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

[james bond]

Would you be surprised when you arrived at wherever God wants you ... If you found out Christianity, and all the other religions, were just tools adapted by God in order to try and speak to everyone in whatever way they would listen?

No. Your statement for Christianity is bogus as it isn't in the Bible. Also, how can there be more than one truth? That's why the topic for this thread. If one's beliefs are true, then there should be a way to falsify it. For example, a true religious book about God should be able to be backed up by science. If it can't for the science parts such as the how we came to be on this universe and Earth, then it isn't a valid truth book. Something not explained or being contradicted would have to be a falsification.

f so ... Tell me why you think the Christian God couldn't do it if he wanted to ...

From the beginning, we know that the Christian God of the Trinity wanted his creations to have free will. It started with the angels. If there was no Tree of Knowledge and Satan being on Earth, then there would not have been a choice. To contradict Satan being tossed down to Earth, one just has to show there is no evil in the world. However, this cannot be done, so there is evil in the world. This is more understandable and acceptable. What about the Tree of Knowledge? I would think one has to show that something that can detect guilt (strong emotion) or a lie cannot be created. We find that we have a lie detector.

 

[zaangalewa]

All myths are based on Creationism.

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

Oh by the way - if you don't believe in any form of creation: What do you think how the universe came into existence? The theory of relativity for example tells us that "suddenly" appeared time, space, energy, natural laws. The universe expanded (=became cooler) and some things froze out - for example matter, which is a kind of frozen form of energy. So nothing was - then was everything. This idea of Christian philosopers is about 1700 years old. And for sure this idea is not really this what physicist are doing - for example measured a short time ago some physicists in Munich the shortest time, which in history of mankind was measured: the time it needs for a photon to cross an atom. U-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e what peole are today able to do. But let me come back to my question: Without to use any concept of creation: How are such things able to happen?

 

[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.

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.

Dark energy is god is a rather nonsensical statement and defines god in a way as to be meaningless. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is garbage as well - it is just a bunch of assertions with no real logic behind it. The idea that a mind is required to create the universe is an assertion - not an argument. I have heard one of its most prolific supports (William Lane Craig) construct that argument a hundred times and every time is falls short IMHO.

Finally, god did it is not an explanation. It is a god of the gaps tactic that has been abandoned by every apologetic out there.

Dark energy does not exist. Where is its falsification? How can your opponent find something to show your theory is wrong? One can't even falsify it. OTOH, I can falsify the Christian God by someone finding a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. It states God stretches out the heavens like a tent. Why don't you just admit that the creation scientists have a valid theory while the atheist scientists do not?

Dark energy does not exist?

It may or may not exist. We know literally nothing about dark energy whatsoever. It is a placeholder because the current understanding of cosmology does not know what is causing the universe expansion to accelerate considering gravity should be slowing it down.

That is why it is called 'dark.' We do not have a good theory to explain it yet though there are many hypotheses out there.

There are also a TON of contradictions in Genesis:

Genesis : Contradictions

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Not to mention Genesis itself contradicts with what we now know in science such as the order of creation.

And there are a ton of apologists that have come up with clever ways to explain these away. Then you would also have to clarify which bible we are even talking about - Greek? Hebrew? KJV? There are a ton of them.

For the faithful, genesis contradictions are not relevant, there will ALWAYS be a way to turn a phrase to match whatever you need it to because the bible was not written as a technical manual. In the same manner that you can reject virtually everything in Leviticus, accept the differences in the apostle accounts and make revelations seem like it is coming soon you will be able to fit the bible in your version of faith.

If such were not the case there would not be over a thousand denominations that have different interpretations of the bible and all certain their interpretation is correct.

Last point first. If the contradictions are not really contradictions, i.e. the creationists can present an argument against them, then it was not falsified. Yet, there is still a way for their opponents to falsify their theory.

However, we just found that dark energy does not exist since there isn't anything to show that it is false. I said that it is God stretching the heavens and presented the evidence in the Book of Genesis. Now, that isn't a falsification because there is no falsification for dark energy. Presenting a falsification would eliminate the may or may not exist types of hypothesis which we can avoid wasting time on. Thus, I just showed that we can eliminate dark energy.

Are you saying that we can eliminate dark energy theories based on the premise that God did it? I do not want to inject that into your statements if that is not the point you are making.

As for contradictions - yes they are contradictions. That you can hand wave around them to satisfy your own position is irrelevant. Again, it is the reason that there are so many differing factions - many of which get out of those contradictions by claiming that the bible is not infallible and therefore contradictions are mistakes. Simply put, it is impossible to falsify it. From the link:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

That is a direct contradiction, the order is reversed. There are MANY of these. Apologists will play word games to make the text fit claiming one passage is about order and the other about purpose - IOW they will make whatever is stated unfalsifiable. The apologists do not remove the contradiction, they ignore it and jam the words into a frame that fits. Something that you can do with anything whatsoever to make it utterly infallible.

