Do Christians who do bad things, nullify other evidences for God - addressing Christian Hypocrisy.

[Davian]

think about what you are saying logically,

step away from your professors lectures for awhile.

facts are not falsifiable, if they were they would be false.

think of it this way.

facts cannot be false, or they are not a fact.

if they are not a fact, then they could be falsified, but since by nature a fact is true, it cannot be false, or falsified.

I don't know where you are, but over here, I am talking of the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Let me know if you would like to work out where you have gone wrong with this.

 

[Davian]

again, facts are not falsified.

Information not yet falsified, to be more precise.

If I did believe God proved himself in an absolute, and directly factual manner (and I don't), but if I did...

then even that would not be falsified.

because it would be true, if it were in fact a fact.

if it was not a fact, but I believed it so, then no amount of belief would change the unfactual nature of my belief.

Your beliefs do fit the descriptor of "unfactual".

but I don't believe God to be a fact.

I would concur.

I believe God to be proven numerous times, in countless circumstances, requiring circumstantial evidences.

Which I believe He has plainly laid out.

so, do I believe God is real, yes.

Do I believe He has made himself known in ample magnitude, yes.

That's nice.

I am persuaded, but it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Do I think most evidence proves His existence, yes.

That is the problem with the unfalsifiable; virtually anything can be pointed to as evidence. Very unscientific. It renders the unfalsifiable to being of no significance.

but there is still some evidence that is still in existence, that can make an argument that He does not exist.

but only if one is not allowed to take a hack at explaining some of the discrepancy, from a Biblical perspective.

which many times, most will call it a settled deal without even hearing the other side, unfortunately.

again, God does not need to prove Himself in an absolute factual way.

I am not asking for something absolute. I am asking for something small, that would at least demonstrate we are not simply talking of a character in a book.

and it is not in His desire to prove Himself absolutely, as that would nullify faith, would it not?

Why should I care about faith?

If I did not hope for Him, Then my belief and faith would lack an essential element, hope.

which my faith would no longer be faith, but my hope would have been fulfilled evidentially, and my faith would have morphed into active knowledge of a known fact.

I would actively know, God....not have faith in Him.

So since God is a God of Faith, to keep faith alive, He allows enough evidence to be persuaded, but not enough evidence to be forced or coerced intellectually into accepting it.

He is a gentleman in that manner, and allows us the free will to intellectually accept Him or reject Him,

again with it's respective awards and punishments.

but that is not the only reason for not showing Himself to the world all at once.

So that His elect can be glorified in their sactified bodies.

What I mean is that by obedience to God's ordinances, many will be transformed into a new Creature.

but if every one did that, I for one, would feel intimidated, that I was not performing well enough in district 3 of state 5, in planet 10 of the christian populus.

but as it stands, I feel special.

and every Christian does.

because we know God has chosen us, and delights in us.

again, that's not an objective statement.

it's filled with emotial appeal, but none the less.

being set apart from a wicked norm....does have a fulfilling sense to life.

We are different, and because of Christ, we Don't have to be a slave of everyone elses ideas, simply because they have a degree.

We are taught to think for ourselves, to tackle objectively contradictory thoughts, and ideas, to rationize and battle darkness with His Glorious and perfect word.

which, if I may add is very very thick in meaning.

I read alot of books on audio, probably one a week right now.

and most books I read are speed and a half.

but when I listen to scripture, I always listen at a slower speed.

because of being in the world, my thoughts do not align with scripture as much as I would like.

I am flesh after all.

it's a battle of natures.

but again the light is winning.

buts its a long haul.

anyway, when I read scripture.

I have to take it in, take it to heart.

I often stop it many many times to write down a verse.

I forgot.

because being in the world, it's a foreign language, a lost art.

but again, there is a sense of fulfillment and set-apart-ness.

and for that I am thankful to God.

but again,

I know you have too many questions that need to be answered before you would ever even, contimplate this way of life.

I understand.

so, you have come to the right place.

let's hear your concerns.

I have no concerns to speak of. I do wonder what all that has to do with the OP.

