Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
no. we can push back the predecessors too. scientists do it all the time.
Nope.no. we can push back the predecessors too. scientists do it all the time.
What then is it you think would require cats to grow wings via the theory of evolution?since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.
If you could that would disprove evolution. I am betting that at best you misunderstand a source. One warning, valid sources only. Lying creationist sources will be seen as an instant fail on your part.so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?
John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.One warning, valid sources only. Lying creationist sources will be seen as an instant fail on your part.
And AV rushes in with an instant fail.John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?
What possibly prevent God from making a winged cat if he wanted to create it?since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.
Of course it can. According to creationism, the creator can create however he wants*.
What premises are not falsifiable, and what does that mean about reality by necessity? How does this negate the ability of falsifiable claims to be advantageous for discovering facts?Evolution is theoretically, or analytically falsifiable within it's own argument, but it's premises themselves are not falsifiable.
That the external world exists is not falsifiable. In reality what you are doing is merely protecting this group from its own epistemic requirements of falsefiability rather than dividing what is or is not falsifiable. Falsifiability is thus just a heuristic, not an epistemology. Even so, very little of science is falsifiable even under it's self protection, much is overdetermined, much is active hypothesis, and ad hoc acquisition does much to barricade falsifiability.
TLDR - We should request falsifiability where applicable, but if we demand it for knowledge we lose nearly everything.
All of them requiring the existence of the external world, which is itself not falsifiable. (We could be a brain in a vat, or a simulation, or a dream etc).What premises are not falsifiable, and what does that mean about reality by necessity? How does this negate the ability of falsifiable claims to be advantageous for discovering facts?
All of them requiring the existence of the external world, which is itself not falsifiable. (We could be a brain in a vat).
Falseifiable claims are advantageous. But they are not, nor should be, universally expected to form beliefs, or make moderate claims to knowledge.
However you may feel about the situation, the demand for falseifiability here, but not there is an arbitrary one, and not one required, or even needed, for belief. All that is needed for belief are reasons to believe.I think the issue is that there is no reason to think that an idea imagined by science fiction is plausible. As such, the inability to falsify "reality" is an arrogant way of assuming the universe only exists for us
I agree that there are axioms upon which the ability to study reality must be founded, but I am more than open to testing them as the ability arises. Where they are falsifiable, they should be attempted to be falsified. I think it is irrational to leap from these axioms to the plausibility of a godHowever you may feel about the situation, the demand for falseifiability here, but not there is an arbitrary one, and not one required or even needed for belief. All that is needed for belief are reasons to believe.
I agree with the first part. However the self evidential belief that the external world is real is unexplained, or untrustworthy without first hypothesizing a source of trust. I know that minds are capable of trust so it seems perfectly reasonable to hypothesize such a solution to this existential problem.I agree that there are axioms upon which the ability to study reality must be founded, but I am more than open to testing them as the ability arises. Where they are falsifiable, they should be attempted to be falsified. I think it is irrational to leap from these axioms to the plausibility of a god
If you could that would disprove evolution.
Long ago when I was a brash sophomore I walked into my philosophy class and announced, "I've figured it out! All of this, the world and all of you are nothing but a figment of my imagination!" There was dead silence in the class, and after a while the professor, a wise old bird said, "Hmm. Mr. Speedwell, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" At that, seeing his point at once, all I could do was to burst out laughing.I agree with the first part. However the self evidential belief that the external world is real is unexplained, or untrustworthy without first hypothesizing a source of trust. I know that minds are capable of trust so it seems perfectly reasonable to hypothesize such a solution to this existential problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?