Post 51 of "God did it," originally posted in Reasonable Faith.



Oh my! God is nothing but a philosophical proposition. This is getting worse by the second.

If you read 1 Tim. 6:20, you will see the NT writer calls philosophy "science falsely so called." If you match the condemned authors mentioned in the NT (false teachers, etc.) with the extant philosophers and literature of the time, you will see that it was philosophy that was condemned by the Timothy writer. Anyone familiar with the history of Western thought of the past thousand years (since about 1100) knows that science as it is known today grew out of philosophy and theology.

God is a philosophical proposition that can explain the scientific realm of existence. That is just plain wrong. I don't know about evangelical schools, but in mainstream academia no one but philosophers bothers discussing such vague and exotic topics such as existence. If you wish to gain respect across disciplines, you will not:

1. waste any more time and energy trying to convince atheists that the shifting theories of philosophical opinion are more credible than the tangible results of science, or
2. blow any more hot air about worshiping a philosophical proposition.

This is truly "science falsely so called."



[He goes on to claim that "God did cause the whole existence of the universe...to come into being..." I respond:]

You need to do so much explaining to define the difference between "cause [the universe] to come into being" and "make [the big bang] happen" that...well...I don't know what. It's basically gibberish. There is no difference. The difference is phonetic more than anything else; it sounds different to the ears--different sound waves are activated. Not to mention that your theology apparently rises or falls on these sound waves. One more good reason not to believe the stuff.



I'm reading it. I find:

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

When I use the simplest tool to address the origins of the universe, I use science because it is tangible and requires no abstract conceptualizing about invisible and imperceptible entities and their possible feelings, wishes, and desires. Religion automatically appeals to these imperceptible entities and is unable to provide any evidence for the existence of these entities whatsoever, despite a special thread in which to do so. In addition, religious people (at least Christians) produce no excuse as to why they should not provide a reason for this behaviour.



Whatever "God" supposedly is, he has been proven not to exist. More specifically, he has been proven totally incompetent or ineffectual in certain claims such as the ability to answer prayer and/or to be present and helpful during time of calamity and need. A "God" that is present and helpful in the exact amount of events as would be expected if there were no God (as would happen randomly) is indiscernible from "no-God" and need be taken just as seriously. In other words, he need not be heeded or taken seriously at all because he does not exist.

I am looking for a God of far more substance than some philosophical proposition because that is what the Bible promises. The Bible promises a God that will provide food in time of drought, protect his people from their enemies, heal his children from deadly disease, and keep their clothing from wearing out. The God of the Bible provides strength during time of trial, cheers during time of discouragement, leads from defeat to victory. Most of all, the God of the Bible answers prayer and does not forsake his own. On top of all that, he promises to accept all who seek him sincerely and in faith.

In reality, the God of the Bible is the God of the broken promise. I say that of a God who supposedly cannot lie. So yes, he definitely is falsifiable if you wish to reduce the so-called creator of the universe to a proposition.