A Further Word On William Lane Craig’s ‘Falsifiable Deity’

One of the arrows in the quiver of apologists is to claim that, just like empirical rationalism, their claims are not just evidence backed, they’re also subject to falsification and objective hypothesis-testing. In a way, they’re actually correct.  Which is to say, they have a knack at putting together valid deductive proofs.   Soundness, however, is another matter; falsifiable validity is nice, ‘n all, but a valid syllogism with unknown (or unknowable) soundness is epistemic null territory.

most of philosophy

Continue reading

If The God Particle Can Be Tested For, Why Can’t God?

Contention: Uncertainty is King.

Our probabilistic reality makes the Null Hypothesis mandatory. Nor is pure reason the answer; logic is subject to Godel’s Incompleteness, and axioms can be falsified by empirical investigation. Many of our linguistic and logical concepts are meaningless. (e.g. “nothing”, “identity”, “non-contradiction”, “locality”, “dead people”, etc…) Faced with the limits on certainty, the burden of proof is upon any claimant. The Null Hypothesis has to be falsified in order to accept any claim as provisionally true, and the null hypothesis is always the negation of the claim. And even when the dominant view is falsified, that does not mean that you can use the Fallacy of Bifurcation to substitute an unproven claim. While this does not prove that unproven claims are false, the assumption must be that they are.
Continue reading