Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2012 23:07 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Two weeks ago, my grandmother passed away - the last grandparent I had left. As those of you with experience in dealing with deceased family members know, the funeral is only the start; the next part is taking care of the deceased's affairs, which includes going through all their belongings to determine what to do with them. I took care of my grandmother's extensive book collection, and while doing so, I hit something that fascinated me to no end: a six-volume Christian Encyclopaedia from 1956. In it, I found something I just had to share with OSNews.
Thread beginning with comment 521506
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
frajo
Member since:
2007-06-29

Not really. The burden of proof lies with those that claim that god exists. Non believers don't really have to prove anything since, by default, god doesn't exist, just like the flying spaghetti monster.

Communicable knowledge has been found to come in two flavours: One flavour is knowledge that is not falsifiable and the other one is falsifiable. The latter one is called science.

The statement "god exists" is not falsifiable.
The statement "god doesn't exist" is not falsifiable.

We call people who are aware of these facts "agnostics". It's a matter of knowing the limits of one's knowledge.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

So, are you "agnostic" on the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?

Are you "agnostic" on the invisible pink unicorn?

Are you "agnostic" on the presence or absence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars, too small to be seen by the most powerful telescope?

Are you "agnostic" on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?

Do you really believe those are open questions, and if you encountered somebody who would genuinely believe any of those thing, you would just say "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".

Reply Parent Score: 2

frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

So, are you "agnostic" on the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
...

Yes, of course. I cannot prove or disprove its existence. Moreover, I don't care as it has no significance for me.
However, I don't believe in its physical existence. That's my belief and I'm entitled to it.
Otoh, I believe in its psychical existence. It's certainly somewhere in your head.

Do you really believe those are open questions, and if you encountered somebody who would genuinely believe any of those thing, you would just say "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".

Of course. Everybody is entitled to create unfalsifiable knowledge in his head.
As long as he's not trying to impose his fiction on me it's ok.

Reply Parent Score: 1

james_parker Member since:
2005-06-29


The statement "god exists" is not falsifiable.
The statement "god doesn't exist" is not falsifiable.


These statements strike me as too strong; rather I would suggest, "I do not know the statement 'god exists' to be falsifiable", and "I do not know the statement 'god doesn't exist' to be falsifiable".

Reply Parent Score: 2

frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

"
The statement "god exists" is not falsifiable.
The statement "god doesn't exist" is not falsifiable.


These statements strike me as too strong; rather I would suggest, "I do not know the statement 'god exists' to be falsifiable", and "I do not know the statement 'god doesn't exist' to be falsifiable".
"

But the statement
A: "God exists"
is not of the same quality as the statement
A': "The statement 'God exists' is not falsifiable".

This is so because A' is certainly falsifiable.
You just have to prove that A is falsifiable in order to falsify A'.

The same holds true for the statements
B: "God doesn't exist"
and
B': "The statement 'God doesn't exist' is not falsifiable".
B' is certainly falsifiable as it suffices to show that B is falsifiable.

Therefore, my statements (A' and B') are of scientific nature (as they are falsifiable)
while the statements A and B have to be regarded unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific, until the day someone shows their falsifiability.

Reply Parent Score: 1