Theology and Falsifiability

[variant]

Faith is the acceptance or assumption of something for which there is no direct evidence of. Both scientists and laymen do this in order to explain things that they do have direct evidence of. The multiverse is a good example of this. There's no direct evidence of the multiverse, but it's existence is taken on faith in order to explain what we can observe in our universe. Same for God.

The theoretical multiverse is an example of scientists not being scientists, but rather hypothetical thinkers.

To graduate the idea to a science they would have to make some testable predictions that we could tell the difference between an affirmation that there is a multiverse and the state of affairs where there isn't.

Then they would need to conduct some tests to actually test the predictions out to see if the idea of a multiverse actually predicts what will happen under controlled conditions.

Reasonable faith is never blind, it always has a reason and that reason is almost always to search for an explanation of what we experience/observe in this reality.

Explanations are things that help you make predictions about the future based upon your knowledge of the present.

If the future has to be "explained away" then you don't have an explanation.

In reality faith is how people hand wave their ignorance without explaining much of anything.

How "reasonable" this is is quite debatable.

 

[Chriliman]

The theoretical multiverse is an example of scientists not being scientists, but rather hypothetical thinkers.

Making hypothesizes is a reasonable thing to do, how is that not science?

Explanations are things that help you make predictions about the future based upon your knowledge of the present.

Agreed.

If the future has to be "explained away" then you don't have an explanation.

Who's explaining away the future? And what exactly do you mean by that anyway?

In reality faith is how people hand wave their ignorance without explaining much of anything.

I have faith in God, do I seem to be hand waving my ignorance without explaining much? I'm trying to make valid points here.

 

[durangodawood]

Faith is believing something on the authority of another. The definition has nothing to do with the availability of evidence.

You are making faith into a shabby and mundane thing.

Take care that in your zeal to demote our current lay-person attitudes toward science that you dont tarnish cherished spiritual virtues, namely faith, beyond recognition.

 

[Chriliman]

You are making faith into a shabby and mundane thing.

Take care that in your zeal to demote our current lay-person attitudes toward science that you dont tarnish cherished spiritual virtues, namely faith, beyond recognition.

Stop trying to use fear to control people, it's not nice.

 

[durangodawood]

Stop trying to use fear to control people, it's not nice.

Its just what I see. It should instill reflection, not fear.

 

[variant]

Making hypothesizes is a reasonable thing to do, how is that not science?

It falls short of actually being science. It's the first step without the others because we can't think how to do the others.

"God exists" is likewise a hypothesis we don't know how to test.

Both are as we stand here now are not falsifiable claims. We can't tell the universe that is a multiverse from one that is not. We can not tell the universe contingent on a God from one that isn't.

Who's explaining away the future? And what exactly do you mean by that anyway?

I mean religion as I view it, doesn't generally explain what new data we should expect give a set of principles and predictions, but rather fit's all data into a preconceived viewpoint regardless of what that data is.

So, in my opinion religion doesn't explain the world, it explains it away.

I have faith in God, do I seem to be hand waving my ignorance without explaining much? I'm trying to make valid points here.

I have no doubt in your sincerity, I just don't think God is an explanation for anything.

I don't think human beings know what they are talking about when they invoke God as an explanation.

 

[zippy2006]

You are making faith into a shabby and mundane thing.

Natural faith is a commonplace thing. Divine faith is specifically similar, but inspired by God. Only folks with a heavy agenda, such as Loudmouth, think that faith means absolutely different things in different contexts--true equivocation.

 

[durangodawood]

Natural faith is a commonplace thing. Divine faith is specifically similar, but inspired by God. Only folks with a heavy agenda, such as Loudmouth, think that faith means absolutely different things in different contexts--true equivocation.

Equivocation is substituting different meanings for each other without notice in a discussion.

It is not the plain fact that some terms actually do have multiple and different meanings.

 

[HitchSlap]

Faith is an assertion of unreasonable convictions, and defended against all reason.

 

[Chriliman]

It falls short of actually being science. It's the first step without the others because we can't think how to do the others.

I disagree, I think it's a necessary step in order to determine what should be tested and how.

"God exists" is likewise a hypothesis we don't know how to test.

I can think of at least one easy way to test for God. However, if you haven't any valid, honest reason to assume His existence, then you may not try to ask him to reveal himself to you.

Every believer first came to a point where they humbly sought for God and find that He gives answers and explanation to many things.

I mean religion as I view it, doesn't generally explain what new data we should expect give a set of principles and predictions, but rather fit's all data into a preconceived viewpoint regardless of what that data is.

So, in my opinion religion doesn't explain the world, it explains it away.

The data is pointing to a need for an explanation as to how and why this universe and ourselves exists. Religion simply states that God can provide that explanation on a far deeper level than the material world can provide. However, if you're satisfied with material answers that do nothing to explain love, happiness, hate or evil other than to say they are a result of mindless material happenstance, then so be it.

