God and Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Total: 11
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: 10,555
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: 5,294
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: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@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: 10,555
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.





1372 days later

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Interesting,
What constitutes an experiment?

I ask this,
As I wonder on how to prove theories one has about history, or other people's thoughts.

(I believe the Moon landing was real)
I suppose one could test fly a rocket to the Moon, to prove it is possible,
Could point out historical documentation, various reasons of 'why it would not be faked,
But that it is 'possible to fly to the Moon, does not mean it was 'done in history,
That there are documents and reasons, does not mean it was 'done.

People's thoughts,
Though one can go through their mental library of what they know of a persons past actions, human psychology,
'Still, a person's thoughts are only theorized.

Though perhaps this is unfair of me, Hm, David Hume and Causation,
Though, I believe in science and testing theories, 'generally speaking.

"1. Analysing stars
In his 1842 book The Positive Philosophy, the French philosopher Auguste Comte wrote of the stars: “We can never learn their internal constitution, nor, in regard to some of them, how heat is absorbed by their atmosphere.” In a similar vein, he said of the planets: “We can never know anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface.”
Comte’s argument was that the stars and planets are so far away as to be beyond the limits of everything but our sense of sight and geometry. He reasoned that, while we could work out their distance, their motion and their mass, nothing more could realistically be discerned. There was certainly no way to chemically analyse them.
Ironically, the discovery that would prove Comte wrong had already been made. In the early 19th century, William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph von Fraunhofer independently discovered that the spectrum of the Sun contained a great many dark lines.
Advertisement"

Once we think something 'can't be tested,
Easy for a blind spot to appear, not that it did in this case, but my point is if people stop questioning, stop challenging, stop debating, stop testing, stop looking,
How would they find what 'could be tested?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though I expect nothing after death,
I suppose death might be a final experience of sorts.
“To die will be an awfully big adventure.”
― J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

Still, expecting nothing, I hope that doesn't come for some time,
Though I wonder what people might theorize, should they find themselves in some new existence after death.
. . .Hm, rambling.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

But, there 'are actions in which we might not have 'time to experiment,
Say jumping off a waterfall into the waters below,
And which failure might mean death.

Debate would be worthwhile, if a person is able to bring up certain connected notions, such as water tension, water depth, rocks, how the waterfall might push you down if you go under the water falling.
Debate proves useful in maximizing the chances to live, though 'what the water is like below is not 'known, not testable yet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

If some other losing country had first invented the Nuclear Bomb,
And thought there was a chance it might destroy life on Earth.
Had not time to 'experiment,
Debate might be had on the worthwhileness of the risk of using it,
Various weighings of morality and values.

"We now know enough about fusion to know that nuclear bombs cannot ignite the atmosphere. But in his book The Precipiceexistential risk researcher Toby Ord argues that the team at the time could not possibly have been wholly confident in their conclusions."
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,983
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@PressF4Respect
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?
What experiment can validate Newton's Flaming Laser Sword?  If there is no experiment we could do to prove or falsify Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, so it is self-denying.  Also, since there is no experiment to prove or disprove Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
True enough.

Though I would suggest that "Newtons Flaming Laser Sword" is a tad over the top.

Nonetheless debating is as debating does, irrespective of the subject matter. 

So variously popular GODDO's have acquired variously interpreted back stories and ongoing social applications.

An actual GOTYPETHING that might or might not exist outside of the Universe is largely irrelevant to the associated debate.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,254
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PressF4Respect
God's existence is not worth debating.

I agree. 

 But the scriptures are worth debating imo.

Unfortunately, the Christian theist here are far too reluctant to even discuss them never mind debate or defend them.