Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

But we have nothing else to go on. Like I said, it's one of the assumptions we have to make. I'm freely admitting that it's an assumption - an assumption based on all available evidence, but an assumption nonetheless. You can't really turn around and complain because it's an assumption, because I'm not pretending that it's anything else.

If it's based on all available external evidence it is circular reasoning. So making claims about reality upon that is unjustified. I am not making an assumption, I am postulating a premise from which the conclusion that what we experience is the real world can follow. The difference between us is that you are just assuming that it is the real world, I am postulating a premise, which if true, it follows that the world we experience is the real world.

 

[Speedwell]

What you said was why should they be consistent, referring to my statement on Jesus's promise and your ontological claims about mind. If Jesus is making a claim about reality that is not rationally coherent then Jesus is not being coherently rational. Whether the claim is 'Jesus isn't consistent with reality', OR 'Jesus isn't being rationally coherent', it still leaves Jesus as either mad, or lying. Either is incredibly shocking to hear.

Rational is definitely under quotes there, because it's essentially a tautology.

Which brings us back to the OP. "Rationally coherent" is a statement about our internal mental constructs, not necessarily about objective reality, whatever that may be.

 

[Sanoy]

Which brings us back to the OP. "Rationally coherent" is a statement about our internal mental constructs, not necessarily about objective reality, whatever that may be.

Hang on now, we are at a theological cliff hanger and you are cutting to commercial. Is Jesus's promise consistent with reality, and coherently rational? If so, how?

 

[Speedwell]

Hang on now, we are at a theological cliff hanger and you are cutting to commercial. Is Jesus's promise consistent with reality, and coherently rational? If so, how?

You expect it to be both? Oh, right. You have "The Premise."

 

[Sanoy]

You expect it to be both? Oh, right. You have "The Premise."

Is Jesus's promise consistent with reality, and coherently rational? If so, how?

 

[Kylie]

If it's based on all available external evidence it is circular reasoning. So making claims about reality upon that is unjustified. I am not making an assumption, I am postulating a premise from which the conclusion that what we experience is the real world can follow. The difference between us is that you are just assuming that it is the real world, I am postulating a premise, which if true, it follows that the world we experience is the real world.

I think you are making this discussion more complicated than it needs to be. In my experience, people who quibble about the nature of the language used to have a discussion have no valuable input into the discussion itself, which is why they try to hide it with their quibbling over the language of the discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

Is Jesus's promise consistent with reality, and coherently rational? If so, how?

That's your assertion, not mine. We believe by faith that Jesus' promise is true, i.e. consistent with reality. Whether it is coherently rational is another question. "Rationally coherent" is merely a statement about our internal mental constructs, not necessarily a statement.about objective reality.

"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

--J. B. S. Haldane​

 

[Sanoy]

That's your assertion, not mine. We believe by faith that Jesus' promise is true, i.e. consistent with reality. Whether it is coherently rational is another question. "Rationally coherent" is merely a statement about our internal mental constructs, not necessarily a statement.about objective reality.

"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

--J. B. S. Haldane​

What you are talking about is square circle territory. You can't tell me that Jesus is talking about square circles and I just have to "have faith" that it refers to reality. No, that is not logically possible. If a body is your mind, and your body and mind cease to exist, while a new body is made that is a clone. You can mystify it all you want but it is still logically impossible not to be a clone. You reguarly mock young earth creationists, and believers in a flat earth for their "non scientific faith" but what they believe is logically possible, you are neither in the realm of science or logic in your blind faith. I suppose next time you go after them they should reply "it doesn't need to be rationally coherent", or quote Haldane about how queer the universe is.

 

[Sanoy]

I think you are making this discussion more complicated than it needs to be. In my experience, people who quibble about the nature of the language used to have a discussion have no valuable input into the discussion itself, which is why they try to hide it with their quibbling over the language of the discussion.

In one you can rationally hold conclusions about reality, in the other you can't. In my opinion that is a very meaningful difference.

 

[Speedwell]

What you are talking about is square circle territory. You can't tell me that Jesus is talking about square circles and I just have to "have faith" that it refers to reality.

Faith is all you've got. It's all any of us has.

No, that is not logically possible.

What is "logically possible" does not bind God.

You reguarly mock young earth creationists, and believers in a flat earth for their "non scientific faith" but what they believe is logically possible,

No, I do not. That accusation is false and offensive. Indeed, creationists who are forthcoming in their faith and admit that they understand what science says but want to believe in creationism anyway are generally treated quite gently in this forum. It is creationists who misrepresent science and lie about it who are mocked. Creationism is not rejected for being "logically impossible" but for utterly lacking empirical evidence.

you are neither in the realm of science or logic in your blind faith.

Good. That gives me some hope that my faith is not in vain.

I suppose next time you go after them they should reply "it doesn't need to be rationally coherent", or quote Haldane about how queer the universe is.

All of this reminds me of a long discussion I had once with a fellow in another forum. On the face of it he was a perfectly respectable Calvinist but he argued until he was blue in the face that unless God's will was bound by the "laws" of logic, the existence of the Trinity was impossible. It's as if you thought the "laws" of logic were something more than human mental constructs.

 

[xianghua]

Finding a human before apes evolved would be an obvious example of failure, since humans are apes..

the first ape fossil is about 30 my old. the first human is about 2-3 old. are you saying that we cant push back human evolution to about 31 my?

