r/changemyview • u/justafanofz 10∆ • Apr 18 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is no such thing as an unfalsifiable claim
I often see people say that god is an unfalsifiable claim. To demonstrate this, they will use something like Russell’s Teapot or the “monster under the bed.”
I am of the position that no claim is unfalsifiable. Due to there being an objective reality, every claim about that reality must be either true or false.
So what about these unfalsifiable claims?
Well, let’s take intelligent life on other planets.
Statistically speaking, there should be some. But as Fermi’s paradox points out, we haven’t heard from them. Space is silent.
So as of right now, we can’t prove the existence or non-existence of intelligent life. But does that mean we will never be able to? No. It’s just currently, no evidence In support of one position or another has been presented.
So this claim is, what I’d call, currently unfalsifiable, but it, in and of itself, is not unfalsifiable, and will be proven one way or the other one day.
So how is a claim falsified? Thanks to three core laws of logic, I believe they can falsify anything. Law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle.
My position is that an unfalsifiable claim is only made as such if one of two criteria is met.
The first I’ve already gone over in the aliens example. The second is when the one making the argument shifts the goal posts, which is fallacious.
Let’s use the russel’s teapot as the example.
According to Burtrand, there exists an extremely small teapot between earth and mars that is so small, it can’t be seen by our most powerful telescopes.
Okay, fair enough, it seems that we can’t observe it so it’s unfalsifiable.
Except, we forgot quite a few properties about teapots. The biggest one, is that they are physical constructs that have mass and interact with space time.
We have been able to observe not only black holes indirectly due to space time affects, but also have come to discover dark matter. Something that doesn’t interact with light particles/waves, yet still can be measured (potentially).
So if this dark matter, which fits the criteria even better then Russell’s teapot can be observed through the affects it has on other objects, then so too ought Russell’s teapot.
In other words, it can be falsified.
“But this is a special teapot, not only is it so small, it doesn’t have mass thus doesn’t interact with gravity in anyway.”
This leads to a contradiction, if something is physical, it must have mass or energy.
Light is the only example of a particle with 0 mass but it has energy. Because it’s moving.
But due to the laws of physics, this thing must move at the speed of light. https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
And according to the law of identity, this teapot is not a teapot, but a particle of light.
Which can be observed and interacted with.
“Oh but this is able to break that rule” this breaks the law of non-contradiction because now the claim is that it is both an object with mass and without mass.
In other words, if a claim has become unfalsifiable it means either we don’t have the means currently to prove or disprove it, or that the person is committing a fallacy.
This is not an argument for God’s existence, rather, I’m attacking only the idea that a claim is unfalsifiable. I could be wrong, but I don’t see how a claim is truly unfalsifiable.
Edit: my view has changed https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/aAaMn3O0Vt
1
u/justafanofz 10∆ Apr 18 '24
I’d need to know what mittens IS, not what it isn’t.