In fact, the “cost benefit analysis” has been used as justification, at least with respect to faith in God, and has a long and studied history beginning with Pascal in the 1600’s. It is traditionally referred to as Pascal’s Wager and can be summarized as
(quoted from the Wiki article)
Sure. We experience them, and have good reason to posit the existence of such states in others. (The mental states of others, as unobservables, are theoretical entities like subatomic particles. But they are entities for which we have a lot of evidence.)
What kind of statement is it? An expression of emotion? Surely the statement “God exists” must be a factual statement; you are claiming the existence of a supernatural being who (presumably) was involved in the creation of the universe and the ongoing stewardship of humanity.
Of course, as a bad atheist-person, I think an admission that a statement is non-falsifiable is a reason to quit asserting it, not to keep asserting it under another guise.
Sure, but they don’t exist in the absence of life as we know it - humans and animals can certainly be curious and humans (and arguably some animals) can experience love (or something similar), but the typical biblical account posits a God that existed before humans or animals.
I guess one could throw in some vague homily like “God is love” (though how God, ostensibly omniscient, could experience curiosity escapes me), but that still leaves God in the realm of unfalsifiable.
If someone told you you had to believe that two plus two equalled five or they would kill you, would you be able to do it?
“There are FOUR lights!” 
I don’t get it.
Recommended viewing to smooth your SDMB experience:
[ul][li]Every episode of the various Star Trek shows, and every film based thereon[/li][li]Every episode of The Simpsons[/li][li]Every episode of Futurama[/li][li]Aliens[/ul][/li]
That should cover about 90% of pop-culture references. There are some one-shot bits from Princess Bride and such, but you can ignore those.
Except in my Congressional District. 
Saying “‘God exists’* is a non-falsifiable statement” is not an admission, it’s a simply factual statement. There’s no stigma to making a non-falsifiable statement. Surely atheists make non-falsifiable statements, too.
“God exists” can be any number of non-falsifiable statements: opinion, emotional, theological, philosophical, etc.
*Ok, to evaluate this statement we need to define “God”. Yes, for some values of “God” it is a falsifiable statement. For example, “God wears a red suit and lives at the North Pole”. Clearly, we can go check. But, there are definitions that do not lend themselves to evidence: “God is an Invisible Pink Unicorn that is impossible to detect in any way”. How do you propose to prove that true or false?
So, which value for God is more usual, a falsifiable one or a non? Among Christians I know, it is the non. Other religionists can speak for their own God.
I didn’t get the Four Lights reference, either.
I’ve noted in previous threads that morality has a similar problem. Many theists claim that morality comes from God. But, the Bible and other supposed transmissions from God include contradictory moral messages and ones that are unacceptable in the modern day (such as slaughtering your enemy.) The theist must use “atheistic” principles to evaluate the subset of religious morality to choose. We have theist Dopers rejecting very explicit Biblical moral injunctions as being contradictory to their view of God, which shows that they are more moral than the Bible (in my opinion.) They do this using a meta-ethics.
You are misunderstanding how math works. The game is to see what can be proven from a given set of axioms. As non-Euclidean geometry shows, you can get consistent mathematical systems from a totally different set of axioms. You are confusing the consistency of the system to its applicability to the “real world.” In fact, in certain contexts, non-Euclidean geometry might be a better match.
In science, the base is the set of hypotheses and theories created from evidence and observations. These are always provisional. Thus, no faith is involved, since the ideal scientist is always open to throwing out a hypothesis if contradictory evidence arrives. Given that Newtonian physics, which had a level of belief as least equal to that in the Trinity, got tossed quickly when evidence for relativity was found, I don’t think science has faith in any real way.
Most religions differ from science in that the bedrock of faith resists overwhelming evidence against, as can be seen in the case of Biblical literalists. Even most non-literalists believe in spite of evidence against, such as the long lag time before anyone wrote about the resurrection, the lack of interest in Christianity by those who would have had direct evidence for it, and the failure of very clear prophecies.
I say most because the Dalai Lama said that if science was found to contradict Buddhism, Buddhism must change. There’s a mensch.
Interventionist dieties are falsifiable in direct proportion to the degree that they (supposedly) effect or have effected the real world. From where I stand the Christain God looks pretty darned falsifiable, unless you turn so many parts of the bible into metaphor that you’ve rewritten christianity into "believe whatever vague stuff makes you feel good"ianity.
(And I didn’t get the Four Lights reference either, and it seems rather harsh to tell somebody RTFM when the manual is a thousand or more hours of rather-expensive-to-acquire TV.)
