Falsifiability

[TBDude65]

No, I can prove to myself that I exist. I don't know how you can prove/show physics and chemistry describe reality under your beliefs. You yourself said as much when you answered my question way back.

Why do you think I cannot prove/show physics chemistry describes reality under my "beliefs" such as you claim to understand them?

 

[46AND2]

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.

How do you justify that trust? Because I can tell you I have had many, many conversations with Christians about the topic over the last 30 years, including when I was still a believer and active in the Christian community, and as I have said...that has not been my experience. I've received everything from evasion to "just ask god when you see him in heaven."

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

The irrational concepts are there regardless. At least the ones who acknowledge it have reasoned it out for themselves, and decided that they still believe.

 

[Sanoy]

Why do you think I cannot prove/show physics chemistry describes reality under my "beliefs" such as you claim to understand them?

I asked you if physics and chemistry describe reality and you said no. If you have a way please let me know.

 

[Sanoy]

How do you justify that trust? Because I can tell you I have had many, many conversations with Christians about the topic over the last 30 years, including when I was still a believer and active in the Christian community, and as I have said...that has not been my experience. I've received everything from evasion to "just ask god when you see him in heaven."

The understanding of Omni in the average Christians mind is far different that the understanding used in the logical retort.



The irrational concepts are there regardless. At least the ones who acknowledge it have reasoned it out for themselves, and decided that they still believe.

I'm confused, what is it I'm supposed to justify? That some will and some won't? You already know the ones that won't, and since I will, that makes the statement true. You were a Christian, so you already know they aren't likely rejecting it for the proposition, but rather the speciously implied conclusion that is being forcefully drawn from it. The understanding of Omni in the average Christians mind is general, and nothing like that used in the logical retort.

 

[46AND2]

I'm confused, what is it I'm supposed to justify? That some will and some won't? You already know the ones that won't, and since I will, that makes the statement true. You were a Christian, so you already know they aren't likely rejecting it for the proposition, but rather the speciously implied conclusion that is being forcefully drawn from it. The understanding of Omni in the average Christians mind is general, and nothing like that used in the logical retort.

You said "most" not "some," and your sole example of yourself does not make the statement true. It also goes toward justifying your idea that the implicit claims are superior to the explicit. They are both illogical, and ignorance of that fact doesn't make it better than the other.

And it's not like one needs to be a philosophy major to recognize the issues with omni claims. I found them troublesome by the time I was 12 years old, perhaps even earlier. It has more to do with avoiding conflicting ideas that might test one's faith; trying to answer the difficult questions. And that is pervasive in the Christian community. Therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree that "most" Christians would adjust their understanding of god's power and knowledge even if they are shown that their current ideas are illogical.

 

[Sanoy]

You said "most" not "some," and your sole example of yourself does not make the statement true. It also goes toward justifying your idea that the implicit claims are superior to the explicit. They are both illogical, and ignorance of that fact doesn't make it better than the other.

And it's not like one needs to be a philosophy major to recognize the issues with omni claims. I found them troublesome by the time I was 12 years old, perhaps even earlier. It has more to do with avoiding conflicting ideas that might test one's faith; trying to answer the difficult questions. And that is pervasive in the Christian community. Therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree that "most" Christians would adjust their understanding of god's power and knowledge even if they are shown that their current ideas are illogical.

As I stated, I did not know what you wanted me to justify. I still hold that most would accept the redefinition when explained well and not also provided with the specious rhetoric typically given with it. I only know one person who has resisted that. That you realized a conflict is due to the explanation you were given and the circumstances in your life that presented the conflict. Mileage may vary.

I never stated that implicit claims are superior to explicit claims. Oh you mean Omni claims. Yes there is a big difference between having the stated ability to do the logically impossible, and having a general term that is in conflict with a highly refined philosophical term. It would be ridiculous to say very much against the person that thinks, and speaks in convenient terms.

