• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Different state past

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Thanks for admitting it. So if you were a bible believer would you not want something that could never be wrong?

Oh, poor misguided Dad. You don't understand what falsifiable means, do you?

It doesn't mean that it can be wrong. Gravity could be wrong, after all. All we need is a single instance where someone drops a hammer and it doesn't fall. That would prove gravity wrong, because the theory and laws of gravity have no way to account for this.

If something is falsifiable, it means that there is, in principle, some way to show that it is wrong. it doesn't mean that it actually IS wrong. It just means that you can say, "If such-and-such happens, then X is wrong."

For example, the famous "crocoduck" would prove evolution wrong, because evolution has no way at all to explain how it could exist. A dropped hammer that remains hanging in midair instead of falling would prove gravity wrong because gravitational theory can't explain how it could occur.

Something MUST be falsifiable in order for it to be considered science.

But your idea of a different state past is NOT falsifiable. There is nothing that could prove it wrong.

Remember that scene from Terminator 2, where the doctor is explaining Sarah Conner's case to those visitors, and they're all having a good chuckle? He finds it funny because Sarah's account of what happened is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable because she can explain anything away. She was attacked by a killer robot from the future? It doesn't look like a robot. Oh, that's because it was covered in a layer of flesh so it looks Human. What you are doing is the same thing.

You see, without any way to show that your idea is wrong - even in principle - there is no way to test it. And what good is an idea that can't be tested? it is only things that can be tested that can be shown to be true.

After all, I could claim that there is a family of fairies that live in my wardrobe, but every time I open the door they vanish, only to reappear when I close the door again. I know they are there because my socks keep disappearing. Of course, there's no way to falsify this claim. Why don't they steal my shoes? My shoes are too heavy. How can they vanish so quickly, even if I sneak up very quietly and open the door really fast? Oh, they're magical so they can tell when I approach, no matter how stealthy I am. Why don't you put a video camera in there to film them? They won't show up, because the magical powers they have render them invisible to cameras of all sorts.

it's ridiculous, isn't it? There's no way to test this claim. There's no way to prove that it is wrong. And the same applies to your different state past.

You see, the fact that something is falsifiable is important. If something can in principle be proven wrong and yet resists all attempts to prove it wrong, it shows that the theory is strong. If we constantly try to find something that evolution says is impossible, but can't, then it shows that evolution is correct. If we constantly try to get hammers to behave as though gravity doesn't work the way we think, but fail, then it shows that gravity DOES work the way we think.

And if your idea of a different state past is falsifiable, then explain how it is. Tell us something that would prove your theory wrong, like the crocoduck for evolution, or floating hammers fro gravity. And then we'll see if we find it in reality.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If I divide your posts into parts:

1. "The bible is about proof."
God foretold a savior since Eden.

The proof came when Jesus came. He rose from the dead and fulfilled the prophesies aplenty.

2. "God proves us."
Like gold tried or proved in a fire, yes.


3. "He proved Himself to us."
See above. Yes He continues to do that. Try asking Him to rock your world.

4. "Science is about doubting proof and telling fables that cannot be true or proven."

Amen! It sure is. The big bang, dark stuff, Granny Bacteria...etc etc. Fables all. It denies the truth of God, that is plain.


Ex 16:4 -Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
Jud 6:39 -And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.
Mal 3:10 - Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Oh, poor misguided Dad. You don't understand what falsifiable means, do you?

It doesn't mean that it can be wrong. Gravity could be wrong, after all. All we need is a single instance where someone drops a hammer and it doesn't fall. That would prove gravity wrong, because the theory and laws of gravity have no way to account for this.

If something is falsifiable, it means that there is, in principle, some way to show that it is wrong. it doesn't mean that it actually IS wrong. It just means that you can say, "If such-and-such happens, then X is wrong."
Great. So show us how your same state past could be wrong?
For example, the famous "crocoduck" would prove evolution wrong, because evolution has no way at all to explain how it could exist. A dropped hammer that remains hanging in midair instead of falling would prove gravity wrong because gravitational theory can't explain how it could occur.


That would also be a problem for creation...no good.