Yes, I agree (well, except for the part about me misunderstanding). I’m not talking about how geometry does or does not describe the world. (I’m a physicist, I know the universe is not Euclidean.) I’ve been talking about geometry as a logical construct. In particular, the fact that one cannot prove the axioms or the logic being used to construct it. That’s the boot strap problem that mathematics, as well as science and faith have to deal with.
Again, I agree. I know that science (and mathematics) are not based on faith. That’s what I was saying back when I said:
back at the beginning of the thread. My comparison between them is looking at the boot-strapping they all must do. Science starts with objective observations and builds models to explain and predict them. It can’t say anything meaningful beyond that. Just as mathematics builds on axioms and logic; it can’t prove those. And faith has to start from something as well: typically a subjective, personal experience. They all start from something that they can’t address.
::shrug:: That’s why we say religion is based on faith and is not a science.
Yes, I agree, to the extent that the effects are objective.
I disagree, but that’s another debate.
I apologize for saying you didn’t understand. I’ve seen the “scientists have as much faith as theists” over and over again. Some scientists, being human, exhibit all the characteristics of true believers, but not science as a field.
The big difference between geometry and religion is that the fact that axioms are just that should always be in the back of your mind. The axiom of religion (the existence of God) is considered to be a fact, not a provisional axiom. One of the ways I weaned myself from religion was considering what the world would be like if a god existed, and comparing that to the real world. Though theologians have tried to derive the characteristics of God from first principles, in reality most people twiddle with the axioms as contradictory evidence becomes difficult to ignore. How would geometry look if the discovery of the curvature of space made mathematicians change the axiom to read that parallel lines don’t meet except on alternate Thursdays?
The thing that set me off is your using “belief” for religion and science. Do you believe in the existence of the electron, or are you convinced based on the evidence? I’d say the latter. That’s why I never say I “believe” in evolution - the data is such that I don’t have to. (While acknowledging that my confidence in evolution is provisional.) I believe that there are ETs somewhere in the universe, but I’d hardly bet my savings on it.
Even if you prefer to use the word belief to describe science, if religious belief were on the par with scientific belief there would be a lot of religions without adherents.
I think this is why the definition of God is so fuzzy. Over here we have the definition of God as that of the inerrant Bible, and over there there is the definition of the God who loves us and sent Jesus, and over in the other corner there is the God who is more or less the Universe. Different Dopers even have different definitions, and I’m sure you’ve seen the screams of outrage when the errant Bible group feels they’ve been identified with the inerrant group. You falsify one variety and another pops up.
But, at least no one in this thread has claimed that God isn’t demonstrable, so we’re ahead of where we usually are.
My belief is that the universe as if God existed and the universe as if God didn’t are indistinguishable. If there were a way to tell them apart, belief in God would not be faith, but be science.
I would say I believe electrons exist, because the evidence convinces me of that. I use belief in the generic “something I think is true”. I realize belief can be used in a more specific sense, but I don’t have a good substitute word for the general sense.
But there is a stigma to making unfalsifiable statements. “Unfalsifiable” is a term with pejorative connotation. And I’m sure atheists make unfalsifiable assertions, but I personally try not to. If I make a statement, and it is pointed out to me that said statement is unfalsifiable, I find this troublesome. I either quit saying it or try to resolve the conflict (or experience uncomfortable, but conscious, cognitive dissonance which I periodically revisit and try to resolve.)
And again the point about faith. If, as you say in a later post, “My belief is that the universe as if God existed and the universe as if God didn’t are indistinguishable,” then on what basis do you believe in God rather than Thor or Krishna? I’m not trying to be a dick; I am genuinely curious as to what basis a person with your views commits to a particular religion.
Is this a statement made on principle (that God-with and God-without must be indistinguishabe due to the definition of faith or something), or have you actually found or constructed a belief system that completely reconciles God’s powers and desires with the events of the world as we know it? At the least this means a solution to the Problem of Evil, among many other details.
Although I think JThunder has in the past said that his faith is voluntary (forgive me please if I’m confusing you with someone else), for myself and for many folks I’ve talked to, there’s nothing voluntary about belief. The things I believe, I cannot believe otherwise. I cannot choose to believe that Jesus is the divine son of God (in the past I have sincerely tried to do this at moments of great emotional turmoil; it failed). I cannot choose to believe that Britney Spears is actually a man. I cannot choose to believe that John McCain would make a good president.
Beliefs for many folks are conclusions that they reach after evaluating the evidence that they perceive. As such, it’s not voluntary. That evidence may include emotions, hunches, intuitions, fears, hopes. None of these are voluntary. Reaching faith may, or may not, involve rational, critical evaluation of the evidence, according to the personality of the faithful. My best understanding, however, is that for many, if not most, folks, it’s not a voluntary process.
Daniel