The God Hypothesis…
I’ve always had a bit of a problem with outright Atheists — especially because I’m often called one by those that should know me better. Atheism is an assertion that there is no god. That kind of assertion rubs me the wrong way — short of an appearance from God herself it’s non-falsifiable…
In pedantic logician-speak, argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fun little logical fallacy described as argument from ignorance. Wikipedia defines it as: a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true. As an agnostic, it’s easy for me to sit on the fence and bitch that both sides of the conventional god debate involve such fallacies. That’s why it was so interesting to read “Brainman” Daniel Tammet’s list of five falsifiable criterion to end his belief in god…
Numbers two and four and particularly interesting. If only there were more rigorous scientific notions in theology to move this tail chasing debate forward…
As one astute commenter pointed out, this list is about falsifying a belief in God. Tammet identifies himself as a Christian — what kind of evidence would falsify his belief in Jesus as a deity? The bar should be set a bit lower for evidence, right?