Because a god can be argued to the point that they're a philosophical construct, and thus an untestable hypothesis.
But by admitting that a god is a philosophical construct, one simultaneously admits that it is not real. The untestable is the unknowable. The unknowable is the non-interactable.
A philosophical god is no god: it's nothing. It's calling something other than a "god" god.
Someone who believes in a philosophical god is an atheist with a philosophical construct.
The philosophical construct could be "an entity that humans cannot possibly understand."
But something greater than humans could, or else it's unknowable. To believe in the truly unknowable is a stupid and pointless belief, as it has no possible relevance. To make it human-centric pulls it out of the realm of philosophy and into the practical realm where, again, it's a stupid and pointless belief.
2. Even then, we're humans dealing with human limitations. If something greater than us could comprehend a god, fine. We still don't comprehend it, and we're talking about a human-centric philosophy.
And let's say one of those things "greater" than a human explained a god to us in terms we could understand. You know what? That's basically a god.
Is it stupid and pointless? Sure. I agree completely. I have a completely practical take on things. And while I think that living your life as though there is some giant sky man is really stupid, it's also been a great organizing force throughout history. Again, I go back to the community around a church. Sure, secular people could do that, but by and large we don't.
To make it human-centric pulls it out of the realm of philosophy
How so? If it's a philosophy developed by humans, then it's by definition human-centric philosophy.
$25 ticket for trying to walk an open bottle of rum 3 blocks. Fuck non-driving open container laws, they are the most stupid. Also fuck SUNY Albany morons for making the police more active.
Is it stupid and pointless? Sure. I agree completely. I have a completely practical take on things. And while I think that living your life as though there is some giant sky man is really stupid, it's also been a great organizing force throughout history. Again, I go back to the community around a church. Sure, secular people could do that, but by and large we don't.
Then again, my personal feeling if there is truly a giant sky man out there and he is benevolent (as many religions that believe in one claim), then he cares less about whether or not you prostrate yourself to him on a regular basis and more that you live a decently good life (no killing, no stealing, etc.). In other words, if you're a good person, no matter what you believe, said benevolent giant sky man won't punish you just for not believing in him.
And to be honest, with the exception of religion-specific morals (keeping the holy days holy, not believing in any other deities except for the one true deity, etc.), most of the general morals many religions promote (no stealing, no killing, and so on) are pretty much universally considered to be good no matter your religion or lack thereof.
And let's say one of those things "greater" than a human explained a god to us in terms we could understand. You know what? That's basically a god.
Like unto a god, sure, but not something I'd call a god.
2. Even then, we're humans dealing with human limitations. If something greater than us could comprehend a god, fine. We still don't comprehend it, and we're talking about a human-centric philosophy.
We don't have to comprehend it. For example, we could build an AI that can comprehend it, and can also comprehend what the human concept of a god is. Then it can simply give us a yes/no answer to whether or not a god exists. Hence it remains testable, at least in principle.
If you retreat to that which is entirely unknowable, then you're really just arguing about definitions; as Rym said,
A philosophical god is no god: it's nothing. It's calling something other than a "god" god.
If you retreat to that which is entirely unknowable, then you're really just arguing about definitions
Sure, but that's the whole point.
Saying "there is no God" or "there is definitely a God" is untestable because of a lack of specificity. Define "god." The entire process of discussing this is defining what we can call "god." The whole of communication involves figuring out what someone else is saying.
So yeah, I'm arguing definitions, because that's the first thing you need to figure out.
but not something I'd call a god.
And if someone else does call it a god? Who's right?
The problem is that you're using different definitions. It's only meaningful if you both agree as to the criteria for godhood. And if you don't, then you figure out what criteria are mutually agreeable.
Hence it remains testable, at least in principle.
That's just arguing high-minded philosophy with more high-minded philosophy. We could do lots of things, but we don't.
The scientific process relies on implementation, not just hypotheses and conjectures. Hence, for any "test" to be useful, it has to be one that you can actually apply.
Capital-G God is a self-aware agent that created the universe and actively desires the worship of humans, as well as (probably) their well-being.
And exists in a world beyond our own. Don't forget that one.
Your definition also doesn't say anything about the physical conformation of the agent, which directly affects our ability to test for its existence. What about a distributed agent connected by quantum tunnels?
Capital-G God actively influences our world, and hence is testable.
Yes, but the way in which he influences it dictates the types of tests which may be applied, and thus the scope of conclusion you can draw.
The mere concept of the existence of such an entity has had a profound effect on the world, but not in a "5 grams" way. It's largely in the realms of sociology and anthropology, which are wonderfully touchy-feely fields with tons of uncontrolled variables.
So what? Capital-G God actively influences our world, and hence is testable.
Depends on how he influences the world. If he influences the world using methods consistent with the laws of nature (as we understand them) by generating events that are indistinguishable from random events (i.e. by causing a beneficial mutation in an organism as part of his life creation process, thereby kickstarting the natural selection of organisms with that particular trait), how can we prove that this was caused by Capital-G God vs. just the laws of nature working as expected?
Now if you want to test the influences caused by Capital-G God causing miracles, then there may be something here. The only issue is what if the miracles are actually consistent with laws of nature we haven't learned yet (along the lines of Asimov's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" statement)? I know a few religious people who claim that miracles aren't actually miraculous, but just examples of exercising laws of nature that are presently unknown to humankind.
Capital-G God actively influences our world, and hence is testable.
Yes, but the way in which he influences it dictates the types of tests which may be applied, and thus the scope of conclusion you can draw.
