4 ms·

> or demonstrably false (because someone makes a testable claim and it's proven that the phenomenon under discussion has a natural cause). Beware that you actu

> or demonstrably false (because someone makes a testable claim and it's proven that the phenomenon under discussion has a natural cause). Beware that you actually test the claims and not necessarily the existence of that 'supernatural' object. People make all kind of claims about the supernatural, often contradictory to each other. Proving one wrong, doesn't make the other ones wrong. You still have to prove each individual claim (statement within a system of beliefs) to be wrong. Saying that an entity S is X and Y, and given that claim X contradicts fact F, doesn't yield that S is not Y (unless X and Y are dependently bound), or that S doesn't in fact exist(ed). One can claim about Aristotle that he had blue eyes, or red beard. If these claims are false, does it mean he didn't exist?

derleth 15y ago
> Proving one wrong, doesn't make the other ones wrong. You still have to prove each individual claim (statement within a system of beliefs) to be wrong. Right. However, as humans are allowed to reason statistically, proving most of the claims of a given religion wrong will make it very unlikely that any of them are all that accurate. The rest of your post I agree with.
slurgfest 14y ago
Suppose that we strip Santa of all his characteristics: we say that Santa's age, weight, beard, gender, personhood, personal history, powers, acts, etc. are all irrelevant. Now what meaning is there in discussing the existence of Santa? None. Because (I submit) what it means for something to exist is completely different for each thing. Discussions about God constantly founder on this point - at the outset, when discussing the mere existence of God, it seems almost inevitable that every single characteristic is removed from the table until there is nothing to say about him. But if his existence seems to be proven, then a massive conjunction of claims about him (indeed, a great number of claims specific to a religion) tends to spring up out of nowhere, as if these did not need to be specifically shown. This shouldn't be surprising, since many specialists in apologetics have admitted openly that their purpose is not to zero in on the truth through reasoning and discussion but to try to use reason as a weapon against itself to clear the way for adherence to some specific religion. "I'm trying to figure it out" isn't a religion, unfortunately.

derleth 15y ago

> Proving one wrong, doesn't make the other ones wrong. You still have to prove each individual claim (statement within a system of beliefs) to be wrong. Right. However, as humans are allowed to reason statistically, proving most of the claims of a given religion wrong will make it very unlikely that any of them are all that accurate. The rest of your post I agree with.

slurgfest 14y ago

Suppose that we strip Santa of all his characteristics: we say that Santa's age, weight, beard, gender, personhood, personal history, powers, acts, etc. are all irrelevant. Now what meaning is there in discussing the existence of Santa? None. Because (I submit) what it means for something to exist is completely different for each thing. Discussions about God constantly founder on this point - at the outset, when discussing the mere existence of God, it seems almost inevitable that every single characteristic is removed from the table until there is nothing to say about him. But if his existence seems to be proven, then a massive conjunction of claims about him (indeed, a great number of claims specific to a religion) tends to spring up out of nowhere, as if these did not need to be specifically shown. This shouldn't be surprising, since many specialists in apologetics have admitted openly that their purpose is not to zero in on the truth through reasoning and discussion but to try to use reason as a weapon against itself to clear the way for adherence to some specific religion. "I'm trying to figure it out" isn't a religion, unfortunately.