 

[VirOptimus]

Go fish!

added: I'm not a believer in evolution, so that is an irrelevant question to me.
However, that has been a very important question in the history of evolution.

You dont "belive" in evolution, you accept the science. Belief is the realm of religion.

And, no it really hasnt. Eugenics (which I gues is what you mean) is a discarded psudoscience.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Okay, let's have a look...

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.

So, the first cause and argument from incredulity. Old argument, thoroughly refuted.

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.

I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who claims that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. And there is no scientific basis for the idea of race.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

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".

The genetic changes are there for all to see and measure.

 

[Kylie]

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.

But either way, we work as though it is the case.

Now, would you care to quibble over this some more?

 

[Speedwell]

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.

You're off on the wrong foot already. The hypothesis that life arose by natural forces does not rule out a creator. It's not natural forces or a creator. For the believer, it's a God and the natural forces He created. Scientists all know that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. That is, nothing that science has discovered or could potentially discover can deny the existence of God or his authorship of our being.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Okay, let's have a look...



So, the first cause and argument from incredulity. Old argument, thoroughly refuted.



I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who claims that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. And there is no scientific basis for the idea of race.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News
Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue



The genetic changes are there for all to see and measure.

I am genuinely unaware that my first point has been thoroughly refuted. Please post a link so I can see for myself.

As for the second point, it is embedded in the history of the evolutionary theory. Is was an essential component of 19th-century thinking. This was the standard indoctrination for all children of earlier generations. I remember believing it myself. The funny thing is that there is no scientific refutation of this idea. It's just not politically correct anymore. So I laugh when people promote evolution as a science. It is actually a belief system that is strongly influenced by the whims of culture.

3. Genetic changes do not equal evolution. Evolution can only be described after the fact. It has not been measured making it less than science.

I don't mind if people choose to believe in evolution, however, calling it a science, or even a fact, is fraudulent.

 

[pitabread]

So I laugh when people promote evolution as a science. It is actually a belief system that is strongly influenced by the whims of culture.

How do you explain practical applications of evolutionary biology as used in areas like genomics, et al?

This even includes companies that have filed patents based on the ToE. Why would they do that if it's just a "belief system"?

 

[Belk]

I am genuinely unaware that my first point has been thoroughly refuted. Please post a link so I can see for myself.

As for the second point, it is embedded in the history of the evolutionary theory. Is was an essential component of 19th-century thinking. This was the standard indoctrination for all children of earlier generations. I remember believing it myself. The funny thing is that there is no scientific refutation of this idea. It's just not politically correct anymore. So I laugh when people promote evolution as a science. It is actually a belief system that is strongly influenced by the whims of culture.

3. Genetic changes do not equal evolution. Evolution can only be described after the fact. It has not been measured making it less than science.

I don't mind if people choose to believe in evolution, however, calling it a science, or even a fact, is fraudulent.

Actual scientists disagree with you and have for 150+ years.

 

[Speedwell]

I am genuinely unaware that my first point has been thoroughly refuted. Please post a link so I can see for myself.

You didn't make a point, you just made a bald assertion. If you want refutation you have to produce some kind of an argument. Show us the line of reasoning which convinces you that a naturalistic abiogenesis rules out divine authorship of life.

 

[Kylie]

I am genuinely unaware that my first point has been thoroughly refuted. Please post a link so I can see for myself.

Really? The weaknesses and counter arguments have been around for literally centuries...

I mean, even if we grant that there was some first cause, then it still does not follow that this first cause is your specific deity.

And if life needs a cause, then why does not this creator also need a cause?

In any case, here are some links for you.

Argument from first cause - RationalWiki
Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked
How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

As for the second point, it is embedded in the history of the evolutionary theory. Is was an essential component of 19th-century thinking. This was the standard indoctrination for all children of earlier generations. I remember believing it myself. The funny thing is that there is no scientific refutation of this idea. It's just not politically correct anymore. So I laugh when people promote evolution as a science. It is actually a belief system that is strongly influenced by the whims of culture.

