God and Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

Author: PressF4Respect ,

Posts

Total: 7
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
Newton's Flaming Laser Sword (yes this is a real thing) is a philosophical razor coined by Australian mathematician Mike Alder in 2004, which states that:
what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.
Since God exists outside of the observable universe, there would be no way to observe God. There would also be no experiment we could do to prove or falsify God's existence, since God exists independently of the universe. Given this, according to NFLS, God's existence is not worth debating. Also, since there is no experiment to prove or disprove God, the notion of his existence is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

What are your guys' thoughts on this?

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Flaming lazer?

Jeez science is weird
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,363
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Never heard of this but I like it.

I am not sure about applying it broadly to religion in general though due to the fact that there are so many religious people that claim their beliefs are backed by science.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,910
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @PressF4Respect
God or not makes for fun debating.

So it's clearly worth it.

Adler's just a killjoy.
sylweb
sylweb's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 8
0
0
1
sylweb's avatar
sylweb
0
0
1
--> @PressF4Respect
Ironically, Newton did hold to theistic views; his beliefs were not totally orthodox but he was far from an atheist.

Anyhow, this should not discredit the proposal itself, since it could be true regardless of what Newton believed.

There are many things that cannot be settled by experiment, but are still worthwhile to debate. For instance, morality cannot be settled by physical experiment. You could argue that morality can be elucidated via thought experiments, but there's still no experiment that would allow you to prove the moral validity of thought experiments, so morality as a whole has no experimental basis.

Furthermore, while the idea of a generic god is not falsifiable, the idea of a specific religion's God is. If a certain religion is true, then certain truth claims it makes would also be true. In this situation, there would be holy books that would have to be internally consistent and claims about miracles, about creation, about morality that could be discussed.

56 days later

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,387
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @PressF4Respect
wouldnt this prove agnosticism thogh
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @PressF4Respect
It might be a waste of time to debate uncertain things, I can go with that.

But I say it is a waste of time to debate the existence of God because God is the only certainty.


The Truth certainly exists, there by necessity is an ultimate reality.


Why is this even debated?


Because we live in a nihilistic age, and truth itself is under attack by those who are working to enslave us.