Defining the term "evidence" in religion/science

[Elendur]

That's the whole problem though as I see it. Nothing in that 'religion' that I described to you has any real physical meaning. God isn't physically defined. Godflation isn't physically defined. God energy isn't physically defined, and God matter isn't physically defined. At best case they are mathematical constructs devoid of any *falsifiable* physical meaning.

Since when is physically defined a problem?
I haven't assumed that we're only capable of acquiring physical evidence.

The *original* claims, in this case "God", is not falsifiable. The second claim, "God causes space expansion" is not demonstrated and it's not falsifiable. The third claim: Godflation causes space expansion cannot be falsified. The forth claim: God energy causes space acceleration cannot be falsified. The moment that anyone found any evidence that my postdicted supernatural theory didn't fit the data set, I simply moved the supernatural goal posts again by stuffing in Godatons to cover up the problems.

Umm... You've constructed this in two steps, you write it as if you've actually showed this for other people.
If there's worlds where there is a difference, between where the claim is true and the opposite, there is the possibility for a falsification.
Take the example of Russels teapot. It is falsifiable, just not worth the hassle.

Also, I should've seen that you would push some luggage into those terms.
Sorry about that.
I thought you were answering my request (bolding the important part):

You've claimed that... But I've again and again explained why that's incorrect.
Please, without resorting to any of your favorites, can you construct a general example for me, as I've done for you several times?

The new religion I handed you is again a purely postdicted ad hoc fit to the data set, and it now matches all the data again. It's unfalsifiable in terms of the individual claims I've made, and should you be able to find a postdiction that wasn't correct to begin with, nothing prevents me in your system from moving the goal posts again.

You're correct, nothing prevents you from "moving the goal posts again". But honestly, we're adults, right?

If I'm to interpret all the terms with quotation marks and similar as up for modification by you, then I'd have to say that it cannot be falsified.
But that would only be the fault of lacking definitions, not the claims themselves.

If it were not for points 2 and 3.
Sorry.
They don't include any of the terms you have fiddle-room with.

Panetheism *might* be a falsifiable concept, but Godflation oriented "bang" theories could *never* be falsified, simply because I'm free to move the goal posts anytime I see fit, using whatever new stuff I dream up in my head.

Again, you don't get it.
Concepts are not up for falsification.
Hypotheses and theories are.

I can't falsify every concept of God, but I just might be able to verify or falsify a Boltzmann brain oriented view of the cosmos.

That came out of nowhere...

 

[Michael]

Since when is physically defined a problem?
I haven't assumed that we're only capable of acquiring physical evidence.

No, you are right, you haven't.

You're correct, nothing prevents you from "moving the goal posts again". But honestly, we're adults, right?

Apparently the "adults" called astronomers are fully intending to do exactly that.

Again, you don't get it.
Concepts are not up for falsification.
Hypotheses and theories are.

So let's cut to the chase for a second. Planck data has falsified Lambda-CDM, sooooooo......

Since mainstream astronomers can't make up their mind yet on how to fix their problem with the Planck data, and I've blatantly pilfered curvaton math's to "fix" my personal "God hypothesis", you're going to let me claim the following things?

A) There is evidence to support the existence of Godflation as the cause of space expansion.
B) There is evidence to support the existence of "God energy" as the cause of space acceleration
C) There is now evidence to support the existence of "God matter' which surrounds every galaxy in the universe
D) There is evidence to support "Godatons" that 'caused' spacetime to *not* be homogenous on the largest scales
E) Since 'God" is the source of every item A-D), there is evidence of the existence of God.

You'll concede then that I have evidence of Godflation, God energy, God matter, Godatons *and* God even *before* we discuss human experiences of God on Earth?

 

[Elendur]

So let's cut to the chase for a second. Planck data has falsified Lambda-CDM, sooooooo......

Sure. If you say so.

Since mainstream astronomers can't make up their mind yet on how to fix their problem with the Planck data, and I've blatantly pilfered curvaton math's to "fix" my personal "God hypothesis", you're going to let me claim the following things?

No. As seen by the arguments below.

A) There is evidence to support the existence of Godflation as the cause of space expansion.
B) There is evidence to support the existence of "God energy" as the cause of space acceleration
C) There is now evidence to support the existence of "God matter' which surrounds every galaxy in the universe
D) There is evidence to support "Godatons" that 'caused' spacetime to *not* be homogenous on the largest scales
E) Since 'God" is the source of every item A-D), there is evidence of the existence of God.

A) - D) are meta claims. Which we haven't covered.
E) is dependent on those meta claims.