Something MUST be falsifiable in order for it to be considered science.
Great so let's see you falsify a same state past?
But your idea of a different state past is NOT falsifiable. There is nothing that could prove it wrong.
The spiritual is not subject to science, nor indeed can be! Ask a scientist! They deal in the physical box only.
Remember that scene from Terminator 2, where the doctor is explaining Sarah Conner's case to those visitors, and they're all having a good chuckle? He finds it funny because Sarah's account of what happened is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable because she can explain anything away. She was attacked by a killer robot from the future? It doesn't look like a robot. Oh, that's because it was covered in a layer of flesh so it looks Human. What you are doing is the same thing.
It was out of their depth in other words.
You see, without any way to show that your idea is wrong - even in principle - there is no way to test it. And what good is an idea that can't be tested? it is only things that can be tested that can be shown to be true.
Ever consider that the proper idea would be right, and therefore could not be shown to be anything else?
After all, I could claim that there is a family of fairies that live in my wardrobe, but every time I open the door they vanish, only to reappear when I close the door again. I know they are there because my socks keep disappearing. Of course, there's no way to falsify this claim. Why don't they steal my shoes? My shoes are too heavy. How can they vanish so quickly, even if I sneak up very quietly and open the door really fast? Oh, they're magical so they can tell when I approach, no matter how stealthy I am. Why don't you put a video camera in there to film them? They won't show up, because the magical powers they have render them invisible to cameras of all sorts.
Right, but that is not a science claim. The same state past is part of their claims.

And if your idea of a different state past is falsifiable, then explain how it is. Tell us something that would prove your theory wrong, like the crocoduck for evolution, or floating hammers fro gravity. And then we'll see if we find it in reality.
The way to falsify something that is spiritual involves the spiritual. So, if we took a trip to heaven and the future or past, we could test it. Meanwhile the paygrade of so called science is below the task. You need to falsify what you claim is science, the dreaded fable of the same state past!
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
It's like talking to a brick wall...

I experience that with a lot of young earth and what I call "young universe" creationists. :) Anyone that is emotionally attached to a specific "creation date" of the universe or of Earth tends to cling to those beliefs quite tightly in my experience. No amount of logic or common sense seems to make a dent in their opinions in my experience.
 
Upvote 0

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟25,452.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
I experience that with a lot of young earth and what I call "young universe" creationists. :) Anyone that is emotionally attached to a specific "creation date" of the universe or of Earth tends to cling to those beliefs quite tightly in my experience. No amount of logic or common sense seems to make a dent in their opinions in my experience.
Where were you a month ago? :D I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like that.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Where were you a month ago? :D I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like that.

FYI, in case you ever get into plasma cosmology theory/electric universe theory, you'll also run into what I call "EU haters" on the internet that leave you with exactly the same feeling. No amount of empirical or mathematical data makes a dent in their hatred toward any concept involving electricity in space. The EU haters are actually worse than the evolutionary theory haters in my experience since they typically spend all their time attacking the messenger rather than dealing with or simply handwaving at the data like a typical YEC's. Engaging haters can easily turn into a viscous and pointless process in my experience. The hard core haters (regardless of the empirical topic) tend to go into a pure denial song and dance routine sooner or later. From there it just goes in endless circles. If you're a theist like me, you can pray about it, but otherwise, it's pretty much a lost cause, and a giant waste of time in my experience. :crossrc:
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
FYI, in case you ever get into plasma cosmology theory/electric universe theory, you'll also run into what I call "EU haters" on the internet that leave you with exactly the same feeling. No amount of empirical or mathematical data makes a dent in their hatred toward any concept involving electricity in space. The EU haters are actually worse than the evolutionary theory haters in my experience since they typically spend all their time attacking the messenger rather than dealing with or simply handwaving at the data like a typical YEC's. Engaging haters can easily turn into a viscous and pointless process in my experience. The hard core haters (regardless of the empirical topic) tend to go into a pure denial song and dance routine sooner or later. From there it just goes in endless circles. If you're a theist like me, you can pray about it, but otherwise, it's pretty much a lost cause, and a giant waste of time in my experience. :crossrc:

I've yet to see people HATE your posts about an EU, at least on these forums. I have seen a lot of people not agreeing with you, however. Or are they supposed to be the same people?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I've yet to see people HATE your posts about an EU, at least on these forums. I have seen a lot of people not agreeing with you, however. Or are they supposed to be the same people?