 

[Davian]

thats okay, it's just that almost universally in every occasion the article self defeats in this way. It separates almost every parents viewpoint, with the point of the article. While that does not dismiss it, it does place it into question. Why would anyone believe some remote story, that contradicts active knowledge of a parent toward their own children? After all a parent probably (not always) but probably knows a child far more than anyone doing a study from across the country, doing questions over email, or phone. It is not my purpose to say it is wrong, as that I don't know. But when the article said that nearly all parents said one thing, while the article proves another...makes me wonder what type of questioning, or premises it uses in it's study. And how it's conclusions were made. Thats all, and without reading it, we simply cannot know.

Have you considered reading the article to find out?

For know we assume it right because it's peer review. However even peer review has been known for bias. Yet it's a great place to start when addressing a topic. I do have a peer review that proves my point, but I don't need it. Because you already said yourself, that you don't question that aspect.

What did I say, exactly? Quote me.

Well, while yes one religion is probably correct,

On what evidence do you base that?

while most if not all others wrong....

Most? Are they not generally mutually exclusive?

that does not mean that each individual religion does not have positive influences on society. After all simply upgrading ones view from that of....I have evolved from a piece of slime and have no meaning, to something, or anything created me with purpose....does have a positive influence on ones personal fulfillment. Many religions believe in creation, just have a different take on it. I don't necessarily agree with them, but yes, they are an upgrade to what is being fed them in college. At least as far as giving them identity.

How does a "slime" reference get into comparison of theologies? and how is theology an "upgrade" to ones views, if - necessarily - they are all wrong? Except one, maybe, and there is no evidence of that.

What Hitler did was legal in his country at the time of the holocaust. So apparently the definition of murder is something more than simply a vote in some cabinet somewhere, that defines what constitutes murder. I believe that murder philosophically is killing of another human being, with what is called "malice aforethought."

"It is murder if a person has killed with ‘malice aforethought’. Contrary to public belief the law does not require an actual intention to kill nor a premeditated plot. A person is guilty of murder if death results from an act intended to cause really serious harm even ifthere was no intention to kill."
above quote from online legal dictionary:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide


in other words,

killing becomes murder when malice is involved, for selfish gain, or out of jealously, or rage, or any other emotion. Regardless of premeditation or planning, and even if it is not planned. As in an outburst. Police only kill on self defense, either of their person or of another. Military only kills in accordance to the geneva convention policy. And thus would not be considered murder. If a soldier does not follow the geneva convention, they can be tried for murder, and many have.

RE: abortion. Abortion is murder because it involves killing for gain, or other. If a parent is scared and cannot get a job to pay for childs needs, they abort for example. Or if by rape, or by other misdeed. It is still murder, in otherwords, it's not the childs fault that we were raped, or could not get a job. They still merit an honest chance at living a normal life.


"Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[4] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in whichmilitant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[4]

It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[5] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[6]" footnotes below...and quotation from online encyclopedia "conservapedia.com"

What I asked for was a citation for your claim (see bold) that "it's not really hard to find numerous examples of the positive affects of religion in nearly every single culture and religion. things like, loving your neighbor, not stealing, not murdering (as in like abortion), and how religion has reduced the occasions of nearly all of the above". You know, some peer reviewed study of some sort.

well that was only to show that most religions benefit society in one or more ways. Not just Christianity.

And that it doesn't matter if the religion has any bearing on reality or not.

so here you are saying, they do not do good because a good God does not exist. And one links to the other,

No, that is not what I am saying.

but then before you said that even if they do do good, that is still not proof for God. So in essence these statements self defeat.

Or, you are misrepresenting what I said.

God's existence cannot be negated by lack of morality in the world, and not at the same time God's existence be supported by the presence of morality.

How so? How do we test that?

you have to logically apply the same rule to both sides.

I not yet seen this logic or rules that you allude to here.

if you wish to use morality to negate God's existence that is fine, but you must also use it as a valid argument FOR his existence, if morality should be found in the World.

that is just being logically consistant.

One thing that has helped me is using truth tables,

logical exercises are found here:
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~wooland/argumentor/TruthTablesandArgs.html

Being rational and logical takes time, often emotion, preconceptions etc get in the way of real logical analysis.



again, you use morality to disprove God, yet do not let others use morality to prove God. That is non sequitur, and does not follow.

And it is not what I am saying.

but my claim in the OP that a few failures do not make the majority a failure, is accurate. And if you admit this as true we can move on.

I cannot really comment here. I have only seen failures.

