My Humpty Dumpty Challenge

[DogmaHunter]

Oh please do tell me what predictions it made.

I already did in your ark challenge thread

My Ark Challenge

And if they're negative predictions

They aren't.
They are literally in the form of "if flood occured as written, then we should see x and y".
And when tested, we find that x and y aren't the case at all. And they MUST be the case if the story is accurate.

Hence, it isn't.

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

That's not a testable prediction.

Has that one been analyzed for accuracy by PhDs?

Why would phd's waste time on that?

(I know five year olds that can answer that one.)

Yeah, you've hinted before that you seem to value the opinion of 5-year olds concerning matters of advanced science, for some reason.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry.

When I ask for actual, specific evidence for something, then get some philosophical "thats-not-how-it-works" excuse, I tend to get a little testy.

Well if your loaded question implies things that are simply wrong, then that's the only proper response to give.

If you ask me "what does 'purple' taste like?" then I can only answer by saying that you asked an invalid question.

I understand that it makes you testy, but that's your problem - not mine.
If you ask invalid questions, you'll get responses of people pointing out that the question is invalid.

That's just how it is.

 

[Shemjaza]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

 

[Waterwerx]

The yolk is no joke. Humpty stumped thee.

 

[Heissonear]

I agree science is myopic but I am not sure this form of argument is the way to show it.
The proposition you beg is that "absence of evidence" is not necessarily "evidence of absence" whilst true leads nowhere.

It is better to point science into its true context, as an observation model - not underlying reality - that explains what things normally do, not what are they are or why they exist.

Take.

What IS gravity? Not what it does.. but what it is ie why does matter affect space? Why does it have the value it does? Why does it exist at all? When did it start? How can you prove it will not stop? Bertrand russels philosophical chicken shows what all investments say...history is no guarantee of future!
How do you prove it always was what it is today?How can you prove it will be tomorrow?

(and before anyone shouts "quasi science" I can say as ex director of an astronomical institute, that a serious piece of research concluded that some of the problems with einsteins folly the cosmological constant disappear if you assume the speed of light has changed, despite the fact that science says it cannot)

ALL you can conclude is gravity is a model of what happens, that works well within limits that says what observations do. It has little to say about what is or indeed the fundamental question of what the universe actually IS... Coming to which - What is matter (and at a philosophical level -moving the problem elsewhere does not help..because what is a quark begs the same question). Does it exist before you observe it? Is it the same seen by you and me? Are there lots of you and me?

- the answer to all of those ask fundamental questions about science and reality.
And when you put science back in its true philosophical box, the field is then open to ask the question why is and what is?

The trouble with humpty dumpty is you will be dismissed as clutching at intellecutual straws, whilst actually trying to open a serious question of "what is"

I read philosophy as the center of your post, not evidence based science.

Try again.

 

[Mountainmike]

I read philosophy as the center of your post, not evidence based science.

Try again.

Your post demonstrates the falasy.
You cannot separate the two.

Few take sufficient time and trouble to understand what science is telling them, or what the models of science mean. So speaks a now retired ex postgrad professional scientist. So I suggest you try again, to understand The context of the axiomatic scientific model.

 

[Kylie]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

By the conditions you have set up, we are free to interpret the rhyme in a way that will correspond with any number of possible scenarios. Was the fall literal, or was it a fall from grace? Was it an actual wall that he sat on, or was he equally supportive of two different camps? So on the one hand, we can interpret it as a story about someone who sat on a wall, became unbalanced and fell, injuring himself to such a degree that no one was able to restore him to his former health, and on the other hand, we can interpret it as a story about someone who was faced with two groups, perhaps vying for power, and he wanted to remain in good favour with both of them. But one day he made a choice, perhaps thinking that the ultimate victor was inevitable, and he solidified his allegiance with that group, only for the other group to wrest victory for themselves. Now, having revealed himself to be an enemy of the victor, not even the support of the king could restore his reputation.

So it seems that your challenge only serves to show that when you make something unfalsifiable, you can't prove it is wrong, but it still remains totally useless as a source of information about reality. Well done, AV.