You're absolutely right about THESE forums on this particular website. I wasn't even thinking in terms of conversations on THIS website actually.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You're absolutely right about THESE forums on this particular website. I wasn't even thinking in terms of conversations on THIS website actually.

That's just wrong, then. Disagreeing and debating is one thing. Outright hating the idea is absurd. It's an idea. If the universe is electrical, as you've described, then that's just the way things are. I have, indeed, seen many people who do get agitated or worse when their view of reality is challenged, though.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have, indeed, seen many people who do get agitated or worse when their view of reality is challenged, though.

Yes, people can reveal more than they realise about their emotional dependency on their ideas. One isn't always simply debating the truth of a concept, one is challenging a person's whole psychological support system. Hence posters can sometimes veer wildly from objective debater to outraged martyr in a fraction of a second without any apparent warning.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Yes, people can reveal more than they realise about their emotional dependency on their ideas. One isn't always simply debating the truth of a concept, one is challenging a person's whole psychological support system. Hence posters can sometimes veer wildly from objective debater to outraged martyr in a fraction of a second without any apparent warning.

Indeed. One typically has to go to a religious oriented website to find evolutionary theory haters/deniers. Likewise one typically has to frequent mainstream astronomy websites to find hard core EU haters/deniers. Critics of both evolutionary theory and electric universe theory typically have an "agenda" with an emotional charge that is related to either professional or religious beliefs unrelated to the theory at hand. For instance, so called "critics" of evolutionary theory tend to be young earth creationists in terms of their own beliefs. That's where the conflict starts. Likewise EU haters tend to be attached to mainstream cosmology ideas, either professionally, emotionally, or both. Both types of so called "critics" tend to use denial as a primary self defense mechanism IMO. EU haters tend to take to one step further. They tend to rely heavily on personal attacks during debate, which again tends to demonstrate a strong emotional attachment to being "right" that has absolutely nothing to do with actual "physics".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Great. So show us how your same state past could be wrong?

If we date a rock sample with several different techniques and each technique gives a different age, then this would show that radioactive decay did not operate in the past the same way it does now.

Now, you're turn. Show us how your different state past could be wrong?

That would also be a problem for creation...no good.

That's irrelevant. It is something that would falsify gravity.

Great so let's see you falsify a same state past?

Already have.

The spiritual is not subject to science, nor indeed can be! Ask a scientist! They deal in the physical box only.

And if the past was a different state, then that different state affected the universe. Hence science will be able to explain it.

It was out of their depth in other words.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say?

Ever consider that the proper idea would be right, and therefore could not be shown to be anything else?

You don't seem to understand what "falsifiable" means. Something can be falsifiable and yet never be shown to be false.

Right, but that is not a science claim. The same state past is part of their claims.

Irrelevant. We are talking about falsifiability here.

The way to falsify something that is spiritual involves the spiritual. So, if we took a trip to heaven and the future or past, we could test it. Meanwhile the paygrade of so called science is below the task. You need to falsify what you claim is science, the dreaded fable of the same state past!

The way to falsify something spiritual is through spirituality? There's no basis for this.

And I've already explained how the same state past is falsifiable.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by dad
Says who? The bible is about proof. God proves us. He proved Himself to us. Science is about doubting proof and telling fables that cannot be true or proven.
If you remove the first question you've actually succeeded in writing something containing 100% lies and assumptions.

Or is it perhaps that you don't understand the implications and meaning of proof?

Unfortunately, I don't think he does.

As a Bible-affirming Christian and someone who spent an entire career teaching Biblical studies, exegesis, and translating the Bible, I hasten to point out that Elendur is quite correct. I certainly revere the Bible as God's message to mankind but I also respect the teachings of Jesus and the importance of truth and honesty. Whatever may be the motives or intended meaning of the quoted paragraph from "dad", it falls short of any semblance of reality in summarizing the Bible's message.

