Theology and Falsifiability

[Michael]

It's rather ironic IMO that the resident atheists that are participating in this thread cannot and will not deal with the complete lack of falsification that runs rampant in astronomy today. Denial isn't pretty, no matter who's doing it.

 

[Chriliman]

A necessary first step does not the science make.

Okay, so from now on I don't want to see any hypothesizes from scientists.

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

He may be waiting on you to reveal something. That's how it's been in my experience. Long story short, I've had some deep secrets that when they came to light, I was appalled at myself, but then God restored me through His grace and forgiveness.

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

Just be sure to not miss the explanations that actually have real value, I'll do the same

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

Might depend on what satisfies you. Logically, if the truth satisfies you, then your satisfaction is dependent on 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.

God gives me reasons to ask questions that matter and I take joy in that.

 

[Michael]

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

If there is such a thing as "dark matter", it's also been remarkably stubborn in revealing itself in the lab. Billions spent looking for it at LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDX, electron roundness "tests", etc, and yet there is nothing to show for any of that money. Wasted time, money and effort too since astronomers are still blathering on about WIMPS they've never seen.

 

[Michael]

When Guth first proposed inflation from his wild overactive imagination, he claimed that his inflation hypothesis was was based on (supported by) three primary observations which inflation theory "predicts" (but only actually postdicted in the first place): 1) a flat universe, 2) a homogeneous layout of matter and 3) a lack of "monopoles".

The third argument is purely a *theological* argument because it's not scientifically necessary or useful to explain why a unicorn doesn't exist, or why a magic elf doesn't exist, or why *anything* doesn't exist!

The first argument was blown totally out of the water by Penrose. When Penrose calculated all the possible configurations and outcomes of inflation, it turns out that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe would occur *with* inflation than without it.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

Planck data sets blew away the last pillar of inflation when they demonstrated that there are large scale hemispheric variations in the CMB that *defy* Guth's homogeneous predictions.

Inflation is another *perfect* example of a scientific hypothesis that utterly and completely defies falsification because "scientists" simply ignore the problems with the theory, and they continuously modify the supernatural construct on the fly.

Scientists literally have *four* unfalsifiable entities stuffed into a single big bang cosmology theory, including "space expansion", inflation, dark energy and dark matter. It's like a pantheon of supernatural contructs rolled into one hypothetical Frankenstein.

None of the atheists will address these points because it's not a comfortable conversation. Scientific theories aren't necessarily falsifiable. In fact, lack of falsification is simply SOP (standard operating procedure) in astronomy today.

 

[variant]

Okay, so from now on I don't want to see any hypothesizes from scientists.

You shouldn't want to see "just" hypothesis from them.

He may be waiting on you to reveal something. That's how it's been in my experience. Long story short, I've had some deep secrets that when they came to light, I was appalled at myself, but then God restored me through His grace and forgiveness.

I don't keep any secrets from myself.

I also think my attempts to find God have been genuine given that I was a believer for at-least half of my life.

In terms of forgiveness, I make a better Atheist than I ever did a Christian in terms of my ability to act within a strict moral framework.

Might depend on what satisfies you. Logically, if the truth satisfies you, then your satisfaction is dependent on the truth.

I am simply saying that I don't think the truth depends on my satisfaction.

Clarity isn't always satisfying.

God gives me reasons to ask questions that matter and I take joy in that.

I'm not much taken by the idea that the universe or any such Gods exist to make me feel better.

 

[Michael]

I don't keep any secrets from myself.

Except when you put me on ignore so you wouldn't find out how unflasifiable "scientific" hypotheses really are.

LOL!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Utterly false. At best, the multiverse is hypothesized by some scientists.
And not a single one simply accepts it as "existing" or "true". So the statement that it is "taken on faith" is simply ridiculous.

Reasonable faith is never blind

What is "reasonable faith" and how is it different from "regular faith"?

it always has a reason and that reason is almost always to search for an explanation of what we experience/observe in this reality.

Everybody believes things for a reason. That doesn't make beliefs "reasonable".
That would depend on what the reasons for belief are. You are aware that there is such a thing as "bad" or "invalid" reasons, right?

Its true that faith is never based on proof. which is why it's accurately defined as: the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. Proof is different from evidence and reasons.

Playing silly semantic games again, I see.

Faith is the excuse people give when they wish to believe something for no good reasons. It really is that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Ow goody... another michael rant and derail.

So, what else is new?

 

[Chriliman]

You shouldn't want to see "just" hypothesis from them.

I know, but the question is whether forming a hypothesis is a first step in science or not. You're suggesting it's not. See your below remark.

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.

If it's not a part of what science is then why do scientists do it? Could it be that you're incorrect in thinking hypothesizing is not a part of the scientific method?

This suggests that it is:
Outline of scientific method - Wikipedia

I don't keep any secrets from myself.

