- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Are you saying that morality cannot be tested, not even as a social science?
Upvote
0
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.
You do not appear to understand what the idea of 'falsifiability' is. You should take back your earlier claim.
You are conflating denial with falsification. If you really truly believe what you claim to be believe then you should not be afraid to test your ideas. An idea that is not falsifiable is all but worthless. There can be no evidence for that idea. All that one can find is confirmation bias at best and that demotes your religious views to the same as all other religions. If you want to claim that Christianity is better than other religions or more true than other religions then you need to find a way to demonstrate that. And that is what falsifiability is.
If an idea is falsifiable that means that there is a test that could show it to be wrong if it is wrong. It does not automatically mean that they idea is wrong. Confirmation bias is rather insulting to a religion since it lowers itself to the same level as voodoo. I am sure that you do not want to do that to your own beliefs.
What makes you think that they were needed? And as pointed out you do not understand falsifiability.
Once again, we know the sources of the Ten Commandments. The Hebrews took quite a bit of Babylon with them from the period of Babylon Captivity:
Babylonian captivity - Wikipedia
How?
You do not appear to understand what the idea of 'falsifiability' is. You should take back your earlier claim.
You are conflating denial with falsification. If you really truly believe what you claim to be believe then you should not be afraid to test your ideas. An idea that is not falsifiable is all but worthless. There can be no evidence for that idea. All that one can find is confirmation bias at best and that demotes your religious views to the same as all other religions. If you want to claim that Christianity is better than other religions or more true than other religions then you need to find a way to demonstrate that. And that is what falsifiability is.
If an idea is falsifiable that means that there is a test that could show it to be wrong if it is wrong. It does not automatically mean that they idea is wrong. Confirmation bias is rather insulting to a religion since it lowers itself to the same level as voodoo. I am sure that you do not want to do that to your own beliefs.
No, that is not how it works. A falsifiable statement is one that can be tested. It merely has to be testable, it doesn't have to actually be tested in order to be the kind of statement which can be tested.You are putting the cart before the horse. Something must be tested before it can be deemed 'falsifiable'. Otherwise how would you know?
Now you are changing the topic.Are you saying that morality cannot be tested, not even as a social science?
No, Bible scholars would disagree with this. Bible literalism is not a wise course to follow. It portrays God in a bad light and leads ideas that have been shown to be wrong. In fact shown to be wrong to such a degree that Bible literalism relies on a God that plants false evidence. Or in other words a lying God. That would appear to be rather blasphemous to me. Please note, it is not others that claim that "God lied" it is the Bible literalists that are making that claim, though they do not realize it.The commandments predate the Babylonian captivity. In fact Israel went into captivity because they spurned the commandments. You are conflating history and news.
Not true. There are many ways that an idea can be tested. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Scientific hypotheses are often tested in ways that are not possible when formed. They are often tested by research in areas that people had not thought of following before.You are putting the cart before the horse. Something must be tested before it can be deemed 'falsifiable'. Otherwise how would you know?
That is hardly a proper test. How would you measure "well being"? How would you measure "morality"?By measuring the well being of people against their morality. Personally my life got better in every way after I abandoned my immoral behaviors.
[citation needed]
No, that is not how it works. A falsifiable statement is one that can be tested. It merely has to be testable, it doesn't have to actually be tested in order to be the kind of statement which can be tested.
Post-hoc probabilities of events that have already occurred is always going to be 1.0 because those things have already occurred. The probability of Earth having the eco-system it currently has is 1.0 because it already exists.
This is why discussions of probabilities in post-hoc analysis isn't useful.
The premises, however, could not be more different. I am sure that God created the earth and all life on it, and after that species can change in limited ways. I do not believe that life begins by itself and evolved so much through 100 million years, even though evolution is silent on origins of life.
No, Moses appears to be one of the fictional characters of the Bible. Have you ever studied the history of the Bible?God gave Israel the law through Moses 600 years before the Babylonian captivity.
But all of the evidence out there supports evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. How do you explain that?The premises, however, could not be more different. I am sure that God created the earth and all life on it, and after that species can change in limited ways. I do not believe that life begins by itself and evolved so much through 100 million years, even though evolution is silent on origins of life.
Perhaps not. At he very least you do not seem to be able to come up with a test for them.So the commandments, as pertains to behavior, aren't really testable.
No, Moses appears to be one of the fictional characters of the Bible. Have you ever studied the history of the Bible?
What immoral behaviours and immoral by whose measure?By measuring the well being of people against their morality. Personally my life got better in every way after I abandoned my immoral behaviors.
No, Moses appears to be one of the fictional characters of the Bible. Have you ever studied the history of the Bible?
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?