I believe alot of science is innacurate, especially evolutionary biology in general. But I do not believe that most science is innacurate, or even farther yet, that "all of it" is bad science. The scientific method is at work in the world today, but many times we simply have to go back to the basics of what the scientific method is.

Well, if you have some compelling evidence that the scientific community is getting it wrong, especially re biology, then you should publish your work so we can all read and critique it. That would be a start.

No, God choses even the evil people for a reason, they are chosen for hell.

to be an example of what not to do.

But that choice, is based on a foreknowledge.

a foreknowledge that even under the best circumstances those people would not want God, or anything to do with Him. So God decides to use even that type of wickedness for a reason. As a sort of negative example for the rest of us...Basically for us to say....I don't want to be like that, or to make those bad choices.

But free will exists, and God's sovereignty both exist, in beautiful harmony.

and yet an aspect of God's power over all is still there, that is beyond comprehension.
a part of our election is in the mind of God, that we will never know.

He makes some vessels for honor, others vessels for dishonor.

partly because some will reject God over most circumstances, given.

but partly because of God's choosing some over others.

That part I can't comprehend logically or even try to guess at. As I am not Him, nor do I try to be. That's God's sovereignty.

If, as you say, it is God doing the choosing, then it follows that disbelievers are being held accountable for reason beyond their control. That would be morally bankrupt.

well, first there needs to be a desire.
if one is not at the point of desiring God, then no amount of discussion, or dialogue will further that desire. Only time and circumstance will.

I desire to get free stuff, but I cannot bring myself to write letters to Santa.

If a cookie isn't done baking in the oven, then only more time in the heat of life, in bad situations will allow those cookies to be ripe for eating.

If you are waiting for your cookies to ripen before eating them, you are doing it wrong.

footnotes:

1. Koukl, Gregory, The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?, 1994
2. Jump up↑ Multiple references:
   • Anticommunist (April 14, 2004). "The Human Cost of Communism - 100 million". UK Indymedia. Retrieved from June 7, 2013 archive at Internet Achive.
   • "The Black Book of Communism". Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website: Cold War Studies.
   • Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). "How many did communist regimes murder?" University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.
   • White, Matthew (February 2011). "Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century". Necrometrics.
   • Higgins, David (June 22, 2007). "Memory and ideology: Washington's newest statue is the Victims Of Communism Memorial". Sarasota Magazine website. Retrieved from October 8, 2007 archive at Internet Archive
   • Radosh, Ronald (February 2000). "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression". First Things [journal] website.
3. Jump up↑ Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). "How many did communist regimes murder?" University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that is not what falsification means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I suppose at this point we should examine the source for your definition of "falsifiability"

you quote wikipedia which is publically edited with no requirements for degrees or any educational milestones at all (for that matter).

should this really affect the content of wikipedia?

I believe it has negatively affected the trustworthiness of wikipedia, simply because it is open source and publicly edited (many times by the uneducated)

1. http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
5. http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

So again it's okay to have an online encyclopedia, but when it made it possible for anyone to edit it, they sacrificed reliability and the ability to be quoted in debate settings as authoritative due to the above errors.

so if your definition is from a shoddy source, then we must start by getting a valid source for your definition.

at least, then we can go forward.

 

[Davian]

I suppose at this point we should examine the source for your definition of "falsifiability"

Of course. This is called "poisoning the well".

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target [source] is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

you quote wikipedia which is publically edited with no requirements for degrees or any educational milestones at all (for that matter).

should this really affect the content of wikipedia?

For its overall level of accuracy, compared to other encyclopedic sources? Not that I am aware of.

For the page in question? Nothing you have provided to date.

I believe it has negatively affected the trustworthiness of wikipedia, simply because it is open source and publicly edited (many times by the uneducated)

1. http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
5. http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

So again it's okay to have an online encyclopedia, but when it made it possible for anyone to edit it, they sacrificed reliability and the ability to be quoted in debate settings as authoritative due to the above errors.

While there may be errors in many wiki articles, I do not see in your links where the claim that the reliability of them has been sacrificed is supported. Could you quote the applicable text?

so if your definition is from a shoddy source, then we must start by getting a valid source for your definition.

But I am not quoting wiki as a source. It is simply an aggregator of information, with the citations available at the bottom of the article.

at least, then we can go forward.