 

[fncceo]

Christianity is the most evolved and useful theology.

Seriously?

 

[fncceo]

To suggest that the Genesis fable ''explains in detail'' anything about the universe is an absurdity.

Men with nipples?! What was G-d thinking?

 

[zaangalewa]

Christianity is the most evolved and useful theology.

Seriously?

View attachment 415489

Sure

 

[zaangalewa]

... we discuss religion, especially Christianity and creation science vs. Evolution and atheist science. ....

You do so. But this is not a theme for the very most Christians in the world. "Creation science" as well as "atheist science" don't exist. It's just simple natural science. Christains believe god created nature - but also people, who don't believe this, are able to do natural science. People of all forms of belief are for example also able to play the piano - if they learned to play the piano. That god loves the music of life is another theme.

 

[alang1216]

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.

I didn't say it was, but we discuss religion, especially Christianity and creation science vs. Evolution and atheist science. Popper may have been referring to philosophy of science, but we can apply it just as well to the philosophy of religion. If one can't falsify atheism, then it is a bogus set of beliefs. Science is a set of beliefs. Why do you think creation scientists were eliminated from scientific peer reviews? The truth is they were able to falsify their theories and religion while the evolutionists could not.

Why don't you admit that there is no falsification for atheism? It means there is no truth that would make it false. Thus, it can't be demonstrated to be true. We haven't really narrowed down what would falsify ToE or abiogenesis either? I would go with Karl Popper and toss atheism out as a false belief from what you claim.

It is religion and the supernatural that can't be falsified since there are no restrictions on what a supernatural being could do. Evolution would be easy to falsify. People have been trying, and failing, for over a century and a half. Every one of the trillions of fossils found to date fit neatly into the ToE. For example, the ToE says that humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time. We have never found a human and dino bone together. We never found cave paintings of dinos. Either would falsify the ToE.

 

[BlackSand]

Would you be surprised when you arrived at wherever God wants you ... If you found out Christianity, and all the other religions, were just tools adapted by God in order to try and speak to everyone in whatever way they would listen?

No. Your statement for Christianity is bogus as it isn't in the Bible. Also, how can there be more than one truth? That's why the topic for this thread. If one's beliefs are true, then there should be a way to falsify it. For example, a true religious book about God should be able to be backed up by science. If it can't for the science parts such as the how we came to be on this universe and Earth, then it isn't a valid truth book. Something not explained or being contradicted would have to be a falsification.

f so ... Tell me why you think the Christian God couldn't do it if he wanted to ...

From the beginning, we know that the Christian God of the Trinity wanted his creations to have free will. It started with the angels. If there was no Tree of Knowledge and Satan being on Earth, then there would not have been a choice. To contradict Satan being tossed down to Earth, one just has to show there is no evil in the world. However, this cannot be done, so there is evil in the world. This is more understandable and acceptable. What about the Tree of Knowledge? I would think one has to show that something that can detect guilt (strong emotion) or a lie cannot be created. We find that we have a lie detector.

See ... That's just it ... You are telling me Dogma.
I am saying God is telling you, what you want and need to hear, to cultivate a relationship with Him.

The only real difference, is that the best I can tell. the God I know loves everyone, and isn't trying to get rid of anyone.
Well that, and the God I know reserves Judgement to Himself ... It's one of the things that makes Him divine and people assholes.

.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

I didn't say it was, but we discuss religion, especially Christianity and creation science vs. Evolution and atheist science. Popper may have been referring to philosophy of science, but we can apply it just as well to the philosophy of religion. If one can't falsify atheism, then it is a bogus set of beliefs. Science is a set of beliefs. Why do you think creation scientists were eliminated from scientific peer reviews? The truth is they were able to falsify their theories and religion while the evolutionists could not.

Why don't you admit that there is no falsification for atheism? It means there is no truth that would make it false. Thus, it can't be demonstrated to be true. We haven't really narrowed down what would falsify ToE or abiogenesis either? I would go with Karl Popper and toss atheism out as a false belief from what you claim.

It is religion and the supernatural that can't be falsified since there are no restrictions on what a supernatural being could do.

"Supernatural" : Always so big words - but in the end: meta-physics (=Greek for the Latin world super-natural) are the books in a Christian library "meta" the books about physics.

Sometimes I say about physics: the spirituality of physics is mathematics (metaphysics) - and the god of physics is the experiment (reality).

Evolution would be easy to falsify. People have been trying, and failing, for over a century and a half.

But not everything evolved or evolves and people use "evolution" often in totally wrong contextes.They speak for example about "the evolution of cars". But nothing evolves in context cars. We make plans and build them - so they are made teleological. Evolution is not teleological. We make inventions, which often start with an intuitive idea coming from nowhere. We follow esthetics and customs - and whatever we think what could be important in this context. And nothing of this all has to do with evolution.