You misunderstood. It wasn't that I was keeping secrets from myself, it was that I was intentionally hiding things from others out of fear and shame. When those things finally came to the light, God freed me from them through His forgiveness.

I also think my attempts to find God have been genuine given that I was a believer for at-least half of my life.

I get that, but there's always more to learn through trial and error.

In terms of forgiveness, I make a better Atheist than I ever did a Christian in terms of my ability to act within a strict moral framework.

That's good, but the age old question is: Why live by a strict moral framework, when we won't even be held accountable in the end after death? Even those who will remember how moral you were will eventually die.

I am simply saying that I don't think the truth depends on my satisfaction.

Clarity isn't always satisfying.

Ah, clarity can also being agreement among truth seekers. I agree that the truth doesn't necissarily depend on your satisfaction, but that isn't to say the truth and your satisfaction have nothing to do with one another, which is what you alluded to earlier here:

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

-

I'm not much taken by the idea that the universe or any such Gods exist to make me feel better.

I'd say the existence of either is what allows you to feel real. We're all better off when we confront reality and seek out the truth, I just happen to believe there's a reason for that, that goes beyond us all.

I wish you the best on your journey.

 

[KCfromNC]

What is not falsifiable under Fcf? Precisely something like Bertrant Russell's teapot example. Note that Fcf requires the ability to "imagine a state of affairs in which it is false."

I imagine I have a super-powerful radar tuned to detect tea pots in orbit between Earth and Mars. Thus claims about there being such tea pots are falsifiable if I just imagine hard enough, at least according to your criteria. This is really quite easy - when you're limited only by imagination the sky's the limit.

 

[Chriliman]

Utterly false. At best, the multiverse is hypothesized by some scientists.
And not a single one simply accepts it as "existing" or "true". So the statement that it is "taken on faith" is simply ridiculous.

My point is that they intentionally assume the multiverse exists in order to explain phenomena that they observe in this universe. I agree, that not all scientists do this, but many physicists do.

What is "reasonable faith" and how is it different from "regular faith"?

Reasonable faith is based on good reason. Yes, I agree that some reasons may not be good and so should be disregarded when they're found to be bad reasons.

Everybody believes things for a reason. That doesn't make beliefs "reasonable".
That would depend on what the reasons for belief are. You are aware that there is such a thing as "bad" or "invalid" reasons, right?

I agree, some beliefs are based on bad reasoning, but the belief was formed before it was made known that the reason was bad. No reasonable person believes something that is clearly wrong to them.

Playing silly semantic games again, I see.

You see no difference between proof and evidence?

I'll use an extreme example to explain how I see the difference.

Lets say we're studying the sun and we find evidence that suggests it may explode soon. This wouldn't be proof that it will explode, however, if the evidence is so strong that we're able to calculate the exact date that it will explode and then on that date it does explode, then there's your proof.

Can you see how I understand the difference? Maybe my understanding is wrong in this area, I welcome correction.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

No one takes the multiverse on faith. No one in the scientific community considers the multiverse to even rise to the level of supported theory. Your example simply doesn't apply.

If you look at widely accepted theories in science you will find that they are supported by evidence, so they are not taken on faith.

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.

Its true that faith is never based on proof. which is why it's accurately defined as: the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. Proof is different from evidence and reasons.

"Proof" is yet another prickly word that has multiple meanings. In common parlance, proof is equal to evidence. For example, we talk of someone being proven guilty in a court of law. Does this mean that they were undeniably shown to have committed a crime? No. It just means that there was evidence which supported the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

In philosophy and math, proof has a different meaning. Proof takes on an axiomic position of being absolutely true.

Edit: at least how I differentiate between proof and evidence is that proof is always undeniable, but evidence may support multiple interpretations of what's true that can lead to proof of what's true.

Problems arise when some of those other interpretations are unfalsifiable. Using the court of law as our analogy once again, there could be a case where the defendant's fingerprints, DNA, clothing fibers, shoe prints, tire tracks, and hair are all found on and around a murder victim. The murder weapon could be traced to the defendant as well. The defendant also has an obvious motive and a lack of an alibi. The evidence undeniably points to the defendant's guilt. However, one could also interpret the evidence as magical and mischevious Leprechauns that plant false evidence at crime scenes. Such an alternate interpretation is unfalsiable, but does it carry equal weight?

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that they intentionally assume the multiverse exists in order to explain phenomena that they observe in this universe. I agree, that not all scientists do this, but many physicists do.

They assume no such thing. The multiverse is simply a "what if" at this point.

I agree, some beliefs are based on bad reasoning, but the belief was formed before it was made known that the reason was bad. No reasonable person believes something that is clearly wrong to them.

cognitive dissonance: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
Google

Lets say we're studying the sun and we find evidence that suggests it may explode soon. This wouldn't be proof that it will explode, however, if the evidence is so strong that we're able to calculate the exact date that it will explode and then on that date it does explode, then there's your proof.