1) The Bible is NOT about "proof". Instead, it makes statements AS AXIOMS about God and his relationship with his creation and humanity. Axioms are stated as is and without proof(s).

2) To Bible-believers, Science is the study of God's creation. To say that "Science is about doubting proof" is blasphemous. It indicates a contempt for the evidence and answers which God has provided for us in His creation.

3) To call Science (God's Book of Nature, according to centuries of Christian theologians) is about "doubting proof" and "telling fables" is NONSENSICAL GIBBERISH. Calling Science (the evidence God has provided in the universe) "fables that cannot be true" is calling God the Creator a LIAR. It is as foolish as it is outrageous. Bible-believing Christians and scientists should be in harmony as respecters of the evidence to be found within the universe and its capacity for telling us about the history of the universe and how it functions. The unnecessary and pointless anti-science conflicts regularly provoked on these forums by ill-informed people have nothing to do with any flaw in the scientific method and everything to do with ignorance of both science and the Bible (and the truths revealed by the Creator's in both) and flaws in the thinking of some believers.

Science studies the processes and evidence of the natural world and has no opinion or interest in the "supernatural" (or "non-natural"). Therefore, science has no position on God and spiritual matters----just as music has no position on astrophysics and geometry has no position or statements to make about the relative merits of various kinds of music. So the methodological naturalism of science is NOT anti-God. It simply has nothing to say for or against theological concepts. SCIENCE IS NOT THEOLOGY AND VICE VERSA.

The quoted paragraph (attributed to "dad") suggests that he does not know the definition and nature of science.

I will leave to readers the determination of whether he is trolling and being satirical in the grossly fallacious statements quoted above. The views expressed should not be confused in any way with the actual teachings of Jesus or the Bible. Nor is it an accurate description of how the bible-believing Christian should regard science. Indeed, I found it profoundly painful to read. The claims saddened me.

.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Split Rock
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The quoted paragraph (attributed to "dad") suggests that he does not know the definition and nature of science.

I will leave to readers the determination of whether he is trolling and being satirical in the grossly fallacious statements quoted above. The views expressed should not be confused in any way with the actual teachings of Jesus or the Bible. Nor is it an accurate description of how the bible-believing Christian should regard science. Indeed, I found it profoundly painful to read. The claims saddened me.

.
I have often said that dad represents the logical evolution of creationist ideology. Total ad hoc rationalization of whatever dad decides is correct according to his flawed interpretation of scripture. Dad requires no evidence for anything he concludes, other than a few out of context bible verses. His interpretation of scripture is flawless in his own mind and incapable of error. The words Hubris and Arrogance do not even begin to cover it.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's just wrong, then. Disagreeing and debating is one thing. Outright hating the idea is absurd. It's an idea. If the universe is electrical, as you've described, then that's just the way things are. I have, indeed, seen many people who do get agitated or worse when their view of reality is challenged, though.
Me too. And I enjoy challenging it nevertheless.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If we date a rock sample with several different techniques and each technique gives a different age, then this would show that radioactive decay did not operate in the past the same way it does now.

Now, you're turn. Show us how your different state past could be wrong?
False! You have only one technique--depending on the present state! Nothing else, you just shuffle around with the belief imposed in different ways. Therefore you cannot falsify Tweedledee with Tweedledum.

That's irrelevant. It is something that would falsify gravity.
Gravity is known. At least in this state. Nowhere else. It cannot cease to exist. We need rules in the fishbowl. Let's see you make a claim with details that gravity existed as is pre flood? Then if you can (I doubt it) ..let's see you show how it can be falsified!
And if the past was a different state, then that different state affected the universe. Hence science will be able to explain it.
Says who? Maybe...maybe not! That remains to be evidenced. After all, we do know that spirits live out there.

You don't seem to understand what "falsifiable" means. Something can be falsifiable and yet never be shown to be false.
You must comprehend that your power to be able to show anything true or false out of this present state is null and void.


The way to falsify something spiritual is through spirituality? There's no basis for this.
Well then why try to apply the concept out of the physical only realm?? Don't blame me!!


Checkmate.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.