 

[Sanoy]

Faith is all you've got. It's all any of us has.What is "logically possible" does not bind God. No, I do not. That accusation is false and offensive. Indeed, creationists who are forthcoming in their faith and admit that they understand what science says but want to believe in creationism anyway are generally treated quite gently in this forum. It is creationists who misrepresent science and lie about it who are mocked. Creationism is not rejected for being "logically impossible" but for utterly lacking empirical evidence. Good. That gives me some hope that my faith is not in vain.

All of this reminds me of a long discussion I had once with a fellow in another forum. On the face of it he was a perfectly respectable Calvinist but he argued until he was blue in the face that unless God's will was bound by the "laws" of logic, the existence of the Trinity was impossible. It's as if you thought the "laws" of logic were something more than human mental constructs.

I don't think anyone should be mocked for their ideas, least of all from espousing Christians. However I think you fail to see just how ridiculous your position is. If I ask a believer in the flat earth why they believe in the flat earth they will provide a reason. What they absolutely will not do is reply that "the universe is queer". Neither will they reply that God can do the logically impossible and make the world flat and round at the same time. According to your own rules of when it is okay to mock people no one on these forums is more eligible for mockery than you. Whatever is scientifically possible is also logically possible, yet you mock someone for being unscientific while claiming the laws of logic, like non contradiction are violable. So I would consider mocking yourself as the chief offender of all things mockable.

 

[46AND2]

I don't think anyone should be mocked for their ideas, least of all from espousing Christians. However I think you fail to see just how ridiculous your position is. If I ask a believer in the flat earth why they believe in the flat earth they will provide a reason. What they absolutely will not do is reply that "the universe is queer". Neither will they reply that God can do the logically impossible and make the world flat and round at the same time. According to your own rules of when it is okay to mock people no one on these forums is more eligible for mockery than you. Whatever is scientifically possible is also logically possible, yet you mock someone for being unscientific while claiming the laws of logic, like non contradiction are violable. So I would consider mocking yourself as the chief offender of all things mockable.

Virtually every description of god, at some point, defies logic. I find it unlikely that your version of god is logically coherent any more than Speedwell's.

 

[Peter J Barban]

If an idea is not falsifiable, then it cannot be proven to be factual.

Evolution is falsifiable, but has not been falsified. Genetics could have falsified evolution, but did not, further supporting it instead. The fossil record could have falsified evolution, but does not, further supporting it as well.

What is falsifiable about creation that has not been falsified?

1. Is evolution really falsifiable?
2. How would we theoretically falsify evolution?
3. If we could experimentally falsify evolution, would you believe in it anyway?

(I didn't read most of the other posts, it just seems the OP takes evolution's falsifiability for granted.)

 

[46AND2]

1. Is evolution really falsifiable?
2. How would we theoretically falsify evolution?
3. If we could experimentally falsify evolution, would you believe in it anyway?

(I didn't read most of the other posts, it just seems the OP takes evolution's falsifiability for granted.)

1. Yes
2. Find genetic comparisons which consistently and grossly divert from the nested hierarchical pattern that is required of life resulting from common ancestry.
3. No.

 

[Peter J Barban]

1. Yes
2. Find genetic comparisons which consistently and grossly divert from the nested hierarchical pattern that is required of life resulting from common ancestry.
3. No.

Regarding #2, Maybe. But wouldn't people just say "evolution is more complicated than we thought? But this just proves it is all true!"

My feeling is that based on human nature, all facts (even previously incompatible ones) will be believed to support the existing paradigm to avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

My feeling is that based on human nature, all facts (even previously incompatible ones) will be believed to support the existing paradigm to avoid cognitive dissonance.

No, thats religion, not science.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think anyone should be mocked for their ideas, least of all from espousing Christians. However I think you fail to see just how ridiculous your position is.

It's only "ridiculous" from the viewpoint of Logical Realism.

If I ask a believer in the flat earth why they believe in the flat earth they will provide a reason.

Generally speaking, they will respond to the effect that "It says so in the Bible" and then proceed to denouncing conventional science as a satanic conspiracy. If they are mocked, it is because of that denunciation, not because of their belief in a flat Earth per se.

they absolutely will not do is reply that "the universe is queer". Neither will they reply that God can do the logically impossible and make the world flat and round at the same time. According to your own rules of when it is okay to mock people

I have no such "rules." You are just making them up to be offensive.

no one on these forums is more eligible for mockery than you. Whatever is scientifically possible is also logically possible, yet you mock someone for being unscientific while claiming the laws of logic, like non contradiction are violable. So I would consider mocking yourself as the chief offender of all things mockable.

There are no "laws" of logic. Non-contradiction is an axiom of an axiomatic formal system, in this case two-value propositional logic. Other axioms are possible and are in fact employed in other logics which have descriptive utility in various branches of science.

 

[Peter J Barban]

No, thats religion, not science.

That is related to my point. For most people, evolution is a religion or actually a faith, based on trust in authority and fear of heterodoxy.

 

[VirOptimus]

That is related to my point. For most people, evolution is a religion or actually a faith, based on trust in authority and fear of heterodoxy.

Thats just ignorance, its a desceiption of physical reality.