Why don't we start with where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course. This is called "poisoning the well".

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target [source] is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

For its overall level of accuracy, compared to other encyclopedic sources? Not that I am aware of.

For the page in question? Nothing you have provided to date.

While there may be errors in many wiki articles, I do not see in your links where the claim that the reliability of them has been sacrificed is supported. Could you quote the applicable text?

But I am not quoting wiki as a source. It is simply an aggregator of information, with the citations available at the bottom of the article.

Why don't we start with where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

if you can provide the definitive difference between poisoning the well, and using one's brain to research a definition that some (may not like, and call it poisoning the well), then I will accept your fallacy accusation.

you even state yourself that there "may be errors in many wiki articles"

so again, I provided some links proving at least a hundred error, plus your many errors.

if you do the math, it's a 100 plus (many=say 30), that = 130 errors, only in a few posts and links.

and I am sure we can find more.

so are you sure you wish to go down this route to prove that wikipedia is on par with more scientific definition sources?

after all, when searching google scholar, which I do quite often, ...I have never ran across a link crossing over to wikipedia....

why is that? I wonder?

 

[Davian]

if you can provide the definitive difference between poisoning the well, and using one's brain to research a definition that some (may not like, and call it poisoning the well), then I will accept your fallacy accusation.

I made no accusation; I only held up the option, as your post did meet the criteria. Your acceptance is not a requirement.

you even state yourself that there "may be errors in many wiki articles"

so again, I provided some links proving at least a hundred error, plus your many errors.

if you do the math, it's a 100 plus (many=say 30), that = 130 errors, only in a few posts and links.

and I am sure we can find more.

As we will if we look into the competing, commercial, professionally edited encyclopaedic sources. The burden would still lie with you to show that reliability has been sacrificed.

so are you sure you wish to go down this route to prove that wikipedia is on par with more scientific definition sources?

And as I said, Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

But, evaluating it as an encyclopedic source, I have already gone down that route, and know how it ends. Feel free to pursue it at your leisure. (spoiler: wiki holds its own)

after all, when searching google scholar, which I do quite often, ...I have never ran across a link crossing over to wikipedia....

why is that? I wonder?

I don't. It's called "copyright law". And, Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. They may post links to the same sources.

Now, if you are done with that distraction, back to my previous post:

Why don't we start with where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

 

[createdtoworship]

I made no accusation; I only held up the option, as your post did meet the criteria. Your acceptance is not a requirement.

As we will if we look into the competing, commercial, professionally edited encyclopaedic sources. The burden would still lie with you to show that reliability has been sacrificed.

And as I said, Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. You are comparing apples to orange crates.

But, evaluating it as an encyclopedic source, I have already gone down that route, and know how it ends. Feel free to pursue it at your leisure. (spoiler: wiki holds its own)


I don't. It's called "copyright law". And, Wiki is not a source, it is an aggregator. They may post links to the same sources.

Now, if you are done with that distraction, back to my previous post:

Why don't we start with where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

so the last time I did a research paper, I fail to remember the end of the paper being cited by aggregators.

so too with any debate, I have read or listened too, do they use aggregators.

so, this game you are playing by not doing any homework, and trying to criticize my view instead will not work. your lack of sources, has become an appeal to authority.

so since you refuse to support your claims with authoritative sources, I guess we are done here?

is this your white flag, saying I give up, and I am through being rational and have resorted to emotion and belittling to make a point?

The Bible says "
"If you are wise, you are wise for yourself,
And if you scoff, you will bear it alone.”
Proverbs 9:12 (NKJV)

 

[Davian]

so the last time I did a research paper, I fail to remember the end of the paper being cited by aggregators.

That I can believe.

so too with any debate, I have read or listened too, do they use aggregators.

so, this game you are playing by not doing any homework,

I am not doing your homework for you.

and trying to criticize my view

You view is the matter at hand.

instead will not work. your lack of sources,

It is your sources that you have been asked to provide.

has become an appeal to authority.

More accurately, a "red herring"; an attempt on your part to mislead or distract from the matter at hand, which is your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

so since you refuse to support your claims

What claim was that, exactly?

with authoritative sources, I guess we are done here?

