joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Theorem of Kurt Gödel leads to conclusion, that no theory can be Absolutely Proved.
Because must contain unproven assumptions. Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?

But disproval of Gödel is simple: if nothing can be finally proven, then the Gödel's Theorem is not proven as well.

Gödel is plain wrong!
Thus, one can conclude, that a theory is true, when it can be proven. Consider thesis "God exists". The self-consistency of atheistic philosophy can never be established, because God can never be disproven (as all atheists say). Thus, there exists proof of God, and so God must be proven, if He can not be disproven.

According to Popper's criterion, if the theory cannot be refuted, then it is not scientific, therefore it is already wrong, because science is the search for the Absolute Truth. The theory is scientific, if it is possible to disprove it? Money can do all, then how much to pay and to whom to disprove Darwin's Theory?

Opponent: "just by showing us God to the inspection. We would insert thermometers into all His holes!'' Me: "Do you mix science and religion? Are you a pretended believer now? Wolf in sheep's clothing!"

However, Popper is not right himself and his contribution must be changed as follows: a theory is scientific if it can be confirmed (not Popper's wrong wording "can be refuted''). During confirmation of a theory prediction, a theory can become falsified, thus can lost right to be called a theory; unlike the Popper's criterion: once falsified theory is forever false, and, thus, remains scientific. It is the secret, why the Darwin's Evolution is being in schools, however it is many times falsified. Popper's Science is science of lies. No observed Macro-evolution yet:


Please read these too:

Is it really Fermat's Last Theorem proven?

Disproof of Millennium Prize problem proof
 
Last edited:

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Consider thesis "God exists". The self-consistency of atheistic philosophy can never be established, because God can never be disproven (as all atheists say). Thus, there exists proof of God, and so God must be proven, if He can not be disproven.

What. No. You've made a weird leap in logic there. The fact that God cannot be disproven does not automatically imply that God is proven. God is neither proven nor disproven. You don't get a proof from an inability to disprove.

There's a small pink rock in orbit around Tau Ceti. Disprove that. Can't? That doesn't mean we've proved that there's a small pink rock in orbit around Tau Ceti.
 
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's a small pink rock in orbit around Tau Ceti. Disprove that. Can't? That doesn't mean we've proved that there's a small pink rock in orbit around Tau Ceti.
Disproof is simple: tell me your sources, otherwise you have made this up.
 
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's a small pink rock in orbit around Tau Ceti.
According to corrected Popper's criterion: a thing is scientific, if it is confirmable.
The pink rock is not confirmable with today technology, thus, today it is not scientific. And has no sense to check it in the future.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
According to corrected Popper's criterion: a thing is scientific, if it is confirmable.
The pink rock is not confirmable with today technology, thus, today it is not scientific. And has no sense to check it in the future.
Confirmation is not required immediately. All that is required is that there be a plausible methodology that might be applied in order to confirm or refute. We have a variety of plausible methods, consistent with all known, relevant physics, for interstellar exploration that could answer this question.
Conclusion: you are mistaken.

Aside: That doesn't even take into account that Popper did not hold the monopoly on defining science.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What sense in Popper's contribution then? Name just a thing, which is true, but can never be confirmed in a distant future.
You have failed to include my qualification of that statement. (I'll attribute that to faulty thinking on your part, rather than manipulative rhetoric.) There must be a plausible means by which the hypothesis or assertion could be tested. If such is not the case it would meet Popper's requirements.
 
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You have failed to include my qualification of that statement. (I'll attribute that to faulty thinking on your part, rather than manipulative rhetoric.) There must be a plausible means by which the hypothesis or assertion could be tested. If such is not the case it would meet Popper's requirements.
The future can invent any means: the technology of A-bombs, and other things of XX century, would be looking as divine miracle for people in Christ's time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
The Theorem of Kurt Gödel leads to conclusion, that no theory can be Absolutely Proved.

No it doesn't. It proves that no sufficiently powerful mathematical system can prove all truths in that system.

Because must contain unproven assumptions.

This is not the basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?

