I could use help with a religious debate.

[Honorable Mention]

I'm having a discussion with this person on another forum. It original started out as a "How do you get into heaven?" thread but deviated once I brought up that the burden of proof falls on those claiming God exists. I got the following response, and I'm not entirely sure how to tackle a few snips of his response.

That is true but it's important to remember that God isn't the only thing that's unfalsifiable. Objective reality, causality, free will, and the existence of other minds are also unfalsifiable. Science is a tool that allows us to understand the universe. But unless you are willing to take the step of asserting that nothing outside the boundaries of science can exist (a wholly unfalsifiable statement) one can not assert that lack of scientific knowledge is proof of absence.

Consider the visual sensory system. It is a tool which allows us knowledge of the outside world. Where I to present you with an object and ask you to tell, by looking at it, if it was cobalt 60 you could rightly protest that such radiation as would distinguish it is invisible. I might argue that if you can't see it then it can't exist. That would be silly however. What I'm getting at is that if the tool has no likelihood of discovering proof of something then obviously any negative results from that tool are meaningless. Since I can't see gamma radiation my sight can not disprove its presence.

A while back the philosophy of science deliberately limited the scope of science in order to make it a more effective tool. God lies outside that scope. As such an argument against the existence of God by the absence of scientific proof is an argument from lack of imagination. Since science could not realistically be expected to produce proof of God, regardless of God's existence, we can not draw conclusions from science; one way or the other.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of God's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that God is likely or unlikely is really just speculation. This is why I'm an agnostic. I realize that not only do we lack the knowledge but, short of a personal religious experience, there are simply no tools available to gain that knowledge.

Any help would be appreciated. Saying something like "God is outside the scope of science" seems like more of a cop-out than anything, to me.

[Scottish Ninja]

You might try pointing out that if God's existence is outside the scope of science, then there's no useful information to be gained conjecturing that God exists.

[DPDarkPrimus]

There are tools that allow us to detect radiation. Not so with god.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of God's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that God is likely or unlikely is really just speculation. This is why I'm an agnostic. I realize that not only do we lack the knowledge but, short of a personal religious experience, there are simply no tools available to gain that knowledge.

Just do this to it.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of a unicorn's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that unicorns is likely or unlikely is really just speculation.

[Darth Wong]

That is true but it's important to remember that God isn't the only thing that's unfalsifiable. Objective reality, causality, free will, and the existence of other minds are also unfalsifiable.

What a mishmash. Objective reality is an observation, not a hypothesis. Causality is a concept, not a discrete entity. Free will is a poorly defined philosophical idea and therefore not a scientific concept. The existence of other minds is the only alternative to the idea that you are the universe.

Science is a tool that allows us to understand the universe. But unless you are willing to take the step of asserting that nothing outside the boundaries of science can exist (a wholly unfalsifiable statement) one can not assert that lack of scientific knowledge is proof of absence.

Lack of scientific evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it is justification to dismiss the idea until such evidence arises. Why should any particular evidence-free idea be taken seriously when there are an infinite number of possible other evidence-free ideas?

Consider the visual sensory system. It is a tool which allows us knowledge of the outside world. Where I to present you with an object and ask you to tell, by looking at it, if it was cobalt 60 you could rightly protest that such radiation as would distinguish it is invisible. I might argue that if you can't see it then it can't exist. That would be silly however. What I'm getting at is that if the tool has no likelihood of discovering proof of something then obviously any negative results from that tool are meaningless. Since I can't see gamma radiation my sight can not disprove its presence.

This analogy presumes that there is some method of detecting God. Let him present this method, and then the analogy will be valid. Otherwise it's an invalid analogy.

A while back the philosophy of science deliberately limited the scope of science in order to make it a more effective tool. God lies outside that scope. As such an argument against the existence of God by the absence of scientific proof is an argument from lack of imagination. Since science could not realistically be expected to produce proof of God, regardless of God's existence, we can not draw conclusions from science; one way or the other.

God lies outside the scope of LOGIC. The concept does not follow logically from anything. It is quite literally nonsense. What he's saying is that God is allowed to be nonsense.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of God's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that God is likely or unlikely is really just speculation. This is why I'm an agnostic. I realize that not only do we lack the knowledge but, short of a personal religious experience, there are simply no tools available to gain that knowledge.

That is all a matter of definition. The more specific a definition of God is (for example, the Biblical fundamentalist definition), the more easily you can say that the definition is garbage. Most religious apologists (including agnostics) prefer to use an incredibly vague definition of God. But they forget to ask why anyone should take a concept seriously if it cannot be even be defined. Literally, they realize on some level that the only way to defend their idea is to define it so vaguely that it's meaningless, hence immune to contradiction.

[Surlethe]

That is true but it's important to remember that God isn't the only thing that's unfalsifiable. Objective reality, causality, free will, and the existence of other minds are also unfalsifiable. Science is a tool that allows us to understand the universe. But unless you are willing to take the step of asserting that nothing outside the boundaries of science can exist (a wholly unfalsifiable statement) one can not assert that lack of scientific knowledge is proof of absence.

Of course objective reality is unfalsifiable. However, it's also something that is by necessity assumed by everyone who is functionally alive, so its unfalsifiability is not really a big deal. The only people who deny objective reality are solipsists, who deserve a kick in the balls just to show they hate themselves.

God, unlike reality, is not automatically assumed. Science is a method of building models to describe that (assumed) objective reality; if an entity is unscientific, then it can't be put into a scientific model - i.e., there's no way for everybody to agree that yes, this entity exists.

A while back the philosophy of science deliberately limited the scope of science in order to make it a more effective tool. God lies outside that scope. As such an argument against the existence of God by the absence of scientific proof is an argument from lack of imagination. Since science could not realistically be expected to produce proof of God, regardless of God's existence, we can not draw conclusions from science; one way or the other.

