What is the falsification for Atheism? What is the falsification for your religion?

[james bond]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

 

[bluzman61]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

Interesting thoughts on religion. Thanks for the post.

 

[Picaro]

Problems arise because formal logic itself is a logical fallacy of circular reasoning, a function of having to adhere to singular definitions. This is useful to an extent in many cases, like empirical method, but sooner or later the circle produces absurdities and tail chasing. Informal logic provides for wisdom and the option of jumping off that circle at practical points. Religions provide more guidance and insight to human nature and society than theories like 'evolution' do, and Christianity is the most evolved and useful theology. Pagan cults are not really religions, so they aren't in the same class.

 

[FA_Q2]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

 

[harmonica]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

 

[harmonica]

hahhahahaha
how do you falsify something that has never been proven--is not real/etc?????!!!!!!!!

 

[Meriweather]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

1. Christianity emerged from eye witness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There is no physical evidence of this, so science cannot look or investigate it because it now lies outside the jurisdiction of science.

2. Once we are outside the rule of science, we look at belief and find in the world today there are 2.3 billion who believe in Christian teaching as handed down. We can also look at their lives, listen to their stories.

3. Christians believe there were Twelve Apostles, and one of those twelve betrayed Jesus which led to his death. This means 1/12 of those closest to Jesus chose not to follow his teachings. No Christian would claim to do better than Jesus did with his group. Therefore, 1/12 of 2.3 billion Christians means that in fact you should not listen to about 195 million of them--which leaves just over 2 billion who work to be faithful followers of Jesus, and we have our own faults, just as the other eleven apostles had theirs.

No organization has reached perfection, Harmonica, and the events you mention involve more organizations than Christianity. Keep in mind science does teach us that for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or we could say, more than one side to every story. This does not change the fact that sometimes it was Christianity--or a portion of--that was in the wrong, but most do strive to do better.

 

[danielpalos]

All myths are based on Creationism.

 

[Meriweather]

The best falsification I can think of for atheism, is for atheists to stop thinking of religion as a science to either prove or disprove, but as a philosophy for living. Mixing science and religion is like playing a football game on one lane in a bowling alley. Those two wouldn't mix well either.

 

[Meriweather]

All myths are based on Creationism.

Religion isn't about Creationism. Religion is about creating a good life and the best version of oneself here on earth.

 

[danielpalos]

All myths are based on Creationism.

Religion isn't about Creationism. Religion is about creating a good life and the best version of oneself here on earth.

Creationism is what all myths do to try to explain, the beginning.

 

[Meriweather]

Creationism is what all myths do to try to explain, the beginning.

All the same, "Creationism" is not religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

.

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

.
were even the resurrection verified the physical proof would not verify the 4th century christian bible, the religion of the roman empire that is a political document disguised as a religion.

as demonstrated throughout the publication of forgeries and fallacies to justify certain world views and not that of the original intent of the prescribed religion for the salvation of humanity as a whole not of certain individuals or specific aspirations.
.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

.
an example of the misleading and selfulling forgeries found throughout the christian bible and their false religion as a whole.

they use the death of the 1st century religious itinerant for their own purposes and accuse all others not invested in their book of heresy putting many to death or intimidation without a single statement of verification included in their work from the main character as their own justification.

 

[Picaro]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

1. Christianity emerged from eye witness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There is no physical evidence of this, so science cannot look or investigate it because it now lies outside the jurisdiction of science.

2. Once we are outside the rule of science, we look at belief and find in the world today there are 2.3 billion who believe in Christian teaching as handed down. We can also look at their lives, listen to their stories.

3. Christians believe there were Twelve Apostles, and one of those twelve betrayed Jesus which led to his death. This means 1/12 of those closest to Jesus chose not to follow his teachings. No Christian would claim to do better than Jesus did with his group. Therefore, 1/12 of 2.3 billion Christians means that in fact you should not listen to about 195 million of them--which leaves just over 2 billion who work to be faithful followers of Jesus, and we have our own faults, just as the other eleven apostles had theirs.

No organization has reached perfection, Harmonica, and the events you mention involve more organizations than Christianity. Keep in mind science does teach us that for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or we could say, more than one side to every story. This does not change the fact that sometimes it was Christianity--or a portion of--that was in the wrong, but most do strive to do better.

And at one point all of them denied him to save their own skins, even Peter. Human weakness is indeed accounted for, and sensibly so. As for 'stuff Xians' did', relative to everybody else they were incredibly tolerant by comparison, and while the Western Christian educated historians and writers documented the good and the bad, many times in detail, the pagans, Hindus, Confuscianists, and Islamists and Jews simply didn't care enough to document what didn't bother them, like mass murders of slaves and other stuff that would only bother to be noted by Christians, so they rely only on the typical 'argument from silence' later on in modern times to fabricate imaginary moral equivalencies and fake news re Christian history.

 

[Meriweather]

And at one point all of them denied him to save their own skins, even Peter. Human weakness is indeed accounted for, and sensibly so. As for 'stuff Xians' did', relative to everybody else they were incredibly tolerant by comparison, and while the Western Christian educated historians and writers documented the good and the bad, many times in detail, the pagans, Hindus, Confuscianists, and Islamists and Jews simply didn't care enough to document what didn't bother them, like mass murders of slaves and other stuff that would only bother to be noted by Christians, so they rely only on the typical 'argument from silence' later on in modern times to fabricate imaginary moral equivalencies and fake news re Christian history.

Great points.

 

[james bond]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

 

[james bond]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

You have no evidence of 1, 2, nor 3. Are you going senile?

hahhahahaha
how do you falsify something that has never been proven--is not real/etc?????!!!!!!!!

It's not to falsify the claim, but one has to provide falsification for their scientific claim or else nothing can be presented to show that it is wrong. Popper said then that it isn't a valid theory or scientific claim. I'm just expanding that to religion as religion is so much like science and the philosophy of science.

For example, if it took a billion years for something to happen, then how can someone falsify that? No one can do an experiment that takes a billion years.

 

[alang1216]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

Religion is not science, it is a set of beliefs. You can not falsify it, e.g., you can't prove there is no God any more than you can prove there is one. Atheism likewise can neither be proven or disproven. I have examined the evidence for the supernatural and find it, in my estimation, lacking. I realize I can't prove it to anyone.

 

[Hollie]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Genesis fable is an accurate rendition of the universe's beginning. The Biblical timeline for that is an absurdity.

There is no evidence that your gods created the electromagnetic spectrum. To suggest that the Genesis fable ''explains in detail'' anything about the universe is an absurdity.

 

[Hollie]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

If your gods are spirits, necessarily residing in a spirit realm, wouldn't their force be a spiritual force residing in a spirit realm as opposed to a material, physical force in a physical, material realm?