Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

Virtually every description of god, at some point, defies logic. I find it unlikely that your version of god is logically coherent any more than Speedwell's.

While I agree with you that Speedwell's version of God defies logic, Speedwell's belief that God can do the logically impossible is not a traditional belief. However if you are suggesting that MGB God is logically impossible you will have to explain that.

 

[Sanoy]

It's only "ridiculous" from the viewpoint of Logical Realism. Generally speaking, they will respond to the effect that "It says so in the Bible" and then proceed to denouncing conventional science as a satanic conspiracy. If they are mocked, it is because of that denunciation, not because of their belief in a flat Earth per se. I have no such "rules." You are just making them up to be offensive. There are no "laws" of logic. Non-contradiction is an axiom of an axiomatic formal system, in this case two-value propositional logic. Other axioms are possible and are in fact employed in other logics which have descriptive utility in various branches of science.

No. I'm saying it is ridiculous that you think you are in any position to mock anyone when your beliefs are logically impossible. If a believer in flat Earth is wrong they are off by a few degrees. What you are claiming isn't even logically possible. If you wish to mock, mock yourself first.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Thats just ignorance, its a desceiption of physical reality.

Yes, it is just a description of physical reality, which people either believe or do not believe. For most people, evolution is an unverifiable/unfalsifiable faith.

I suspect that most of those "doing the science" of evolution are the devoted believers and would find it the most impossible to let go if evolution were falsified. Again that is human nature and we have seen this pattern many times in past scientific beliefs.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, it is just a description of physical reality, which people either believe or do not believe. For most people, evolution is an unverifiable/unfalsifiable faith.

I suspect that most of those "doing the science" of evolution are the devoted believers and would find it the most impossible to let go if evolution were falsified. Again that is human nature and we have seen this pattern many times in past scientific beliefs.

....

Your claims are unfounded, science goes where the data takes it. Belief has nothing to do with it.

My guess is that you have no scientific education or training.

 

[46AND2]

Regarding #2, Maybe. But wouldn't people just say "evolution is more complicated than we thought? But this just proves it is all true!"

No.

My feeling is that based on human nature, all facts (even previously incompatible ones) will be believed to support the existing paradigm to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Contradictory evidence is desired by many people, particularly scientists, as it gives them a problem to solve.

 

[46AND2]

While I agree with you that Speedwell's version of God defies logic, Speedwell's belief that God can do the logically impossible is not a traditional belief. However if you are suggesting that MGB God is logically impossible you will have to explain that.

MGB?

Typically with Christians, logical problems arise when describing god's power, and knowledge. How do you define those attributes?

 

[46AND2]

While I agree with you that Speedwell's version of God defies logic, Speedwell's belief that God can do the logically impossible is not a traditional belief. However if you are suggesting that MGB God is logically impossible you will have to explain that.

Oh, and while it is not traditional for Christians to embrace logical defiance, the existence of it is certainly in traditional descriptions of god's attributes.

 

[Speedwell]

No. I'm saying it is ridiculous that you think you are in any position to mock anyone when your beliefs are logically impossible. If a believer in flat Earth is wrong they are off by a few degrees. What you are claiming isn't even logically possible. If you wish to mock, mock yourself first.

I don't think I am in a position to mock anyone, although I admit it is tempting to do so when they start ranting about how the entire scientific establishment is devoted to a conspiracy to deny the existence of God.

But let me as you a question. Are you a logical realist? Do you believe that the two-value logic you espouse is something we discover about the universe or something we have invented to describe it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

the first ape fossil is about 30 my old. the first human is about 2-3 old. are you saying that we cant push back human evolution to about 31 my?

We can't push human evolution that far.

That is why creationists are desperate to find humans and non-avian dinosaurs together. They never do.

 

[Sanoy]

Oh, and while it is not traditional for Christians to embrace logical defiance, the existence of it is certainly in traditional descriptions of god's attributes.

What tradition states that God can do the logically impossible. I don't mean said things that are logically impossible but stated He can do logically impossible things.

An MGB God is "maximally great".

 

[Sanoy]

I don't think I am in a position to mock anyone, although I admit it is tempting to do so when they start ranting about how the entire scientific establishment is devoted to a conspiracy to deny the existence of God.

But let me as you a question. Are you a logical realist? Do you believe that the two-value logic you espouse is something we discover about the universe or something we have invented to describe it?

I think Logic refers to how God thinks.

 

[46AND2]

What tradition states that God can do the logically impossible. I don't mean said things that are logically impossible but stated He can do logically impossible things.

An MGB God is "maximally great".

I just said that it is not traditional for Christians to embrace it, so why are you asking me to show where they do?

 

[Speedwell]

I think Logic refers to how God thinks.

OK. And you may be right, but I don't think we can know that. All we can know for sure is that it is the way we think. Two-value propositional logic has considerable instrumental utility, which is sufficient to explain its persistence in human discourse. I don't see any necessity to make ontological claims for it--although you evidently do, to the extent that you are willing to be aggressively hostile to anyone who disagrees with you about it. Why is that?

 

[Speedwell]

As to "logically impossible," all that appears to mean to you is "not describable by a particular axiomatic formal system." The same thing can be said about Newton's laws of motion, for example, another axiomatic formal system. They have considerable instrumental utility but there are some phenomona which they do not accurately describe, which are "logically impossible" in that system.

 

[Sanoy]

I just said that it is not traditional for Christians to embrace it, so why are you asking me to show where they do?

Yes but then you followed that by saying that logical defiance is certainly in traditional descriptions of god's attributes. I'm wondering what traditional description contains the attribute of logical defiance.

 

[Sanoy]

As to "logically impossible," all that appears to mean to you is "not describable by a particular axiomatic formal system." The same thing can be said about Newton's laws of motion, for example, another axiomatic formal system. They have considerable instrumental utility but there are some phenomona which they do not accurately describe, which are "logically impossible" in that system.

Who are you quoting? I said I believe that logic refers to how God thinks. So if God would see it as not possible, so should we.

 

[Speedwell]

Who are you quoting? I said I believe that logic refers to how God thinks. So if God would see it as not possible, so should we.

I said "appears" did I not? If I am wrong you can correct me. I put scare quotes around logically impossible because I am not sure we are on the same page about what that means. It might be useful for you to comment on my example of Newton's laws.

 

[46AND2]

Yes but then you followed that by saying that logical defiance is certainly in traditional descriptions of god's attributes. I'm wondering what traditional description contains the attribute of logical defiance.

Logic defiance is a consequence of traditional attributes assigned to god. Specifically, issues that arise with omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence.

 

[Sanoy]

I said "appears" did I not? If I am wrong you can correct me. I put scare quotes around logically impossible because I am not sure we are on the same page about what that means.

I'm talking about "not describable by a particular axiomatic formal system." I told you what I believe about it. Telling you to mock yourself rather than others isn't being hostile, it's an attempt to reform your behavior on the entirety of mocking.

 

[Sanoy]

Logic defiance is a consequence of traditional attributes assigned to god. Specifically, issues that arise with omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and omnibenevolence.

Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure that there was no tradition of explicit ability to do the logically impossible.