You'll concede then that I have evidence of Godflation, God energy, God matter, Godatons *and* God even *before* we discuss human experiences of God on Earth?

We haven't covered meta claims.

 

[Michael]

Sure. If you say so.


No. As seen by the arguments below.


A) - D) are meta claims. Which we haven't covered.
E) is dependent on those meta claims.


We haven't covered meta claims.

Every criticism you just leveled at A-D) applies to Lambda-CDM. Where does that leave us in terms of 'evidence' for Lambda-CDM?

 

[Michael]

FYI, the only difference between my moving goal post religion and Lambda-CDM are various, physically undefined terms. You could substitute evidence of God for evidence of a "Big Bang" at step E), and in every other respect, they are exactly alike!

 

[Elendur]

Every criticism you just leveled at A-D) applies to Lambda-CDM. Where does that leave us in terms of 'evidence' for Lambda-CDM?

It's criticism towards you, in our discussion.

We haven't defined how we approach meta-claims.

Note how you've used the term evidence in each of the steps?

FYI, the only difference between my moving goal post religion and Lambda-CDM are various, physically undefined terms. You could substitute evidence of God for evidence of a "Big Bang" at step E), and in every other respect, they are exactly alike!

I don't buy that the terms are undefined.
Every time I've 'tried the waters' each and every term has had a definition.

And I understand that you've tried to connect the two, but I've still shown that it's falsifiable.

 

[Michael]

It's criticism towards you, in our discussion.

Why do I get the distinct impression that you backed yourself into a corner and you're just blaming me?

We haven't defined how we approach meta-claims.

When you get around to it, let me know since that's the crux of my beef with "hypothetical' physics.

Note how you've used the term evidence in each of the steps?

Notice how astronomers do exactly the same thing?

I don't buy that the terms are undefined.

Really? EM fields are well "defined" in terms of where they come from, how to control them, voltages, amperage, etc. So explain a source of dark energy for me, and explain a way to control it in an actual physical way for me.

Every time I've 'tried the waters' each and every term has had a definition.

The only definition it has is some vague term that vaguely relates to one specific cosmology theory. All I've done is to quite literally insert new terms that have exactly the very same mathematical backing, the very same *singular use* in terms of astronomy and substituted the term Big Bang with "God".

And I understand that you've tried to connect the two, but I've still shown that it's falsifiable.

You've only shown how one step of my A-C) claims could be falsified, but the 'solution' was simply to add one more hypothetical claim, as the D) claim, and I continued to *assume* the existence of God (Big Bang). I also assumed everything else in step A-C was *true*, I simply added a new 'truth statement' to my hypothesis.

If your method lets the goal posts move, God will always exist, and there will always be a supernatural fix to any problem. Likewise, the BB *concept* will always be true, and there will always be some kind of supernatural gap filler to "save the day' from real falsification.

 

[Elendur]

Why do I get the distinct impression that you backed yourself into a corner and you're just blaming me?

When you get around to it, let me know since that's the crux of my beef with "hypothetical' physics.

You don't see the difference in those?

A) There is evidence to support the existence of Godflation as the cause of space expansion.
6. God created the universe using something you "called" "Godflation".

B) There is evidence to support the existence of "God energy" as the cause of space acceleration
13. God uses "God energy" to accelerate the universe.

C) There is now evidence to support the existence of "God matter' which surrounds every galaxy in the universe
15. The "God matter" is a secret invisible ingredient.

D) There is evidence to support "Godatons" that 'caused' spacetime to *not* be homogenous on the largest scales
16. God used "Godatons" to create the universe.

An example of how a meta-reference might be complicated:
This meaning is false.

I don't know whether a meta statement in this case would produce a problem in the same way, or whether it would produce problems at all, but it would just be simpler to avoid them altogether.
In fact, I'll ask you.

Is the proposition:
(X)
Almost equal to:
(There is evidence for X)

?

Notice how astronomers do exactly the same thing?

No. I really don't.
I notice how you claim that the astronomers do exactly the same thing.

Really? EM fields are well "defined" in terms of where they come from, how to control them, voltages, amperage, etc. So explain a source of dark energy for me, and explain a way to control it in an actual physical way for me.

Definition has nothing to do with how to control it.
They're completely different issues.

The only definition it has is some vague term that vaguely relates to one specific cosmology theory. All I've done is to quite literally insert new terms that have exactly the very same mathematical backing, the very same *singular use* in terms of astronomy and substituted the term Big Bang with "God".