I have no doubt in your sincerity, I just don't think God is an explanation for anything.

I'm not saying God is an explanation, I'm saying God can explain things. God isn't an object, He is a living being, who's capable of explaining as much as we can handle and are willing to accept.

I don't think human beings know what they are talking about when they invoke God as an explanation.

Well anyone who says God is an explanation isn't really thinking about what they're saying anyway.

 

[zippy2006]

In reality faith is how people hand wave their ignorance without explaining much of anything.

In reality you are unable to produce an argument for your position and are just "hand waving" yourself. Mere assertion. We can look at any article of faith and demonstrate why it is believed to be revealed by God, and thus worthy of belief.

 

[variant]

I disagree, I think it's a necessary step in order to determine what should be tested and how.

A necessary first step does not the science make.

I can think of at least one easy way to test for God. However, if you haven't any valid, honest reason to assume His existence, then you may not try to ask him to reveal himself to you.

Every believer first came to a point where they humbly sought for God and find that He gives answers and explanation to many things.

If there is a God it is remarkably stubborn in revealing itself to me.

The data is pointing to a need for an explanation as to how and why this universe and ourselves exists.

No we point to that. A unfulfilled desire to explain everything leads us to make "explanations" that don't explain anything.

The how is the part we don't get about the universe, and adding in "God did it" doesn't really advance our understanding.

Religion simply states that God can provide that explanation on a far deeper level than the material world can provide. However, if you're satisfied with material answers that do nothing to explain love, happiness, hate or evil other than to say they are a result of mindless material happenstance, then so be it.

I have basic assumption that my satisfaction has little if anything to do with the truth.

What I do know is that God doesn't explain the gaps in our knowledge, it just makes people feel better about them.

As you have aptly demonstrated.

I'm not saying God is an explanation, I'm saying God can explain things.

You are the one doing the explaining here.

God isn't an object, He is a living being, who's capable of explaining as much as we can handle and are willing to accept.

I don't see any Gods explaining things, I see people.

Well anyone who says God is an explanation isn't really thinking about what they're saying anyway.

It's how the idea operates in context.

 

[variant]

In reality you are unable to produce an argument for your position and are just "hand waving" yourself. Mere assertion. We can look at any article of faith and demonstrate why it is believed to be revealed by God, and thus worthy of belief.

And how do you do this?

How does one know what is revealed by God and what is not?

 

[Michael]

Not only that they start out by making falsifiable predictions that can either be shown to be correct or incorrect based upon objective testing, and then they do objective testing to see what the truth is.

Except in astronomy when they do those supposedly "objective tests" they utterly and totally ignore the outcome of any test that comes up negative, or casts doubt on their claims.

With perhaps the single exception of EU/PC theory, there isn't any cosmology theory that doesn't *heavily* depend on "faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

 

[Michael]

No we point to that. A unfulfilled desire to explain everything leads us to make "explanations" that don't explain anything.

Which explains all the "dark" placeholder terms for human ignorance that are currently used to describe the universe.

 

[variant]

Except in astronomy when they do those supposedly "objective tests" they utterly and totally ignore the outcome of any test that comes up negative, or casts doubt on their claims.

With perhaps the single exception of EU/PC theory, there isn't any cosmology theory that doesn't depend on "faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

Feel free to take up your axe with the people actually doing the work. But as of right now you are just derailing a thread.

 

[Michael]

Feel free to take up your axe with the people actually doing the work. But as of right now you are just derailing a thread.

Not in the least. It just so happens that astronomy is one area of "science" that is utterly empirically indistinguishable from unfalsifiable "faith based (bad) religions" and resident atheists resent me pointing that fact out.

You may have "faith" in "space expansion", but you have no empirical cause/effect justification for the claim, and no empirical evidence it occurs anywhere in nature.

 

[variant]

Not in the least. It just so happens that astronomy is one area of "science" that is utterly empirically indistinguishable from unfalsifiable "faith based (bad) religions" and resident atheists resent me pointing that fact out.

You may have "faith" in "space expansion", but you have no empirical cause/effect justification for the claim, and no empirical evidence it occurs anywhere in nature.

I haven't actually expressed any opinions on your particular pet peeve today so you're going on ignore.

 

[Michael]

Your complaints about multiverse theory apply *every bit* as much to current big bang theory. It's pure unfalsifiable dogma.

 

[Michael]

I haven't actually expressed any opinions on your particular pet peeve today so you're going on ignore.

Suit yourself. That's just proof positive that atheists/agnostics also go into pure denial about the issues they can't handle.

It just so happens that the field of astronomy is the single worst offender of unfalsifiable "scientific" belief systems. It's not my fault.