Must you rely on out-dated ideas of evolution in order to debunk it? Surely you aren't reduced to using a strawman.

3. Genetic changes do not equal evolution. Evolution can only be described after the fact. It has not been measured making it less than science.

Changes in the genetic structure are precisely the mechanism by which evolution happens. On what basis do you reject this?

 

[Peter J Barban]

You didn't make a point, you just made a bald assertion. If you want refutation you have to produce some kind of an argument. Show us the line of reasoning which convinces you that a naturalistic abiogenesis rules out divine authorship of life.

You have missed my point by a mile. I am not arguing for creation/divine authorship of life.

I am merely examining evolution from a skeptical viewpoint rather than as a believer in evolution, such as yourself. I want to discuss the facts/lack of facts regarding evolution. I am arguing that there is no objective evidence that life arose spontaneously - which is a key component of evolution.

You would gain major integrity points if you admitted this.

 

[VirOptimus]

You have missed my point by a mile. I am not arguing for creation/divine authorship of life.

I am merely examining evolution from a skeptical viewpoint rather than as a believer in evolution, such as yourself. I want to discuss the facts/lack of facts regarding evolution. I am arguing that there is no objective evidence that life arose spontaneously - which is a key component of evolution.

You would gain major integrity points if you admitted this.

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If you really have the science credentials you claim you should be aware of this very basic fact.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Really? The weaknesses and counter arguments have been around for literally centuries...

I mean, even if we grant that there was some first cause, then it still does not follow that this first cause is your specific deity.

And if life needs a cause, then why does not this creator also need a cause?

In any case, here are some links for you.

Argument from first cause - RationalWiki
Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked
How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard



Must you rely on out-dated ideas of evolution in order to debunk it? Surely you aren't reduced to using a strawman.



Changes in the genetic structure are precisely the mechanism by which evolution happens. On what basis do you reject this?

Your links do not address my point. They do not show spontaneous life generation. You are creating the straw man yourself.

1. I am examining the key claim of evolution. Evolutionary theory requires life arising from non-life. This has never been observed. Meaning that people believe it without the possibility of seeing it. That is the definition of faith.

2. You actually used the word "out-dated" regarding evolutionary theory. It is as if evolution is some kind of fad or fashion. If evolution were a science, you would say the ideas of racial evolution are "disproven". But of course, they are not disproven, not because they are true, but because evolution is such a crappy science that nobody can prove or disprove anything about it.

3. As far as I know, there are no measurements of evolution, just descriptions. Perhaps evolution is real but too complicated to measure. That still means you have faith not evidence.

Looking at evolution skeptically: it is based on faith and as long it is based on faith, it is unfalsifiable.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your links do not address my point. They do not show spontaneous life generation. You are creating the straw man yourself.

1. I am examining the key claim of evolution. Evolutionary theory requires life arising from non-life. This has never been observed. Meaning that people believe it without the possibility of seeing it. That is the definition of faith.

2. You actually used the word "out-dated" regarding evolutionary theory. It is as if evolution is some kind of fad or fashion. If evolution were a science, you would say the ideas of racial evolution are "disproven". But of course, they are not disproven, not because they are true, but because evolution is such a crappy science that nobody can prove or disprove anything about it.

3. As far as I know, there are no measurements of evolution, just descriptions. Perhaps evolution is real but too complicated to measure. That still means you have faith not evidence.

Looking at evolution skeptically: it is based on faith and as long it is based on faith, it is unfalsifiable.

No, evolution is observed, its a fact. The ToE explains how.

This is also a basic fact that a person with your claimed credentials should know.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If you really have the science credentials you claim you should be aware of this very basic fact.

[I removed a negative comment that I regret, Someone else quotes it later, if you really need to see it.] Every layman knows that Evolution is used to explain why there is life.