Every one of the trillions of fossils found to date fit neatly into the ToE. For example, the ToE says that humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time.

Damn, what do I do now with my dino? I said Pete he should not make this nonsense - but is Pete listening to me? No. Never. This idiot. And now ... Pete always made this stupid experiments. Chaos, chaos - nothing else than chaos - and always we are in the center of this chaos - damn. .. Hmm ... We will say it's a mix between an eagle and a crocodile. This will help, I hope.

We have never found a human and dino bone together. We never found cave paintings of dinos. Either would falsify the ToE.

But we found for example octopusses, which are so unbelievable intelligent that they could very easily build an ET-civilisation - if they would live longer and they could build traditions and if fire would burn under water. And they are only primitive molluscs without sceleton. Or with other words: If we find something then we are able to say afterwords why and how this is and what could be possible. But if butterflies would not exist, then we would not be able to say something about a possibility of butterflies with the laws of the theory of evolution.

 

[Meriweather]

For example, a true religious book about God should be able to be backed up by science. If it can't for the science parts such as the how we came to be on this universe and Earth, then it isn't a valid truth book.

Then by your own definition, it isn't a valid book. Period.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid. For example, one can't present dark energy as something that could exist when one cannot have something that would falsify it. Karl Popper is a righteous man.

.

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid.

.
are you lost.

something in your equilibrium has come unglued ... you read to many stories.

Karl Popper explained in under Philosophy of Science. I didn't really get a falsification for ToE except from JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins with their Precambrian Rabbit and Precambrian Hippo. Even if I accept that, there isn't one for abiogenesis so it's not a valid theory. Not finding a microbe in our solar system should have been a falsification, but you want to claim long time. Can we say long time cannot be falsified? ToE, at least gives a time frame or a way to expand the falsification.

As for atheism and this thread, there isn't one. Someone has to show a God exists which I have with KCA and the Book of Genesis in the Bible. If that cannot falsify atheism, then atheism isn't a valid statement that I do not believe God or gods exist applying Karl Popper's ideas to the Philosophy of Religion.

.

As for atheism and this thread, there isn't one. Someone has to show a God exists which I have with KCA and the Book of Genesis in the Bible.

.
admittedly not clear the scope of falsification being discussed ...

- claiming divinity exists through genesis you equate christianity, a messiah also exists where in fact as a falsification your messiah only exists in your one publication the christian bible not in the spirit at birth should then disprove not only your religion but the premise for your belief in that divinity. through the christian bible.

surly a person that has never read your book or been exposed to those that have would not have a recollection of the 1st century religious itinerant you claim as a divine personage. necessary for their spiritual admission to the Everlasting as you claim. is a falsification of the christian religion and the association to judaism.

 

[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 ?????!!!!!!

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.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

wow--you sound like a 9 year old = '''that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone'''
hahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
we can't falsify it because it's not real

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

wow--you sound like a 9 year old = '''that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone'''
hahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
we can't falsify it because it's not real

The universe is real and I can falsify it very easily: Looks like the sum of all positive and negative physical energies of the uninverse is exactly 0. So if we would be outside of the universe then we could not interact with the universe, because it has no energy - what means in other words: it is not existing. Q.e.d.

The little problem in this context is that we are not able to leave the universe because it has no outside - and if we would nevertheless be able to leave it, then we could intertact with it, because we are physical energy of the universe and then must exist our anti-energy.

In theory could be in every point, which we are able to see, an infinite number of universes - and this are more than we are able to count, even, if we would never die. And if it is so, then god created them all. Howelse could they otherwise exist ... or better to say ¿not exist?

Oh by the way: We don't know, what we don't know. But not to know something on plausible reasons - that's the idea of Socrates.

 

[Picaro]

Christianity is the most evolved and useful theology.

Seriously?

View attachment 415489

Of course it is; that's why it has so many enemies, especially Jewish Pharisee cultists who had to make up some ridiculous 'Oral Torah' to explain their losses to Christian churches, claiming their was some super-secret whispering in Mose's ear meant only for the appropriately racist Jews n stuff, and only Rabbis can tell the rest of the Jews what it is. lol never mine that Moses said otherwise. The rest of the religion moved on as originally intended and left the cultists behind to invent ever more obscurantist and bizarre legalisms to appease their isolationist and elitest fantasies.

 

[zaangalewa]

Christianity is the most evolved and useful theology.

Seriously?

View attachment 415489

Of course it is; that's why it has so many enemies, especially Jewish Pharisee cultists who had to make up some ridiculous 'Oral Torah' to explain their losses to Christian churches, claiming their was some super-secret whispering in Mose's ear meant only for the appropriately racist Jews n stuff, and only Rabbis can tell the rest of the Jews what it is. lol never mine that Moses said otherwise. The rest of the religion moved on as originally intended and left the cultists behind to invent ever more obscurantist and bizarre legalisms to appease their isolationist and elitest fantasies.