Can you see how I understand the difference? Maybe my understanding is wrong in this area, I welcome correction.

What if I use the alternate interpretation that magical Leprechauns control the gravity of the Sun in a way that is indistinguishable from natural processes? This would mean that the evidence supports both explanations, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Look at any dictionary. There are multiple definitions.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Such a test is not valid because you will judge the method by the outcome. If someone still claims that they didn't detect God you will say that they did it wrong.

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

Yet no one can show that God is giving those instructions.

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 found that religious explanations don't actually explain anything about the reality around us.

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.

This is usually the spot where we ask for evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Why is it worthy of belief?

 

[Loudmouth]

He may be waiting on you to reveal something. That's how it's been in my experience. Long story short, I've had some deep secrets that when they came to light, I was appalled at myself, but then God restored me through His grace and forgiveness.

As mentioned before, you discount negative results and stay with your conclusion anyway.

 

[Michael]

Utterly false. At best, the multiverse is hypothesized by some scientists.
And not a single one simply accepts it as "existing" or "true". So the statement that it is "taken on faith" is simply ridiculous.

Yet LCDM *is* "taken on faith" starting with the "space expansion" genie.

You guys are *utterly unbelievable*! You're simply in pure denial of the "faith" aspects of "science". Admittedly multiverse theory wasn't the strongest argument, but it's yet *another* example of a perfectly "acceptable" idea in "science" that defies falsification. There is no requirement of 'falsification" in "science". That's a false atheists MEME, nothing more.

What is "reasonable faith" and how is it different from "regular faith"?

"Reasonable" faith as it applies to cosmology would be postulating a *proven* cause/effect relationship in the lab as the potential cause of some phenomenon in uncontrolled space. We might never be able to "prove" the idea entirely, but at least it's on good empirical footing.

"Regular faith" is postulating a *never been seen in the lab* cause as the assumed "cause" of something in space. It's not any different than creating a *supernatural* definition of God, particularly if the idea defies empirical testing in the lab altogether (space expansion).

Faith is the excuse people give when they wish to believe something for no good reasons. It really is that simple.

You mean like when an atheist holds "faith" that they can just handwave away an idea due to some perceived lack of falsification potential?

 

[Michael]

As mentioned before, you discount negative results and stay with your conclusion anyway.

You mean like all those dark matter "experiments" that defied your "predictions" in the lab, or all those revelations of the botched baryonic mass estimates that were used in 2006?

 

[variant]

I know, but the question is whether forming a hypothesis is a first step in science or not. You're suggesting it's not. See your below remark.

It isn't necessarily. The trick is forming a hypothesis with some falsifiable predictions, which can then be tested. When you don't you can't actually advance.

If it's not a part of what science is then why do scientists do it? Could it be that you're incorrect in thinking hypothesizing is not a part of the scientific method?

This suggests that it is:
Outline of scientific method - Wikipedia

It is nominally. When you make a hypothesis you don't know how to test you haven't really accomplished anything scientific.

If you make a hypothesis you don't yet know how to test but it helps you figure out what to test you might make some progress (in the future).

You misunderstood. It wasn't that I was keeping secrets from myself, it was that I was intentionally hiding things from others out of fear and shame. When those things finally came to the light, God freed me from them through His forgiveness.

I don't usually lie to other people either.

I get that, but there's always more to learn through trial and error.

To learn from trial and error you need to know what errors look like.

Without a concept of what it looks like when your ideas are wrong (falsifiable ideas) you can not.

That's good, but the age old question is: Why live by a strict moral framework, when we won't even be held accountable in the end after death? Even those who will remember how moral you were will eventually die.

It's not others I am concerned about being accountable to, or how far reaching the effect of my actions. I am concerned with being accountable to myself.

Anyone can say "I believe X, or I believe Y" but without acting like you believe those things, it really doesn't have any meat. It doesn't matter how many others there are to hold you to account for your actions if YOU don't care about them.

The simple fact is that my life is the only testament to my own views that I know I will ever have. Which is true regardless.

If In the end it is a temporary testament, then there isn't any getting around that.

Ah, clarity can also being agreement among truth seekers. I agree that the truth doesn't necissarily depend on your satisfaction, but that isn't to say the truth and your satisfaction have nothing to do with one another, which is what you alluded to earlier here:

I'd say the existence of either is what allows you to feel real. We're all better off when we confront reality and seek out the truth, I just happen to believe there's a reason for that, that goes beyond us all.

A drive or desire to find truth and clarity may indeed underlay religious thought, but that doesn't mean that religious thought actually yields truth or clarity.

Whether your religious views help you "feel real" depends on what the ultimate reality is.

Alvin Plantinga likes to make this argument,where as to me it's a snake eating it's own tail.

I wish you the best on your journey.

Likewise.