Since Gödel's work is applicable to mathematics and not biology, no.

But disproval of Gödel is simple: if nothing can be finally proven, then the Gödel's Theorem is not proven as well.

Since that's not what Gödel's Theorem says, your disproof is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The future can invent any means: the technology of A-bombs, and other things of XX century, would be looking as divine miracle for people in Christ's time.
Are you deliberately choosing to ignore the qualifications present in my posts and if so why? If English is your second language I shall bend over backwards to make my point clearer, otherwise I shall build a strong suspicion as to your motivations.

I am not discussing "any means" that "the future can invent". I specifically referred to plausible methods that might be developed. In relation to the "small pink rock round Tau Ceti", I noted that there were several plausible methods by which we might detect it.

You have, however, failed to note the one factor that would remove the "small pink rock" as a bona fide scientific subject for investigation: no argument has been advanced for its existence; no evidence has been produced to suggest it exists. (If requested I can produce both, in this instance.)
 
Upvote 0

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No it doesn't. It proves that no sufficiently powerful mathematical system can prove all truths in that system.
Can all these truth in this math system be proven by using data and results of all reality, even outside this particular math system? No?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The Theorem of Kurt Gödel leads to conclusion, that no theory can be Absolutely Proved.
Wrong.

Because must contain unproven assumptions.
Wrong.

Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?
'Darwin's Theory' is not a fact, but not because of the false propositions above; scientific theories are not facts, they're explanations of facts.

But disproval of Gödel is simple: if nothing can be finally proven, then the Gödel's Theorem is not proven as well.
Wrong.

Gödel is plain wrong!
Wrong.

Thus, one can conclude, ...
Wrong.

Good grief... Dunning & Kruger would be proud.
 
Upvote 0

Wrangler

Active Member
Jun 2, 2019
205
93
In World But Not Of World
✟23,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Theorem of Kurt Gödel leads to conclusion, that no theory can be Absolutely Proved.
Because must contain unproven assumptions. Does it mean, that Darwin's Theory is not a fact?

If you study logic, especially syllogisms, you will realize that not everything can be logically proven. You have to start with something AS TRUE to apply logic. For instance.

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men die.
Conclusion: Socrates will die.

Now, just because every man who ever lived died, it does not logically follow that will always be the case. In other words, Premise 2 cannot be proven precisely because it reflects a future not yet existent. One cannot prove what does not exist.

Therefore, Premise 2 has to be accepted as true. Only when both premises are true could the conclusion be true.

Hope this helps. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

joinfree

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2016
1,009
191
87
EU
✟36,708.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you study logic, especially syllogisms, you will realize that not everything can be logically proven. You have to start with something AS TRUE to apply logic. For instance.

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men die.
Conclusion: Socrates will die.

Now, just because every man who ever lived died, it does not logically follow that will always be the case. In other words, Premise 2 cannot be proven precisely because it reflects a future not yet existent. One cannot prove what does not exist.

Therefore, Premise 2 has to be accepted as true. Only when both premises are true could the conclusion be true.

Hope this helps. :)
One can speak logically:
We can perfectly observe, that Socrates is a man. That holds true with extremely high probability. And with such high observation probability, a human dies. Thus, is expected, that Socrates will die. Indeed, we can perfectly observe, that he becomes more ill and more old from year to year.
 
Upvote 0

Wrangler

Active Member
Jun 2, 2019
205
93
In World But Not Of World
✟23,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
One can speak logically:
We can perfectly observe, that Socrates is a man. That holds true with extremely high probability.

High probability is future. Proof is past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... You have to start with something AS TRUE to apply logic.
.. or in other words, truth 'exists' .. and therein lies a major flaw.
Frequently, many attempt to conceal this inconvenient unprovable assumption.
Many also simply remain unaware of the distinctions which would simply reveal the existence of such an assumption. Fortunately the steps in logic are usually retraceable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
One can use Presumption of Innocence, if his statements are not in conflict with Bible and Established Science.

The Bible has no authority. It would need to show that it has value as a source. When tested it quite often fails.
 
Upvote 0