Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

Anfauglir

    Global Moderator


    Posts: 6219
  • Darwins +411/-5

Which is better for advancing human discovery, Assuming a truth and looking to see what that truth implies and if what it implies exists... or starting with know assumptions and trying to see if you can discern if something is true or false...
I lean towards the former...

Sure.  So why not start with the assumption of truth being "there is no god" and see what that implies?  Let's see.....believers have no discernably different lives to unbelievers; studies show prayers have no effect; and no other testable proof of a god's existence has ever been put forward.

Seems pretty conclusive to me - unless, of course, you actually HAVE a testable proof of the existence of your assumed truth?

That's the whole point of working towards truth.  You come up with a hypothesis that you can demonstrate, that can be shown to be true or false, and then you test it.  And the results of the test will tell you whether that thing is true, or not.

WRT flight, its a fair point - but with flight we can come up with a different test as technology advances, so I see no problem with repeated tests using different criteria.  For example:

"Can I jump off a building and fly?"  - No, human flight is not possible under those conditions - therefore for practical purposes we assume it is NOT true.
"Can I jump off a building with feathers on my arms and fly?" - No, human flight is not possible under those conditions - continue to assume it is NOT true.
"Can I fly with a machine that uses a bouncing umbrella?" - No, human flight is still not possible under those conditions - continue to assume it is NOT true.
"Can I fly with a system of wings and forward propulsion?" - Aha, yes!  Under THOSE circumstances, we discover that human flight IS true.

The problem is that all tests I am aware of to detect a god simply repeat stage one with "fail" results - yet the assumption from believers is that despite the fails, it is logical to nevertheless hold the assumption to be true.

But, like I say, perhaps I'm missing a test.  So I repeat - do you have a testable proof of any god?  If not, I see no reason whatsoever to assume that "there is a god" is a Truth.
Changed Change Reason Date
bertatberts Perhaps he may understand his false premise now, well done. December 25, 2012, 07:58:51 AM