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For physical reasons, a spacetime continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected Lorentzian manifold (M,g).

You've only shown how one step of my A-C) claims could be falsified, but the 'solution' was simply to add one more hypothetical claim, as the D) claim, and I continued to *assume* the existence of God (Big Bang). I also assumed everything else in step A-C was *true*, I simply added a new 'truth statement' to my hypothesis.

You've misunderstood me. I was referring to you trying to connect your favorite subject with your 19-point example.
And I did show how it was falsifiable, even while avoiding the 17 points you inserted with your (undefined) luggage.

If your method lets the goal posts move, God will always exist, and there will always be a supernatural fix to any problem. Likewise, the BB *concept* will always be true, and there will always be some kind of supernatural gap filler to "save the day' from real falsification.

Claims have no bearing on the worlds actual properties.

And again. Changing the claim, is to abandon the older one in favor of the new one.




Also, don't think I've missed that you've completely derailed from the topic:
Defining the term "evidence" in religion/science.

I want to discuss that in this thread, not your favorite subject of astronomy.
I know I'm easy to lead astray, you've done so repeatedly in this thread and in others, but would you please stick to the actual topic?
It's not as if I've been eager to argue against what you've written, as you certainly know the limits of my knowledge on that specific subject.

And another last thing, it's hard to be consistent about staying on topic when you continually chop up my posts and abandon several lines of reasoning without giving me any indication whether you've read them or not.

 

[Michael]

You don't see the difference in those?

Sure. You still didn't answer the key question however. By virtue of slapping on some make-believe maths to some make-believe entities, is there now 'evidence' for the make-believe entity?

This is the crux of the issue. The rest is trivial filler, and simply an example of the limitations of your definition of "evidence".

From my empirical perspective, that requires cause/effect demonstrations of claims in the lab, the two claims (my goal post moving religion and mainstream scientific dogma) are exactly the same, and have exactly the same amount of 'evidence' to support them, specifically *none*. If you however allow for the goal post to move at every point of falsification, all you end up with is an *unfalsifiable* set of claims, not one of which can be shown to actually be true in terms of empirical physics.

I don't know whether a meta statement in this case would produce a problem in the same way, or whether it would produce problems at all, but it would just be simpler to avoid them altogether.

I would if I could avoid them, but science doesn't so I can't.

FYI, the only reason I'm not responding to each point is simply to save us both some time.

The problems in my moving goal post claims are numerous. None of it can be demonstrated to be true in a lab in terms of any of the *self proclaimed* cause/effect relationships I have *made up*. The end claim, the *sacred belief*, (God/BB) *cannot* be falsified. You've given me no clear way to falsify the *core belief*.

How do I falsify the core belief of a "Big Bang", the core belief of the existence of any hypothetical physical entity, or a core religious belief?

 

[Michael]

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For physical reasons, a spacetime continuum is mathematically defined as a four-dimensional, smooth, connected Lorentzian manifold (M,g).

I will point out for the record that GR theory is *not* dependent upon the validity of any of my A-C claims, nor the corresponding A-C claims of Lambda-CDM. Erroneously trying to ride the coattails of GR theory isn't going to cut it from my perspective.

 

[Elendur]

Take the system of propositional logic.

Take the Tarskian definition of truth:
'X' is true if and only if X.

Because we prefer to falsify more than confirm we choose to represent in CNF (conjunctive normal form), rather than any other form.

I.e. we write in the form:
(A) and (B) and (C) etc.
Which only requires the falsification for one of the parts to falsify the whole expression.

Definition:
We call a formula F expressed in CNF, which isn't trivially true or false, a nice formula.

'Theorem':
A nice formula in conjunction with a trivially true statement is reducible to a nice formula.
'Proof':
Take the nice formula (NF).
Conjunct it with the formula (True), which is trivially true.
We get (NF) and (True).
We get the following truth table:
(NF)...(True)...(NF) and (True)
1.........1................1
0.........1................0
Which gives that (NF) is true if and only if ((NF) and (True)) is true.
Which makes them logically equivalent.
Which allows for equal representation and allows ((NF) and (True)) to be reduced to (NF).

'Theorem':
The compliment of a nice formula, (NF), (not NF) is a nice formula.
'Proof':
Use the distributive law and that all formulas can be converted to CNF to insert the (not) into (NF) and make it CNF.
Since (NF) isn't trivially false, (not NF) cannot be trivially true.
Since (NF) isn't trivially true, (not NF) cannot be trivially false.
Since (not NF) can be represented in CNF and isn't trivially true or false, it's a nice formula.

