What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[firedragon]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

 

[lukethethird]

Any claim has to be stated in such a way that it can be shown to be false. For example if I say all crows are black, that is a falsifiable claim because all someone has do to falsify it is to find a crow of a different colour. If I claim that all the green crows are invisible, no one can prove otherwise because that is not a falsifiable claim. In other words, one has to make a reasonable claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From what I learn from Cosmological argument as explained in Wikipedia is that everything has a cause. It is OK with an atheist like me. But what cause - people differ on that. There is no evidence that God / Allah is the cause and no evidence to consider someone as a prophet / son / messenger / manifestation / mahdi of this God /Allah and take their word as truth itself. There are things with their inherent properties, like spins on sub-atomic particles. Till now I do not think science has been able to explain that.

 

[darkskies]

A deductive argument is based solely on the veracity of it's premises. If an atheist (or anyone) wants to falsify one, they must present an instance where one of the premises doesn't hold.

Of course this is not required for an atheist to doubt them. They have to be shown to be true first.

 

[danieldemol]

Why only take answers from atheists, the field should be open to all to falsify it.

 

[Heyo]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

First, there is no specific atheist method to discuss an argument. Any logician can do that.
Second is to question the axioms the argument rests upon.
Third is to discuss definitions.
When that is undisputed one can look at the veracity of the premises and lastly on the correct application of the deductions.
Most god proofs fail step three as very few people can define the god they want to prove.

 

[firedragon]

First, there is no specific atheist method to discuss an argument. Any logician can do that.
Second is to question the axioms the argument rests upon.
Third is to discuss definitions.
When that is undisputed one can look at the veracity of the premises and lastly on the correct application of the deductions.
Most god proofs fail step three as very few people can define the god they want to prove.

I understand what you say.

So what is your argument?

 

[firedragon]

Why only take answers from atheists, the field should be open to all to falsify it.

Okay. So please say "all" if you wish. No problem. But provide your case.

 

[Heyo]

I understand what you say.

So what is your argument?

I don't have one. And that wasn't the question. You asked for a methodology answering a hypothetical argument.
I can demonstrate my methodology when you bring an argument.

 

[danieldemol]

Okay. So please say "all" if you wish. No problem. But provide your case.

Sure, the Kalam cosmological argument states;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

1. Can be falsified if something is found to come into existence without a cause. I'm open to correction on this, but I think someone with a detailed knowledge of quantum physics like @Polymath257 could point out uncaused events at the quantum level.

2. Can be falsified i think if the universe had no beginning. Time may have began with the early stages of the universe, thus we cannot say there was a time the universe did not exist.

I'm not sure about point number 2, because it is difficult for me to grasp what it means for time to be a product of the universe.

 

[exchemist]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

You leave a lot of things unstated here, esp. what you mean by God in this context and which cosmological argument you have in mind.

But if we suppose what you are referring to is the "first cause" argument, for the Abrahamic God, which goes back as far as Aquinas I believe, then a physicist would say it is false because it seems that in nature not every event needs to have a cause.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

By pointing out the logical fallacies.

 

[Altfish]

Sure, the Kalam cosmological argument states;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.st starts blustering and usually says, "Well god was always there"

ie, Special pleading

1. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

1. Can be falsified if something is found to come into existence without a cause. I'm open to correction on this, but I think someone with a detailed knowledge of quantum physics like @Polymath257 could point out uncaused events at the quantum level.

2. Can be falsified i think if the universe had no beginning. Time may have began with the early stages of the universe, thus we cannot say there was a time the universe did not exist.

I'm not sure about point number 2, because it is difficult for me to grasp what it means for time to be a product of the universe.

One problem is that when you follow this regression backwards you eventually come to, "Well who created god" and then the apologist usually blusters and says something like, "Well, god was always there"
ie. Special pleading = FAIL

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But if we suppose what you are referring to is the "first cause" argument, for the Abrahamic God, which goes back as far as Aquinas I believe, then a physicist would say it is false because it seems that in nature not every event needs to have a cause.

And on top of that, causality isn't even a general principle. It's a phenomenon that really only applies on the level of classical physics.

And what is important about that, is that classical physics is how things work IN the universe.
If you remove the universe from existence, you also remove the physics of this universe from existence.

So how on earth could you use a phenomenon of X to explain the origin of X?
To explain the origin of X, you necessarily have to deal with an environment where X does not exist and then "the thing" happens which then results in the origination of X.

In the case of the "first cause argument", that would mean that you need to invoke a property of X (causality as it applies in physics IN the universe) in a context where X does not exist, to try and explain the origins of X itself.

It makes no sense.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

Well can we examine that argument? If it is unexaminable then it is unfalsifiable.

 

[darkskies]

To explain the origin of X, you necessarily have to deal with an environment where X does not exist and then "the thing" happens which then results in the origination of X.

Not necessarily. If X was not X before, then it originated later and might not have needed an environment.

 

[firedragon]

Well can we examine that argument? If it is unexaminable then it is unfalsifiable.

Please go ahead. I wish to see how one would approach a falsification.

 

[firedragon]

One problem is that when you follow this regression backwards you eventually come to, "Well who created god" and then the apologist usually blusters and says something like, "Well, god was always there"
ie. Special pleading = FAIL

The problem with this argument is that you have concluded that God, if existing, has to have been created. Forget that others including me are theists. How would you prove or what could you bring to prove that God, if existing, has to have been created?

 

[firedragon]

Sure, the Kalam cosmological argument states;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

1. Can be falsified if something is found to come into existence without a cause. I'm open to correction on this, but I think someone with a detailed knowledge of quantum physics like @Polymath257 could point out uncaused events at the quantum level.

2. Can be falsified i think if the universe had no beginning. Time may have began with the early stages of the universe, thus we cannot say there was a time the universe did not exist.

I'm not sure about point number 2, because it is difficult for me to grasp what it means for time to be a product of the universe.

Thats a great response my friend. You are absolutely right.

 

[darkskies]

then a physicist would say it is false because it seems that in nature not every event needs to have a cause.

Perhaps, but not observing apparent cause is not an indication of no cause at all. Just saying.