 

[Kylie]

I know what it is.

I'm just challenging academia to show me what it isn't.

If they can claim there's evidence that the Flood wasn't global, let them show there's evidence that Humpty Dumpty wasn't real.

Of course, a global flood predicts things which MUST exist, and yet which aren't found.

Tell me what things the story of Humpty Dumpty predicts and we can go and see if those things exist.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Humpty Dumpty didn't actually occur as written.

And I mean SPECIFIC evidence of non-occurrence.

And don't give me that "you-cant-prove-a-negative hype" until you show it's a negative in the first place.

This should be interesting; as you don't know:

1. who he was
2. who the king was
3. any of the king's horses or men
4. what kingdom he represented
5. what wall he sat on
6. anything

Science is myopic.

The actual existence or not of Humpty Dumpty is not within the realms of what is provable by science, unless someone can design a testable experiment to answer this question.

However, I put it to you that the evidence for Humpty Dumpty actually existing being completely lacking, it would really be quite stupid for someone to actually claim that Humpty Dumpty did exist exactly in the way described in the riddle.

Calling science 'myopic' because it doesn't answer questions that it was never intended to answer is like claiming that religion is myopic because The Bible doesn't have precise instructions for baking vegan cakes that are as every bit light and fluffy as those that can be made with eggs. (Whether the eggs sat on a wall or not.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling science 'myopic' because it doesn't answer questions that it was never intended to answer is like claiming that religion is myopic because The Bible doesn't have precise instructions for baking vegan cakes that are as every bit light and fluffy as those that can be made with eggs. (Whether the eggs sat on a wall or not.)

Believe me ... science earns that adjective.

If science can't do this ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... science is myopic.

 

[Kylie]

Believe me ... science earns that adjective.

If science can't do this ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... science is myopic.

You know, your demands like this are entirely arbitrary and are of no use whatsoever. I could just as easily say:

If Christianity can't do this:

“I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form.”

... Christianity is myopic.

 

[James2018]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, your demands like this are entirely arbitrary and are of no use whatsoever. I could just as easily say:

If Christianity can't do this:

“I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form.”

... Christianity is myopic.

Do you really siphon excess thoughts from minds, etc? or did you just make that up?

I would hope to think I'd be willing to die for what I believe.

Can you say the same?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for your threads.
I'm putting you on my prayer list right now.
I'd don't formally pray a lot, but I'm sure
the Lord knows about my list.

God bless you, James!

I need all the prayer I can get!

 

[Kylie]

Do you really siphon excess thoughts from minds, etc? or did you just make that up?

I would hope to think I'd be willing to die for what I believe.

Can you say the same?

I no more made up what I posted than you did what you posted.

In other words, we both posted a passage from a book that describes some supernatural event happening.

I fail to see why I should treat yours any different to the way you treat mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I no more made up what I posted than you did what you posted.

Really?

Let's see who turns tail and runs if a pogrom breaks out over them then.

You'd be shouting at the top of your lungs: I MADE IT UP! I MADE IT UP!

While ... hopefully ... I'd be willing to say to my martyrs: GO AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY.

 

[Kylie]

Really?

Let's see who turns tail and runs if a pogrom breaks out over them then.

You'd be shouting at the top of your lungs: I MADE IT UP! I MADE IT UP!

While ... hopefully ... I'd be willing to say to my martyrs: GO AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY.

Actually, I would never say I made it up.

Because I didn't. That would be J K Rowling. Trust me, if I had made it up, I would be as rich as her and that would make me very happy.

Of course, some might say that the difference between religion and Harry Potter is that with Harry Potter, there's a person who wrote it and thus knows it is all make believe, and in religion, that person is dead.

 

[James2018]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, some might say that the difference between religion and Harry Potter is that with Harry Potter, there's a person who wrote it and thus knows it is all make believe, and in religion, that person is dead.

J.K. Rolling will go to Aitch, when he (or is it she?) dies.

 

[James2018]

great conversation