Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Extraneous]

If you really thought raw numbers meant anything, you'd be a Catholic or Muslim, or maybe Hindu.

They dont mean anything me, you're right. Im only trying to use mans logic here. Man uses his own logic, God uses His. In God there is only one logic, that is Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

This goes back to a question I asked you a while ago, and which you did your outmost best to avoid answering...

How do you differentiate true claims from false claims, if not through some form of testability?

The test is whether or not the claim registers as logical to me. I am a being who has been designed with the ability to utilize logic to determine what is true, or in your case, I am a being who has evolved to have an ability to utilize logic to determine what is true(for no apparent reason other than to indulge in pleasing myself...)

If something can be shown to be illogical then I reject the claim. If the claim is logical, then I rationally accept it as possibly true.

Thus the logical statement that the truth about reality would be unfalsifiable because it would be impossible to prove the truth wrong, therefore, the scientific method should not be employed when one wants to figure out the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

If you disagree that the above is logical, please explain why you disagree.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes.

The idea behind falsification is not that something must be proved false but that there must be a way to determine if it is true or false. If you cannot determine if something is true or false you have no idea if it is true. Does that make sense to you?

I didn't say falsification means something must be proven false, I said falsification means something can possibly be proven false.

Logically, the truth about reality would be impossible to prove false, therefore, one should not employ the scientific method to determine the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Logically that would not be possible. You just made the point, that the cause
exists outside of our reality, not a natural event, so says you and science.

First, you say that it is not logically possible.

Then in the next breath, you go on to claim that that which you just called to be logically impossible, happened anyway.

Talk about self-defeating claims..........

 

[bhsmte]

If one wants to know the truth about reality, they should not employ the scientific method because the scientific method relies on falsification. If you want to understand the truth about reality, just think logically and don't use the scientific method.

Can you show the above statement to be false?

Show us then, how you simply, think logically to test the truth?

 

[bhsmte]

The Gospel is what tamed both the barbarian and the Roman both, and although neither followed the Word with all their heart, all the time, its still that Word that enlightened the ancient world, whether you will admit it or not. Before the Gospel man was savage, and even the so called enlightened Roman empire with all its glorious philosophy and art, was nothing but a barbarian. It was the teaching of Love and mercy that Christ brought into the world that all modern civilization is built on. Its also the filthy remnant left over by the barbaric yet so called "civilized" Romans that is causing war, hate, greed and pride today.

If mankind followed Christ with all its heart, instead of clinging to mans wisdom and mans glory, then we would have no war or poverty. Mankind however glories instead in his own wisdom, and in the creation of his own hands. He worship idols made by his own hand, just as his forefathers did as well. He is reaping what he sows, just as God declared. Revelation speaks a great mystery concerning this, and mankind has reaped Gods plagues because he refuses to repent and Give God glory. Mankind doesn't even see it either because he is spiritualy blind, which is also part of the plague that he reaps

Opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true.

The claim is that there is a better method than the scientific method for modeling the reality around us. Take pot shots at the scientific method all you want. At the end of the day, it is the best method we have, and the inability of anyone else to show us a better method is testament to this fact.

 

[bhsmte]

The test is whether or not the claim registers as logical to me. I am a being who has been designed with the ability to utilize logic to determine what is true, or in your case, I am a being who has evolved to have an ability to utilize logic to determine what is true(for no apparent reason other than to indulge in pleasing myself...)

If something can be shown to be illogical then I reject the claim. If the claim is logical, then I rationally accept it as possibly true.

Thus the logical statement that the truth about reality would be unfalsifiable because it would be impossible to prove the truth wrong, therefore, the scientific method should not be employed when one wants to figure out the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

If you disagree that the above is logical, please explain why you disagree.

How do you determine if your logic is sound?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The test is whether or not the claim registers as logical to me.

Ow dear......

Contrary to what your superiority-complex leads you to believe, you do NOT know what is and isn't logical in advance.

Your "intuition" is not a reliable standard to differentiate truth from fiction.

This "method" would not conclude that time is relative to the observer.
This "method" would not conclude that a particle can show up in place X while you measure it in place Y.
This "method" would not even conclude that the earth orbits the sun.

I am a being who has been designed with the ability to utilize logic to determine what is true

No.... actually, you are a being that has been designed (by natural selection) to avoid being eaten by lions on the african plains. As such, you are prone to false positives, because when you are lunch to dangerous predators, your chances of survival are higher when you make decisions based on "better safe then sorry".