I will never understand how an anti-Jewish sarcastic idiot, whose avatar picture seems to speak in the name of Jews, is able to strengthen the anti-Semitism of stupid pseudo-Christians like you.

 

[jackflash]

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

My religion is the 1st church of the immaculate Horse Power. We use our Dynamometer, calibrated by the Democratic National Committee as our falsifiabilty so our loyal customer base knows they're getting the truth with a smile & a handshake!!!

 

[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 ?????!!!!!!

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.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

wow--you sound like a 9 year old = '''that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone'''
hahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
we can't falsify it because it's not real

The universe is real and I can falsify it very easily: Looks like the sum of all positive and negative physical energies of the uninverse is exactly 0. So if we would be outside of the universe then we could not interact with the universe, because it has no energy - what means in other words: it is not existing. Q.e.d.

The little problem in this context is that we are not able to leave the universe because it has no outside - and if we would nevertheless be able to leave it, then we could intertact with it, because we are physical energy of the universe and then must exist our anti-energy.

In theory could be in every point, which we are able to see, an infinite number of universes - and this are more than we are able to count, even, if we would never die. And if it is so, then god created them all. Howelse could they otherwise exist ... or better to say ¿not exist?

Oh by the way: We don't know, what we don't know. But not to know something on plausible reasons - that's the idea of Socrates.

....plain and simple--there is no god/jesus was not god/etc ---no one can prove it--it's just a belief

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

wow--you sound like a 9 year old = '''that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone'''
hahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
we can't falsify it because it's not real

The universe is real and I can falsify it very easily: Looks like the sum of all positive and negative physical energies of the uninverse is exactly 0. So if we would be outside of the universe then we could not interact with the universe, because it has no energy - what means in other words: it is not existing. Q.e.d.

The little problem in this context is that we are not able to leave the universe because it has no outside - and if we would nevertheless be able to leave it, then we could intertact with it, because we are physical energy of the universe and then must exist our anti-energy.

In theory could be in every point, which we are able to see, an infinite number of universes - and this are more than we are able to count, even, if we would never die. And if it is so, then god created them all. Howelse could they otherwise exist ... or better to say ¿not exist?

Oh by the way: We don't know, what we don't know. But not to know something on plausible reasons - that's the idea of Socrates.

....plain and simple--there is no god/jesus was not god/etc ---no one can prove it--it's just a belief

What you don't know. You have a very interesting form of belief: The belief not to believe. But I fear to believe not to believe is as wise as to be sure that everyone is an ignorant, because of the own lack of knowledge, fantasy and intuitions. And specially arrogance and aggressions - wide spread psychological energies - make stupid. Same with alcohol and drugs.

Just a moment ago I saw for example an interesting film about the way to live of some South Americans. I was totally impressed from them. They say for example a man has 3 souls and a woman has 4 souls, because she is able to bear - ... and while I thought a little while about this I found out this feels to be right. 3 days of the week are for men - and 4 days of the week are for women - that feels indeed to be real justice.

 

[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 ?????!!!!!!

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.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

wow--you sound like a 9 year old = '''that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone'''
hahahahhahahahhahahahahaha
we can't falsify it because it's not real

The universe is real and I can falsify it very easily: Looks like the sum of all positive and negative physical energies of the uninverse is exactly 0. So if we would be outside of the universe then we could not interact with the universe, because it has no energy - what means in other words: it is not existing. Q.e.d.

The little problem in this context is that we are not able to leave the universe because it has no outside - and if we would nevertheless be able to leave it, then we could intertact with it, because we are physical energy of the universe and then must exist our anti-energy.

In theory could be in every point, which we are able to see, an infinite number of universes - and this are more than we are able to count, even, if we would never die. And if it is so, then god created them all. Howelse could they otherwise exist ... or better to say ¿not exist?

Oh by the way: We don't know, what we don't know. But not to know something on plausible reasons - that's the idea of Socrates.

....plain and simple--there is no god/jesus was not god/etc ---no one can prove it--it's just a belief

You have a very interesting form of belief. The belief not to believe. But I fear to believe not to believe is as wise as to be sure that everyone is an ignirant, because of the own lack of knowledge, fantasy and intuitions.

Just a moment ago I saw for example an interesting film about the way to live of some South Americans. They say for example: A mand has 3 souls and a woman has 4 souls, because she is able to bear - and while I thought a little while about this I found out this feels to be right. 3 days of the week are for men - and 4 days of the week are for women - that feels indeed to be real justice.

..you keep babbling because you don't provide any proof of god/etc [ you can't ]