Falsifiability

[Speedwell]

I'm talking about "not describable by a particular axiomatic formal system."

So what you are saying is that God thinks in accord with the axioms of two-value propositional logic. Is that right?

I told you what I believe about it.

You did, you told me that you believed that logic is how God thinks, but you didn't tell me which logic.

Telling you to mock yourself rather than others isn't being hostile, it's an attempt to reform your behavior on the entirety of mocking.

What evidence of my mockery do you have? Perhaps I could reform more readily if you gave me some specific examples.

 

[46AND2]

Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure that there was no tradition of explicit ability to do the logically impossible.

Is the implicit somehow superior to the explicit?

 

[Sanoy]

Is the implicit somehow superior to the explicit?

Yeah, there is a difference between saying He can do the logically impossible, and saying He can do something, not knowing it is logically impossible.

 

[Sanoy]

So what you are saying is that God thinks in accord with the axioms of two-value propositional logic. Is that right? You did, you told me that you believed that logic is how God thinks, but you didn't tell me which logic.
What evidence of my mockery do you have? Perhaps I could reform more readily if you gave me some specific examples.

I am saying that logic refers to how God thinks, and we should think like God. Some logic refers directly to that and some, like inference, is relevant directly to us as guiding principle's relevant to life as a humans.

I have been off this section of the forums for a while, so I am remembering from months ago. The only thing I have seen recently is this. When I checked these forums again after months and saw that you changed your religion title, I thought for sure you had given up your Christianity. I know of no instance where you ever told anyone about Christ, defended God, or mentioned a reason to believe. I have only ever heard, imo, you mock Christianity, and the religious faith of others in a passive aggressive way. The actual reason I wanted you to make that deal is to get you to say anything about the hope you have in Christ. Maybe I'm mistaken, you have never mocked me. Perhaps I just notice it more because I'm expecting something more from you.

 

[Speedwell]

I am saying that logic refers to how God thinks, and we should think like God. Some logic refers directly to that and some, like inference, is relevant directly to us as guiding principle's relevant to life as a humans.

I have been off this section of the forums for a while, so I am remembering from months ago. The only thing I have seen recently is this. When I checked these forums again after months and saw that you changed your religion title, I thought for sure you had given up your Christianity. I know of no instance where you ever told anyone about Christ, defended God, or mentioned a reason to believe. I have only ever heard you mock Christianity, and the religious faith of others. The actual reason I wanted you to make that deal is to get you to say anything about the hope you have in Christ. Maybe I'm mistaken, you have never mocked me. Perhaps I just notice it more because I'm expecting the opposite from you.

Are you sure you have the right link? The only post of mine I see on that page is this:

"No, but science can explain the sorting--fully and without reference to a 3000 year-old Hebrew religious text." (post #57)

As to changing my religious designation, I am apparently not a Christian any more, not given the present political situation in this country. I'm an Anglican, a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie" who subscribes to the "error-ridden and satanic" Nicene Creed. And no, I don't proselytize here, I am under the impression that it's forbidden by CF rules to do so in forums where non-Christian posters are allowed.

That said, I do sometimes mock the literal inerrancy of Genesis (and get "moderated" for it, too ) when it is advanced as the only possible view of scripture for a "real" Christian.

 

[Sanoy]

Are you sure you have the right link? The only post of mine I see on that page is this:

"No, but science can explain the sorting--fully and without reference to a 3000 year-old Hebrew religious text." (post #57)

As to changing my religious designation, I am apparently not a Christian any more, not given the present political situation in this country. I'm an Anglican, a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie" who subscribes to the "error-ridden and satanic" Nicene Creed. And no, I don't proselytize here, I am under the impression that it's forbidden by CF rules to do so in forums where non-Christian posters are allowed.

That said, I do sometimes mock the literal inerrancy of Genesis (and get "moderated" for it, too ) when it is advanced as the only possible view of scripture for a "real" Christian.

Yeah, that's the link. You say you mock the literal inerrancy of Genesis, but in the link, you are mocking the entire Old Testament.

I am not aware of this political situation in the United States.

Apologetics isn't allowed because there is a section for that, but this section is creation & evolution, which entails talking about God for any Christian speaking of evolution or creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, that's the link. You say you mock the literal inerrancy of Genesis, but in the link, you are mocking the entire Old Testament.

No, just expressing my opinion that the OT is not a source of reliable scientific knowledge. Is that what you consider "mocking?"

