"God transcends space." Not falsifiable? So what?

I made the comment in quotes above and was chided because it's not falsifiable. But I submit that it's inherently true. Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
I made the comment in quotes above and was chided because it's not falsifiable. But I submit that it's inherently true. Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.
If you have evidence that a transcendent realm exists, whether some god is "there" or not, present it. If you can't present it, no one has any reason to think it exists.
 
If you have evidence that a transcendent realm exists, whether some god is "there" or not, present it. If you can't present it, no one has any reason to think it exists.

If you have some rationale to refute the inherent truth of MY rationale, present it.
 
I made the comment in quotes above and was chided because it's not falsifiable. But I submit that it's inherently true. Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.
If something cannot be falsified then it is not empirical. That's fine. People who do not need empirical evidence can believe anything they want of course. However, people who need empirical evidence to believe will reject anything that is not verifiable.

See Russel's Teapot for more :)
 
If something cannot be falsified then it is not empirical. That's fine. People who do not need empirical evidence can believe anything they want of course. However, people who need empirical evidence to believe will reject anything that is not verifiable.

Correct. The narrow minded can remain narrow minded.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
If you have some rationale to refute the inherent truth of MY rationale, present it.
1. What is "inherent truth?" In particular, is it different from "truth?"

2. I didn't see any rationale. Are you talking about the OP in this thread? Where is a rationale in the OP? The OP assumes that we're conceiving of a God, which means nothing if God doesn't exist, something the OP hadn't established at that point; and I saw a conditional ("If space existed . . . ."). None of that adds up to a rationale.
 
Correct. The narrow minded can remain narrow minded.
You think following the scientific method is narrow minded but believing whatever you choose to be real as truth is narrow minded? If I believe in Zeus because I had a vision does that make me more open minded? No?

Than I am happily narrow minded :)
 
Where is a rationale in the OP?

Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
[QUOTE="Gus Bovona, post: 29097]

Where is a rationale in the OP?

Stiggy: "Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him."

You define an aspect of God in the first sentence (which is fine, terms need to be defined), and the second sentence would be better stated as, "God has to be outside of space in order to create space." That's logical enough, but It does not establish that a transcendent realm, outside of space, actually exists. It only says that **if** some entity created it, that entity would have to be outside of space. But you haven't demonstrated that entity exists and that entity created space.

So your rationale does not do enough to demonstrate what you want it to demonstrate.
 
You define an aspect of God in the first sentence (which is fine, terms need to be defined), and the second sentence would be better stated as, "God has to be outside of space in order to create space." That's logical enough, but It does not establish that a transcendent realm, outside of space, actually exists.
.
Nonsense. Read the OP again.

Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.

Tell me what you object to, specifically. Are you claiming we should CONCEIVE of God as having come into existence WITHIN space?
 

Gus Bovona

Member
\


.
Nonsense. Read the OP again.

Any way we conceive of God, at a minimum, we should think of Him as the Creator of space (even and especially if we are big bang theorists). If space existed prior to God's advent on the scene (space?), then he himself must have been created and placed within by an Entity superior to him, thus leaving him out as a Candidate for Him.

Tell me what you object to, specifically.
I already have. Here it is again:

[Your first sentence] is logical enough, but It does not establish that a transcendent realm, outside of space, actually exists. It only says that **if** some entity created it, that entity would have to be outside of space. But you haven't demonstrated that entity exists and that entity created space.
Are you claiming we should CONCEIVE of God as having come into existence WITHIN space?
Definitions - how we define/conceive God - don't prove anything.
 
Top