?

whoa so sorry, it was supposed to link to this.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
Damn you copy/paste
it shows how this difference is consistent over things like spousal abuse and is reversely correlated with racism, things generally accepted in as moral, It also correlates with modern states that are safer, healthier, and less violent

Okay, now I get what you're driving after. You're correct, those facts are true. The problem is this, however: "What is the root cause?"
You've yet to offer any proof that the root cause of the behavior is theism. As they say, correlation is not causation.

(Actually, as I recall, it is general lower rates intelligence among theists or something like that. Lower intelligence promotes violence and a few other such things, as well as promoting religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence)

Go on.

most of the book is about how much of our morality is instinctual and consistant across culture, but there is one strong factor that can change that.
There is a great study done using school children in various countries they found that children in religious schools would judge the same act differently if the perpetrator shared there religion than if they did not, this was repeated in adults in a survey.

I hardly imagine that's unique to theists. I mean, there are all sorts of biases, some theological, some racial, some sexual, etc. But, let me really address this with the next comment.

The children were most telling because they articulated why murder was acceptable for a religious figure of your religion but not another religion, god told him so is only acceptable if it is your god.

Not surprised.
This is, of course, wrong. Double standards are wrong. Advocating (what I presume was) needless murder is wrong.
But that doesn't mean being a theist is wrong. It means having double standards and advocating needless murder are.

basically they asked them the same question but changed two terms;
the name of the perpetrator, the name of the god that told them to commit the act, (the act being the slaughter of all men, women, children, and animals in a city.)

the adults however would only give this justification about half as much even thought they often had the same % on acceptance.

now it is important to note most always picked the universally instinctual moral position, but there was an abberation in that there was a 30% or even more increase in acceptance when it was ordered by their god.

It really is a wonderful book, I highly recommend it.

there is also a noticeable change in thinking between people who had a formal education and those who had not, which was how likely they were to think abstractly (contingently) to find an unknown answer.

there have been a couple other studies like this which convinced me that religion was less the superstition only harmful to yourself and and really actually harmful to everyone because of the type of thinking it expressly encourages. Basically all known religions teach it is OK to accept a position on faith and ignore evidence, and this faith is the underlying cause of the problem, religions is just the main encourager of the problem.

religion does the worst thing you can to humanity it removes doubt. Doubt that what your doing is right or wrong.

Indeed. To be frank, I have issues with the way organized religion handles things. However, do note that theism doesn't require organized religion, nor does it require the methods organized religion uses to propagate itself.

As for it removing doubt, that's why I keep saying there are two realms, the unfalsifiable and the falsifiable. Don't confuse the two. The issue, partially, arises from the fact that many theists do confuse the two to some extent or another, which aggravates me immensely. However, for those theists who don't confuse the two, I find far fewer reasons to say they should not believe in a personal deity.

I also recommend the Science of liberty which talks about how tightly linked advancments in science and human rights are in history, it is weird but both are reliant on plurality and evidence.

I'll keep that one in mind.

[IshCong]

Also, for non-falsifiability:

Anything obeying the laws of the universe can be possibly falsified by new evidence.
If something doesn't obey the laws of the universe then it doesn't exist, as otherwise the laws would simply change to support the new item.

Thus nothing existing is unfalsifiable.

Or, it is omnipotent, and rules don't apply. You're claiming it can only exist if the rules apply to it. In doing so, you've stated that something that is not omnipotent is falsifiable, which is probably true. However, omnipotent beings don't care for the 'laws' of the universe. Otherwise, they wouldn't be omnipotent.

Actually, god is false, as evident by the fact that if it follows the laws of the universe by definition it isn't supernatural and thus isn't god.

Or, god just doesn't follow the laws of the universe, as stated above. That's a prerequisite for omnipotence.

And if it doesn't then it doesn't exist, as if it did then the laws would have to change as stated above.
Thus there is no "paranormal" and thus no god.

This is your falsification.

See above. You're not arguing against an omnipotent being, but one that is finite.
Moreover, if god exists as an unfalsifiable being, the laws don't have to change one way or another, since god can't be proven, and only proven things belong as scientific laws.

[IshCong]

Also, it would only be possible for something to have created the whole of existence (what is meant by most as "universe") only if either

1)It created itself (impossible due to temporal restrictions).

Or if it came from another universe. I think that's a hypothesis now.
Anyway, an omnipotent being could probably create itself, being, you know, omnipotent.

2)It didn't exist (contradiction with it creating anything).

Thus, nothing could have created the "universe".

Thus, the universe has always existed (as the latest scientific thepries by among others Stephen Hawking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

state)

More like, nothing can be proven to have created the universe. Especially as anything predating the universe would exist outside the bounds of any ability of ours to detect it.

[Zutroy]

So then the bacteria would be evolving, not the feces. That's the distinction I was driving at there. If a spaceship tore apart in space and one of the panels contained bacteria, the bacteria would evolve a few hundred thousand years down the line, not the panel.

Fecal matter is made of carbon compounds, carbon is the basis of life on earth.

My shirt is made of carbon compounds too. Is it going to evolve into something as well? I think you're missing the fact that there is more to life than carbon compounds.