No, there is still the matter of you providing your source for your understanding of the concept of falsifiability. This I'd like to see.

is this your white flag,

Not at all.

saying I give up,

I don't see why. I'm here anyway.

and I am through being rational

No, rational has gotten me this far. It seems to work okay.

and have resorted to emotion and belittling to make a point?

Where did I do that?

Did your feelings get hurt in this exchange?

The Bible says "
"If you are wise, you are wise for yourself,
And if you scoff, you will bear it alone.”
Proverbs 9:12 (NKJV)

Scoff if you like then.

Now, why don't we get back to where you were about to provide where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

 

[Oafman]

I believe it has negatively affected the trustworthiness of wikipedia, simply because it is open source and publicly edited (many times by the uneducated)

1. http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rticles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
5. http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Did you just link to Conservapedia to support your criticism of the reliability of Wikipedia?!

 

[createdtoworship]

That I can believe.

I am not doing your homework for you.

You view is the matter at hand.

It is your sources that you have been asked to provide.

More accurately, a "red herring"; an attempt on your part to mislead or distract from the matter at hand, which is your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

What claim was that, exactly?

No, there is still the matter of you providing your source for your understanding of the concept of falsifiability. This I'd like to see.

Not at all.

I don't see why. I'm here anyway.

No, rational has gotten me this far. It seems to work okay.

Where did I do that?

Did your feelings get hurt in this exchange?

Scoff if you like then.

Now, why don't we get back to where you were about to provide where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability?

so then if you wish to talk, give me some sources.

(speaking of doing homework, you seem very unlikely to do any of your own- regarding citation)

and no, no one I have heard or read uses aggregators as opposed to citing real citation (which you have done blatantly without apology or even admittance).

so if you wish to use them, this is not the place for that.

sources are what every one uses.

pratting, usually is when a person is talking but no substance is coming out. The Bible talks repeatedly about this:

Proverbs 10:8-9 (KJV)
8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did you just link to Conservapedia to support your criticism of the reliability of Wikipedia?!

if you have problems with it, then provide your sources. It's not difficult.

however if you wish to prat around, and not give anything of substance, well the Bible talks about this too numerously:

Proverbs 10:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

 

[Davian]

so then if you wish to talk, give me some sources.

I am still waiting for you to provide where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability; then we can discuss other sources.

Maybe yours will be good enough, should you ever get around to providing it.

(speaking of doing homework, you seem very unlikely to do any of your own- regarding citation)

What would that citation be for?

and no, no one I have heard or read uses aggregators as opposed to citing real citation (which you have done blatantly without apology or even admittance).

In which post did I do that?

so if you wish to use them, this is not the place for that.

sources are what every one uses.

And I await yours.

pratting, usually is when a person is talking but no substance is coming out. The Bible talks repeatedly about this:

Proverbs 10:8-9 (KJV)
8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

Continue prating if you like.

When you are done, we can pick it up where you were about to provide where you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

 

[createdtoworship]

I got my definition from deduction and logic, and from any of millions of dictionaries. Just pick one.

But I was simply saying that wikipedia may not be the best source.

So if you wish to continue in our discussion, please provide proper sources.

Until then, I believe you have been argued out of your position.

Seeing you have no sources for your view, just opinion....which is technically just an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), and resultingly should be struck from the record.

Even when criticizing my links, you offer no examples or sources, so again these criticisms should be struck from the record as well.

basically there is not a whole lot that can be validated with you're posts.

 

[Davian]

I got my definition from deduction and logic, and from any of millions of dictionaries. Just pick one.

Do you not have access to any of these dictionaries yourself?

But I was simply saying that wikipedia may not be the best source.

I did not claim it as a source.

So if you wish to continue in our discussion, please provide proper sources.

Noted. However, what is being waited upon at this time is the source for where you think you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability. Only you can provide that.

Until then, I believe you have been argued out of your position.

What position is that, exactly?

Seeing you have no sources for your view, just opinion....which is technically just an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy), and resultingly should be struck from the record.

Even when criticizing my links, you offer no examples or sources, so again these criticisms should be struck from the record as well.

Let's first see how my posts compare to the source for where you think you got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability. Then we can make that evaluation.

basically there is not a whole lot that can be validated with you're posts.

I am not making claims in need of validation.