Definition:
Given an nice formula NF, any model for NF is a possible world.

'Theorem':
We have an infinite amount of possible worlds.
'Proof':
We can construct an infinite amount of nice formulas.
Every formula that isn't trivially true or false has at least one model.
Therefore we have an infinite amount of models for the infinite amount of nice formulas.
Therefore we have an infinite amount of possible worlds.

Definition:
Given a nice formula that has been expanded as much as possible while still being reduced, a possible world which is true is called The world, and is denoted W.

'Theorem':
The world, W, cannot be produced from a formula F that is trivially true or false.
'Proof':
By definition, a formula which isn't a nice formula cannot yield a possible world.
By definition, a trivially true or false formula cannot be a nice formula.
Therefore we cannot produce a possible world given F.
Since we cannot produce any possible world given F we cannot produce W.

Definition:
An observation is an event in W that reveals information about W.

Definition:
An observation O is called evidence for a nice formula NF if the observation is more likely given (NF) is true than given (not NF).
I.e. P(O|NF) > P(O|not NF).

Definition:
Given a piece of evidence E and a nice formula (not NF).
If the probability of E is 0 (P(E|not NF) = 0), E is called exclusive evidence for NF.

Definition:
If enough evidence or exclusive evidence is gathered in favor of (not NF), NF is falsified.



************************************************************
I think this is enough as a recap/revamp.
I think I'll go back through the thread later today and gather the repeated objections and see whether they're valid or not given this new (and vastly better presented) way I've jotted it down.

I have purposefully left the criteria "enough" vague.

Do you have any new objection against this revamped and more explicit method?

I did read your posts #129 and #130.

The only thing I think is important to respond to is the latter:

I will point out for the record that GR theory is *not* dependent upon the validity of any of my A-C claims, nor the corresponding A-C claims of Lambda-CDM. Erroneously trying to ride the coattails of GR theory isn't going to cut it from my perspective.

I provided that as an example as that is something you've complained about not being defined before.


Edit:
I've found the following, some of which are repeated, points:
My graph representation
It provides no empirical falsification
It allows for moving goal posts
The lab requirement
Falsification issues
Lack of definitions
Meta claims

Hypothetical vs empirical
Natural vs supernatural
Science vs religion

Anything I missed?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi, if you allow me to answer:What you call evidence in science about the "effect" of something on other things (gravitational pull, EM fields on charged particles) would rather be a fact or an observation.
It would be evidence, if you have a theory which explains a mechanism and predicts effects and you have those predictions confirmed by the facts. Then you have evidence.


With all those concepts you mentioned for example the dark matter:
You see that rotational curves of galaxies are different than simple gravitation theories would predict (observable effect). Two hypothesies follow:
Newtonian Mechanics need a major revision or there is mass we can´t see (not even in the whole of the EM spectrum) therefore it couldn´t be normal baryonic mass.
In a completely different part of physics measured by the expansion of space-time and the background radiation you need a flat space-time for which the normal baryonic mass wouldn´t be enough. Dark matter is needed. So the fact of the rotation curves of galaxies become evidence for the existence of dark matter.


For having evidence for something like a "holy spirit" you first need an exact definition of what this is: a theory. With this you can predict effects and look for them. If you find them you have evidence.

That is assuming you continue to ignore all the "normal" baryonic mass recently observed in order to sustain your Dark Matter theories.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

So we have recently discovered more than twice the mass of all the stars in the galaxy outside the galaxy, exactly where you need Dark Matter to exist in theory. So which is more reasonable, a hypothesized particle never observed to date in any experiment, or mass we actually have observed, now that our technology has advanced to the point we can detect it?

Even astronomers are debating right now if this will solve the missing baryon problem. The extent of this plasma cloud is still being determined and might well reach all the well to neighboring galaxies, with their attendant plasma halo's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is assuming you continue to ignore all the "normal" baryonic mass recently observed in order to sustain your Dark Matter theories.

NASA - NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

So we have recently discovered more than twice the mass of all the stars in the galaxy outside the galaxy, exactly where you need Dark Matter to exist in theory. So which is more reasonable, a hypothesized particle never observed to date in any experiment, or mass we actually have observed, now that our technology has advanced to the point we can detect it?

Even astronomers are debating right now if this will solve the missing baryon problem. The extent of this plasma cloud is still being determined and might well reach all the well to neighboring galaxies, with their attendant plasma halo's.

Wrong. That is not "exactly where you need Dark Matter to exist in theory".

No wonder you failed my simple test.