No, because God has specific desires. He wants people to worship him, for a start. He also desires the well-being (though perhaps this is focused on well-being in an afterlife) of at the very least a specific group of people, if not humans in general - though quite specifically humans rather than any other form of life.
Depends on how he influences the world. If he influences the world using methods consistent with the laws of nature (as we understand them) by generating events that are indistinguishable from random events
The only events indistinguishable from random events are random events.
Now if you want to test the influences caused by Capital-G God causing miracles, then there may be something here. The only issue is what if the miracles are actually consistent with laws of nature we haven't learned yet (along the lines of Asimov's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" statement)? I know a few religious people who claim that miracles aren't actually miraculous, but just examples of exercising laws of nature that are presently unknown to humankind.
This is a retreat to the possible. I'll gladly concede that it's possible that God exists, but who cares about a mere possibility?
He also desires the well-being (though perhaps this is focused on well-being in an afterlife) of at the very least a specific group of people, if not humans in general - though quite specifically humans rather than any other form of life.
And many people have well-being as a result of God's actions.
What tests can you really develop around those two points? God wants people to worship him, and they do. God wants people to be happy, and lots of people are.
Though I'll point out that saying "God has specific desires" omits another important facet of most Christian belief: that God cannot be understood. His motives are strange and alien to us, and it is arrogant and presumptuous for any to claim to know what God really wants.
Now, of course, we can tear apart individual implementations of those principles. Lots of people claim to "know" what God wants or thinks - Westboro, for example - and those people are contradicting themselves. That's easy.
Nah, they care about it when it's convenient to do so. Like when they need to criticize some other way of life to defend their own.
This thread has really shown me how little I actually care about the existence of a god. Apathetic agnostic atheist? I don't know, I don't care, so fuck you, let me buy beer on Sunday.
Nah, they care about it when it's convenient to do so. Like when they need to criticize some other way of life to defend their own.
They might use it as an excuse when they say "you can't prove me wrong", but I doubt most of them are genuinely satisfied with that. It's just a facade.
The only events indistinguishable from random events are random events.
If you get really pedantic, then yeah, that's true. However, we have limitations in our ability to observe and measure the world. It's entirely possible that a non-random event cannot be distinguished from a random event because our ability to observe/measure the event is not precise enough to make the determination.
Comments
A philosophical god is no god: it's nothing. It's calling something other than a "god" god.
Someone who believes in a philosophical god is an atheist with a philosophical construct.
Basically, the agnostic theist simply denies gnosticism. Irrational? You bet. Testable? Fuck no.
2. Even then, we're humans dealing with human limitations. If something greater than us could comprehend a god, fine. We still don't comprehend it, and we're talking about a human-centric philosophy.
And let's say one of those things "greater" than a human explained a god to us in terms we could understand. You know what? That's basically a god.
Is it stupid and pointless? Sure. I agree completely. I have a completely practical take on things. And while I think that living your life as though there is some giant sky man is really stupid, it's also been a great organizing force throughout history. Again, I go back to the community around a church. Sure, secular people could do that, but by and large we don't. How so? If it's a philosophy developed by humans, then it's by definition human-centric philosophy.
And to be honest, with the exception of religion-specific morals (keeping the holy days holy, not believing in any other deities except for the one true deity, etc.), most of the general morals many religions promote (no stealing, no killing, and so on) are pretty much universally considered to be good no matter your religion or lack thereof.
If you retreat to that which is entirely unknowable, then you're really just arguing about definitions; as Rym said,
Saying "there is no God" or "there is definitely a God" is untestable because of a lack of specificity. Define "god." The entire process of discussing this is defining what we can call "god." The whole of communication involves figuring out what someone else is saying.
So yeah, I'm arguing definitions, because that's the first thing you need to figure out. And if someone else does call it a god? Who's right?
The problem is that you're using different definitions. It's only meaningful if you both agree as to the criteria for godhood. And if you don't, then you figure out what criteria are mutually agreeable. That's just arguing high-minded philosophy with more high-minded philosophy. We could do lots of things, but we don't.
The scientific process relies on implementation, not just hypotheses and conjectures. Hence, for any "test" to be useful, it has to be one that you can actually apply.
Your definition also doesn't say anything about the physical conformation of the agent, which directly affects our ability to test for its existence. What about a distributed agent connected by quantum tunnels?
The mere concept of the existence of such an entity has had a profound effect on the world, but not in a "5 grams" way. It's largely in the realms of sociology and anthropology, which are wonderfully touchy-feely fields with tons of uncontrolled variables.
Now if you want to test the influences caused by Capital-G God causing miracles, then there may be something here. The only issue is what if the miracles are actually consistent with laws of nature we haven't learned yet (along the lines of Asimov's "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" statement)? I know a few religious people who claim that miracles aren't actually miraculous, but just examples of exercising laws of nature that are presently unknown to humankind.
What tests can you really develop around those two points? God wants people to worship him, and they do. God wants people to be happy, and lots of people are.
Though I'll point out that saying "God has specific desires" omits another important facet of most Christian belief: that God cannot be understood. His motives are strange and alien to us, and it is arrogant and presumptuous for any to claim to know what God really wants.
Now, of course, we can tear apart individual implementations of those principles. Lots of people claim to "know" what God wants or thinks - Westboro, for example - and those people are contradicting themselves. That's easy.
This thread has really shown me how little I actually care about the existence of a god. Apathetic agnostic atheist? I don't know, I don't care, so fuck you, let me buy beer on Sunday.
I can think of few better ways to produce an atheist than a Catholic school education.