, or in your case, I am a being who has evolved to have an ability to utilize logic to determine what is true(for no apparent reason other than to indulge in pleasing myself...)

Again, no. See above.

If something can be shown to be illogical then I reject the claim.

This would have resulted in you rejecting the relativity of time, the weirdness of quantum mechanics, the heliocentric concept,....

All of which are things that are / were counter-intuitive until we could actually demonstrate these things to be correct, with verifiable evidence.

Thus the logical statement that the truth about reality would be unfalsifiable because it would be impossible to prove the truth wrong

You should study up on the concept of falsifiability, because it's embarassingly clear that you have no idea about how that works.

the scientific method should not be employed when one wants to figure out the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

Very well.
We'll use the scientific method to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
Meanwhile, you can sit there and "think about it".

We'll make progress and you... you'll just sit there. Thinking about it.

If you disagree that the above is logical, please explain why you disagree.

You can't differentiate what is true from what is wrong, if you can't verify it.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you first want to know if a claim is false?

No, that isn't it at all.

We first want to know if there is any potential observation that would be inconsistent with a claim. We want to know the criteria that are used to determine if the claim is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

If one wants to know the truth about reality, they should not employ the scientific method because the scientific method relies on falsification.

How can you determine if something is true if no potential observation can be inconsistent with your claim?

Imagine if we ran forensic science like this. What if any swirl pattern would be considered a match to the defendant, no matter how obvious the differences were? What if any DNA pattern was considered a match, no matter how many differences there were between the sample from the crime scene and the defendant's DNA?

If you want to understand the truth about reality, just think logically and don't use the scientific method.

If you are thinking logically, then you should be able to see why falsification is a necessary part of determining if something is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Gospel is what tamed both the barbarian and the Roman both, and although neither followed the Word with all their heart, all the time, its still that Word that enlightened the ancient world, whether you will admit it or not.

And we are told that the atheists are the ones with closed minds. You don't need more proof than this post to prove that it is the theists who have completely closed their minds.

 

[Loudmouth]

We will reap what we sow. If we sow to the spirit we will reap of the spirit, if we sow to the flesh we will reap only corruption. Its the truth, its the meaning of life itself. God commands that all men repent and believe in the Good News that he has given us.

Yet more bare assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is only one truth. Its not found in mans wisdom, but in Gods wisdom. The answer i gave is the answer to any question.

Yet more bare assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Logically that would not be possible. You just made the point, that the cause
exists outside of our reality, not a natural event, so says you and science.

You are assuming that the scientific method can not be used for processes outside of our universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, but there is only one serious claim, it's Genesis.

Ah, but you can't present any evidence to back it up other than bare assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

They dont mean anything me, you're right. Im only trying to use mans logic here. Man uses his own logic, God uses His. In God there is only one logic, that is Christ.

Yet more bare assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

The test is whether or not the claim registers as logical to me.

How do you determine if something is logical or not?

I am a being who has been designed with the ability to utilize logic to determine what is true, or in your case, I am a being who has evolved to have an ability to utilize logic to determine what is true(for no apparent reason other than to indulge in pleasing myself...)

Prove it. Show us how you apply logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say falsification means something must be proven false, I said falsification means something can possibly be proven false.

Are you saying that no claim made by a human can ever be false?

Logically, the truth about reality would be impossible to prove false, therefore, one should not employ the scientific method to determine the truth about reality because the scientific method depends on falsification.

You really have your wires crossed. Didn't you just say, "I didn't say falsification means something must be proven false. . ."? You are going backwards again. You are being illogical. All the scientific method requires is that you be able to describe potential observations that would be inconsistent with hypothesis. If something is true, you should still be able to describe potential observations that would be inconsistent with that truth.

 

[Extraneous]

Yet more bare assertions.

Prove that im wrong. Your assertion, that my assertion is bare, is bare itself. You see, you keep trying to use mans faulty logic to prove God but it doesn't work that way, and that's what im saying. Gods wisdom is found only through His spirit, and is sought after only through faith and his commands. So you are asking me to use mans logic, i.e. error, to prove truth. Sure you can say its a bare assertion but in the end you are actually making bare assertions yourself. We are not using the same programming you see. Your logic is incompatible with mine. Mine is spiritual but yours is carnal. They are contrary to each other.