Am 21.01.2014 20:38, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/20/2014 5:01 PM, clipka wrote:
>> - We cannot ever, under any circumstances, conclusively test any
>> predictions made by the hypothesis of the existence of the biblical God,
>> disqualifying it as a scientific theory.
>>
>>
>> q.e.d.
>>
> Umm. Why not just replicate the prior tests.. Lets see, it was something
> involving a rug, or seaweed, and them getting wet, while everything else
> didn't, or something like that... Mind, you would need to add controls,
> like, locking the thing in a sealed box, climate controlled box, so that
> normal weather phenomena wouldn't have an effect, come up with, and test
> alternative hypothesis about how it happened, etc., but.. in principle.

Like I said, it all depends on whether the God of the bible can be 
tested for or not, which we can't answer conclusively in the first 
place, even in the framework of the hypothesis that he does exist, 
because that hypothesis predicts that one of the following will happen:

- The rug will get wet, because God answers prayers.

- The rug will not get wet, because God refuses to be put to the test.

If the rug does /not/ get wet, the answer is useless because it doesn't 
disprove God.

If however the rug /does/ get wet, that may be taken as a piece of 
evidence supportive of the hypothesis - or to the contrary be taken as a 
piece of evidence contradicting the hypothesis, depending on whether 
your version of the hypothesis claims that God refuses to be put to the 
test or not.

You /can/ take such a result as a piece of evidence that if the hypothis 
is true, then God does indeed allow to put him to the test, thus 
/shaping/ the theory; but if you use the test for such a purpose, then 
it no longer qualifies as a testable prediction.


I must correct myself however: Such tests would indeed make it possible 
to answer the question of whether the God of the bible, as postulated by 
the hypothesis of his existence, allows to be put to the test or not.

But although I haven't done any such experiments recently, I'm so bold 
as to make a bet that they would come out negative in a vast majority of 
cases, showing that any viable hypothesis postulating the existence of 
the biblical God must also postulate his general refusal to be put to 
the test.

If we come to that conclusion, we must also conclude that the hypothesis 
of the existence of the biblical God is systematically and fundamentally 
untestable, disqualifying it as a formal scientific theory once and for all.


Did I already say "q.e.d."? ;-)

Post a reply to this message