Now, if you are done with that distraction, back to my previous post:

Why don't we start with where you think got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability? For example, which dictionary?

 

[createdtoworship]

well lets back track.

you are familiar with logic yes?

it's when our brain uses it's capacity to solve problems, be it math, or other.

A premise can be logically valid, without ever being supported by external fact.

it does not make it sound, it does make it logically valid.

so I was saying that my argument is logically valid.

I was never claiming it as sound.

If I was to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

now that is logically valid, even if it is not externally supported, because it is validated by logic.

My argument is validated by logic, and if you wish we can revisit what I mentioned about falsification.

In conclusion logic is the first step of debate, secondly argumentation (not as in fighting, but as in conversing) needs to be adressed.

on that note, you can make a statement, that has all true statements, and a false conclusion, or a true conclusion with false statements. vice versa. you can have a valid argument, with premises false and thus a false conclusion, or unsound. A sound argument will have premises being true, with a valid argument.

my point is that my argument is valid, and I believe I gave a few supporting statments as well to add to it.

do you wish to reinvestigate this.

I can lay out my premises one by one if you wish.

 

[Davian]

well lets back track.

you are familiar with logic yes?

it's when our brain uses it's capacity to solve problems, be it math, or other.

A premise can be logically valid, without ever being supported by external fact.

it does not make it sound, it does make it logically valid.

so I was saying that my argument is logically valid.

I was never claiming it as sound.

If I was to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

now that is logically valid, even if it is not externally supported, because it is validated by logic.

My argument is validated by logic, and if you wish we can revisit what I mentioned about falsification.

In conclusion logic is the first step of debate, secondly argumentation (not as in fighting, but as in conversing) needs to be adressed.

on that note, you can make a statement, that has all true statements, and a false conclusion, or a true conclusion with false statements. vice versa. you can have a valid argument, with premises false and thus a false conclusion, or unsound. A sound argument will have premises being true, with a valid argument.

my point is that my argument is valid, and I believe I gave a few supporting statments as well to add to it.

do you wish to reinvestigate this.

I can lay out my premises one by one if you wish.

Right after you divulge where you think got your understanding of the concept of falsifiability; if it was a dictionary, name it.

 

[createdtoworship]

okay, so facts are not falsifiable.

lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different" (source for definition below) (y/n?)....the answer is yes, this is the current definition proven my numerous dictionaries, and scientific articles, I quoted the person who made falsification popular, for context)
3. facts are falsifiable
4. facts are not falsifiable

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

Sources:
for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7691/Falsifiability.html

for the technical definition of an argument from silence:

“If a particular piece of evidence existed, it would prove a certain point. That piece of evidence doesn’t exist, so that point must be false.”

see more about this fallacy here:
https://scienceandotherdrugs.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/logical-fallacies-the-argument-from-silence/

 

[createdtoworship]

sorry this post was created by accident

 

[Davian]

okay, so facts are not falsifiable.

Not according to the link you provided.

lets break it down.

1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.
2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different" (source for definition below) (y/n?)....the answer is yes, this is the current definition proven my numerous dictionaries, and scientific articles, I quoted the person who made falsification popular, for context)
3. facts are falsifiable
4. facts are not falsifiable

so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

From your link: "Note that falsifiable does not mean "falsified" or "false" any more than breakable means "broken." On the simple model, even if, per impossibile, an empirical law could be known to be absolutely true in our universe, it would still be falsifiable in the sense that it would be empirically testable and would test false were the world relevantly different."

1 )Are facts true? Your link says that it is impossible to for an empirical law (fact) to be known as absolutely true in our universe.

2) I don't see where you got that from the link. Falsifiable is about being potentially checkable/testable (as per your link).

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

Not the 1 and 2 as you have written them.

summary....if facts are true,

Which, according to your link, is impossible...

and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false,

That is not mentioned in your link.

then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

lol.

Your link states that facts are falsifiable.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.

Sources:
for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7691/Falsifiability.html

for the technical definition of an argument from silence:

“If a particular piece of evidence existed, it would prove a certain point. That piece of evidence doesn’t exist, so that point must be false.”

see more about this fallacy here:
https://scienceandotherdrugs.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/logical-fallacies-the-argument-from-silence/

[Your] faulty premises lead to a faulty conclusion.

I completely agree with your source article. Now, why don't you?