I am not aware of this political situation in the United States.

Given the stridency of Evangelical Protestant support for Trump, I find that hard to believe.

Apologetics isn't allowed because there is a section for that, but this section is creation & evolution, which entails talking about God for any Christian speaking of evolution or creation.

Anyone who has read even a fraction of my posts will know that I frequently assert my belief that God is the creator of "all things both visible and invisible" and try to encourage atheists and fallen-away Evangelicals that saving faith in Christ does not depend on acceptance of "Biblical" creationism.

 

[USincognito]

Has this thread stopped being about evolution and falsifiability?

 

[Speedwell]

Has this thread stopped being about evolution and falsifiability?

It kind of got derailed into a debate about logical realism. Sorry. Of course it all more or less comes under the general heading of epistemology.

 

[Kylie]

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

I honestly don't see the problem. It seems to me that we are both saying the same thing - that we can't know for sure that what we experience is the real world, but we are proceeding on the assumption that it is. You want to call it a premise, fine. But what we are saying is essentially the same.

 

[Peter J Barban]

....

Your claims are unfounded, science goes where the data takes it. Belief has nothing to do with it.

My guess is that you have no scientific education or training.

Your assumption about me, like your assumption of science, is in error. I love science and the skeptical nature of true scientific inquiry. I started out as an Honors Chemistry major in college, then branched out into Honors Biology and finally graduated in Honors Psychology at the University of Illinois.

I have done actually scientific experiments at the University. I have also been a paid volunteer for another researcher's experiments on brain waves. Currently, I am an English teacher in Taiwan and an advisor for a university professor/medical researcher in Taiwan. I help her review and present her experiments for journal publication in the West. (We are currently working on a paper investigating how health apps can help diabetic patients.)

The evolution-evangelists that I see on this board are at a disadvantage in that they cannot clearly see themselves. They clearly misunderstand human nature and present a false image of science.

Science is done by humans who are primarily concerned with money, sex, power, and prestige. That is basic human nature and to deny this about scientists is to reveal yourself a fool.

Scientists are not disinterested or agnostic in their pursuit of knowledge. They work hard to prove their ideas are true (the exact opposite of ideal science) and then they work ever harder to prove to others that their ideas are true and competing ideas are false. Established science always ends up looking like a political party or even a religion protecting itself from outsiders. (This does not mean that their science is wrong.)

 

[Kylie]

...then branched out into Honors Biology ...

Did your biology training cover evolution?

 

[Peter J Barban]

Did your biology training cover evolution?

Sure. We had a large lecture hall with a prestigious biology professor who laced his lectures with mocking Christianity and Christians. I gritted my teeth and memorized the Krebs cycle. How could any biology student avoid evolution?

I have read a good amount after school as well, both pro: "The Fossils of the Burgess Shale" and con: "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". I side more with Behe, the theory of evolution remains unproven. I will go further and say that the mechanism of evolution is unmeasured. If we can't measure and quantify evolution, it is still just a faith.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your assumption about me, like your assumption of science, is in error. I love science and the skeptical nature of true scientific inquiry. I started out as an Honors Chemistry major in college, then branched out into Honors Biology and finally graduated in Honors Psychology at the University of Illinois.

I have done actually scientific experiments at the University. I have also been a paid volunteer for another researcher's experiments on brain waves. Currently, I am an English teacher in Taiwan and an advisor for a university professor/medical researcher in Taiwan. I help her review and present her experiments for journal publication in the West. (We are currently working on a paper investigating how health apps can help diabetic patients.)

The evolution-evangelists that I see on this board are at a disadvantage in that they cannot clearly see themselves. They clearly misunderstand human nature and present a false image of science.

Science is done by humans who are primarily concerned with money, sex, power, and prestige. That is basic human nature and to deny this about scientists is to reveal yourself a fool.

Scientists are not disinterested or agnostic in their pursuit of knowledge. They work hard to prove their ideas are true (the exact opposite of ideal science) and then they work ever harder to prove to others that their ideas are true and competing ideas are false. Established science always ends up looking like a political party or even a religion protecting itself from outsiders. (This does not mean that their science is wrong.)

Ok, you are still very wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Sure. We had a large lecture hall with a prestigious biology professor who laced his lectures with mocking Christianity and Christians. I gritted my teeth and memorized the Krebs cycle. How could any biology student avoid evolution?

