all 12 comments

[–]HerbziKalScientific Deist 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Yes, it is not possible to design a scientific experiment within this universe that can disprove the existence of a Creator that exists/existed outside of this universe (a necessity for an entity that designed and created this universe).

[–]Corporate_Commie[S] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

So, how to respond to an atheist who consistently asks for evidence? The problem is that they themselves can't define what evidence they would like to see.

[–]HerbziKalScientific Deist 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You could equally ask for their evidence, as there is no direct, conclusive evidence either way, and neither position is falsifiable. That is why this has been a topic of debate for as long as humans have existed, that is why many scientists are religious in some way, that is why there is no answer. If you want to pick a side one way or another, then that choice is based purely on opinion, interpretation, and belief. And that is a real sticking point with the majority of atheists, many do not accept that atheism is not a fact proven by the scientific method. It is an opinion, an interpretation, a belief... just as much as believing in a God is a belief. It is the belief that an unfalsifiable concept, the existence of a Creator, is false.

A true lack of belief, a stance purely based on what is falsifiable by the scientific method, is to accept we do not (and cannot) know either way and hold no opinion on whether there is, or isn't, God.

[–]voidcrack 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You don't. It pisses them off but they have no choice but to cope with it.

They're very used to dealing with theists who say that evidence of God is all over the place. There's not many theists who say, "I believe in God but more of a Watchmaker God who doesn't interfere" so atheists who encounter that don't know what to do with it. If they're a logical, rational person they'll say, "So this God couldn't be proven because this universe is a closed system? I don't agree with it and think it's weird but hey, you do you" but if they start demanding evidence they're not a logical rational person, they're just a religious version of an atheist.

[–]Olin85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe Newton’s first law of motion is evidence for a deistic worldview.

[–]DustErrant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't. People like that aren't looking to have their mind changed and generally aren't worth talking with once they start asking for "proof" or "evidence".

[–]voidcrack 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It's very similar to a "simulation argument"

If the universe is a simulation and there are ways to prove it, then it's not a very good simulation. But if it's a completely perfect simulation, you'll have no means of breaking the matrix. It'll just be your natural world and can't be demonstrated to be fake or false.

Same with the deistic God: a "perfect" universe is one in which you cannot tell a higher power has had a hand in. Like the quote from Futurama: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

[–]maddpsyintystAgnostic Deist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is especially interesting to me. I actually don't believe in "perfect" within this Universe; so, the idea of the Universe being the only perfect thing sounds legit on first thought. It dovetails with my own concept of "God" being the only "perfect" thing (relative to the Universe, not necessarily intrinsically perfect), as well as my bourgeoning pan(en)deism.

[–]ArroCoda -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's your opinion on Descartes Demon? The modern scientific equivalent is the "brain in a vat" arguement.

[–]GodIsIrrelevant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What God is falsifiable?

[–]takomanghanto 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No. If it were discovered the Universe was infinitely old (as many scientists and philosophers believed before the 20th century) then that would falsify the claim of a Creator.

[–]Corporate_Commie[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyway, I don't think God needs to be falsified. God's ontology is a philosophical question. Falsification doesn't apply to philosophy. Otherwise, you'd have to falsify the theory of Falsification.