Look at this in light of the job of science: building a model of objective reality. If there is no way for science to draw a conclusion regarding God's existence, then there's really no way for us to place God into objective reality -- i.e., his existence is ultimately subjective, since he can be added or subtracted from any given model of the universe arbitrarily. In short, God is a useless description, and he cannot be certifiably shown to exist outside the head of a believer.

[PeZook]

This analogy presumes that there is some method of detecting God. Let him present this method, and then the analogy will be valid. Otherwise it's an invalid analogy.

...and don't forget that for some reason this method was available to primitive desert-dwelling tribesmen while for some reason, we are unable to utilize it.

[Ariphaos]

That is true but it's important to remember that God isn't the only thing that's unfalsifiable. Objective reality

It could be falsified if I could perform godlike tasks, which I can't. Solipsism can be falsified by doing away with its proponent.

causality

A process deriving from logic - otherwise you have a paradox. It's unfalsifiable the way 'If A = B and B = C, then A = C' is unfalsifiable.

free will

Easy to falsify. Free will is a bunk term people try to use to make themselves happy, but it has no meaning. Even if you have a 'soul' guiding your decision making, that soul still goes through a process to make such decisions. And, given the exact same circumstances, you and your soul will still make the same decisions, and the same actions.

It may be -impossible for an outsider to perfectly predict-, but that doesn't change the lack of a free will.

and the existence of other minds are also unfalsifiable.

It's easy to observe that you are not the only intelligence guiding your surroundings. Either other people are minds, or they are all controlled by one that isn't you (well, 'cept for the really gullible ones), but there is definitely at least one other intelligence involved.

Science is a tool that allows us to understand the universe. But unless you are willing to take the step of asserting that nothing outside the boundaries of science can exist (a wholly unfalsifiable statement) one can not assert that lack of scientific knowledge is proof of absence.

Science is a logical process. Anything that can interact with the physical world can therefore be analyzed in some way by science.

Consider the visual sensory system. It is a tool which allows us knowledge of the outside world. Where I to present you with an object and ask you to tell, by looking at it, if it was cobalt 60 you could rightly protest that such radiation as would distinguish it is invisible. I might argue that if you can't see it then it can't exist. That would be silly however. What I'm getting at is that if the tool has no likelihood of discovering proof of something then obviously any negative results from that tool are meaningless. Since I can't see gamma radiation my sight can not disprove its presence.

I can, however, see its effect on chemical and electrical structures. Science is not a one-aspect-of-one-sense analysis tool. See dark matter.

A while back the philosophy of science deliberately limited the scope of science in order to make it a more effective tool. God lies outside that scope. As such an argument against the existence of God by the absence of scientific proof is an argument from lack of imagination. Since science could not realistically be expected to produce proof of God, regardless of God's existence, we can not draw conclusions from science; one way or the other.

We certainly could. A miracle could be observed and studied, along with its effects.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of God's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that God is likely or unlikely is really just speculation. This is why I'm an agnostic. I realize that not only do we lack the knowledge but, short of a personal religious experience, there are simply no tools available to gain that knowledge.

I'm not an atheist, per se (nontheist), but the problem of 'God' is that it relegates us to being participants in a simulation. It's not really any more useful to ponder than solipsism - except, perhaps, to find errors in the simulation, which could be observed through science.

Ultimately, you can't have God without demeaning him in some manner. Either God made everything, and thus has no purpose, or something made God.

[Wyrm]

Objective reality ... are also unfalsifiable.

Stolen concept. "Falsifiability" is based on the idea of being able to show something is not consistent with objective reality.

Consider the visual sensory system. It is a tool which allows us knowledge of the outside world. Where I to present you with an object and ask you to tell, by looking at it, if it was cobalt 60 you could rightly protest that such radiation as would distinguish it is invisible. I might argue that if you can't see it then it can't exist. That would be silly however. What I'm getting at is that if the tool has no likelihood of discovering proof of something then obviously any negative results from that tool are meaningless. Since I can't see gamma radiation my sight can not disprove its presence.

The analogy fails. Too much gamma radiation has nasty effects on the human body, turning you into the Incredible Hulk... er, that is, a cancer-ridden corpse. But if gamma radiation had no effect whatsoever on anything, then it is an extra term that is sliced off by Occam's razor.

A while back the philosophy of science deliberately limited the scope of science in order to make it a more effective tool. God lies outside that scope. As such an argument against the existence of God by the absence of scientific proof is an argument from lack of imagination. Since science could not realistically be expected to produce proof of God, regardless of God's existence, we can not draw conclusions from science; one way or the other.

The same problem shows up when one states the likelihood of God's existence. Without certain knowledge, knowledge we lack on this subject, it is impossible to know what the odds of something are. So to claim that God is likely or unlikely is really just speculation. This is why I'm an agnostic. I realize that not only do we lack the knowledge but, short of a personal religious experience, there are simply no tools available to gain that knowledge.

To show why these argument are falicious, you need look no further than the fact that the same argument applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Should we also entertain the idea that the Great Pasta Dish extended His noodly appendage to grant mankind life and purpose, giving it equal likelihood to the existence of God? Logic says that we should give the FSM just as much weight as God, that is, no weight at all. Occam's razor cleans up on aisle 5.

[Darth Wong]

You know, if someone is reduced to the level of trying to knock down the existence of objective reality in order to attack the credibility of science, isn't he tacitly admitting that science is as credible as reality, so the only way to attack science is to attack reality itself?

[Honorable Mention]

Sorry I haven't posted to thank you folks for the help (I've been a bit busy.) Appreciate it much.