I have read a good amount after school as well, both pro: "The Fossils of the Burgess Shale" and con: "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". I side more with Behe, the theory of evolution remains unproven. I will go further and say that the mechanism of evolution is unmeasured. If we can't measure and quantify evolution, it is still just a faith.

Then I'm curious, if you've studied evolution at a university level, what about it do you feel is not supported well enough for it to be taken as fact?

 

[46AND2]

Yeah, there is a difference between saying He can do the logically impossible, and saying He can do something, not knowing it is logically impossible.

Are you saying that if those Christians who are ignorant of the illogical aspects of their definition of god, were shown how they are illogical, then they would adjust their definition? Cause, uh, that has been pretty contrary to my experience.

Frankly, I find the explicit acceptance of a logic-defying god more rational, since, as I said, virtually all definitions of god, at some point, require that acceptance, whether the person is cognizant of it or not.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Then I'm curious, if you've studied evolution at a university level, what about it do you feel is not supported well enough for it to be taken as fact?

First, I started with the childhood belief that evolution was true. In college, I looked at Christianity as a skeptic and came away a believer. After becoming born again and dealing with the issue of creation vs evolution, I chose to look at evolution as a skeptic. I found several issues that should give any skeptic cause for more skepticism.

1. The fundamental notion that life arose independently of a creator.
There is no experimental confirmation of this theory. If we never see the spontaneous generation of life, then evolution's fundamental promise remains a faith, not a fact. We may one day be able to create life in the lab, but that life still requires a creator with the intent to create life.

2. The ascent of Man as the capstone of evolution.
From simple to complex, from inferior to superior. This may not be much of a selling point now, but it was a very important plank in the doctrine of evolution. As a skeptic, I do not see this widespread principle of simple life evolving into complex life. It is unproven, but it has been discredited for social justice reasons rather than scientific ones. These days, you can't even ask if the races have evolutionary differences in intelligence. So much for the purity of science.

3. The un-measurability of evolution.
No one knows how to measure evolution. Again, we have no objective, agreed upon way to measure evolution. Things that we can describe but not measure are still beyond our understanding. The best thing you can say about evolution is that "we don't understand it, but we believe it".

I have more, reasons, but I think these are sufficient.

 

[Sanoy]

I honestly don't see the problem. It seems to me that we are both saying the same thing - that we can't know for sure that what we experience is the real world, but we are proceeding on the assumption that it is. You want to call it a premise, fine. But what we are saying is essentially the same.

One is simply assuming that it is the case, the other is inserting a premise that if true makes it the case. One can rationally hold to claims about reality, the other can not. In my opinion that is a very big difference.

 

[Sanoy]

Are you saying that if those Christians who are ignorant of the illogical aspects of their definition of god, were shown how they are illogical, then they would adjust their definition? Cause, uh, that has been pretty contrary to my experience.

Frankly, I find the explicit acceptance of a logic-defying god more rational, since, as I said, virtually all definitions of god, at some point, require that acceptance, whether the person is cognizant of it or not.

I think most would, Speedwell is sticking by it so there clearly are some who won't. There are atheists who do the same things and won't adjust their beliefs, so what, people are people.

I disagree, adding irrational concepts doesn't makes something more rational.

 

[Sanoy]

No, just expressing my opinion that the OT is not a source of reliable scientific knowledge. Is that what you consider "mocking?"

Given the stridency of Evangelical Protestant support for Trump, I find that hard to believe.

Anyone who has read even a fraction of my posts will know that I frequently assert my belief that God is the creator of "all things both visible and invisible" and try to encourage atheists and fallen-away Evangelicals that saving faith in Christ does not depend on acceptance of "Biblical" creationism.

I think it's a passive aggressive mock. You have admitted to mocking so it's not like I have to go back from months ago to find a more suitable candidate. And no, you did not say it wasn't a source of reliable scientific knowledge, you cast doubt on the entirety of the Old testament. It may not have been your intent but your poor choice in words gives the world the appearance of a Christian disparaging his own scripture.

I do not know of any persecution of the Anglican Church in the US. And commie? There are socialist running for president. Can you link me a news article on this persecution?

Can you give me an example of you telling Atheists that God is the creator of "all things both visible and invisible"? That sounds like creation, not evolution.

My discussion on the brain in a vat was part of my case against falsifiability. It became a discussion on that from the OP because he needed to reject it to hold to falsifiability. Then others responded 10+ pages later to that discussion without context of it's purpose.