Theology and Falsifiability

[TagliatelliMonster]

The atheists/agnostics are simply forced to avoid the topic because it blows their whole "falsification" argument out of the water. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?

No. I avoid the topic with you because you insist in misrepresenting what both my position is, concerning this stuff.

You act as if it is some kind of gospel to me that is not to be questioned and which I see as "the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Dark Matter!"

It's completely ridiculous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What exactly is the empirical tangible difference between "assuming" that space expansion is a valid cause of photon redshift, and *hypothesizing* that it happens?

Hey Michael

Change records please. Space expansion is not the topic of discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

No matter what reasons I suggest, it all depends on your threshold of acceptance.

In the future, you may come accross what you deem as a good reason to believe in God, which may have nothing to do with our discussion today.

Anyhow, I leave it at that. I wish you well!

And yet another post where no good reason is given. Do you see our dilemma? We are told these really great reasons exist, yet not a single person can tell us what they are.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I avoid the topic with you because you insist in misrepresenting what both my position is, concerning this stuff.

You act as if it is some kind of gospel to me that is not to be questioned and which I see as "the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Dark Matter!"

It's completely ridiculous.

Under "User Panel" there is an option to add people to your ignore list. Just sayin' . . .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Under "User Panel" there is an option to add people to your ignore list. Just sayin' . . .

I know... but once I cross that line...
I'ld end up just seeing your posts and a handfull of others in no time....

 

[Michael]

Hey Michael

Change records please. Space expansion is not the topic of discussion.

Falsification is the topic of discussion, and that is one of *four* different unfalsifiable elements of current cosmology theory. Your entire argument about some "need" for falsification is itself *falsified* by the fact that current cosmology theory *isn't falsifiable*. You guys don't want to embrace reality, so you avoid the topic at all costs. I understand why you're forced to do that, but it doesn't mean I'm obligated to ignore your error.

 

[zippy2006]

And how do you do this?

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

How does one come to know these revealed principles in practice? According to the Catholic tradition, God reveals such things through scripture and through his Church--especially through Ecumenical Councils. For example, the Council of Nicea definitively determined that God is a Trinity of persons.

 

[Michael]

No. I avoid the topic with you because you insist in misrepresenting what both my position is, concerning this stuff.

Your personal position on that stuff isn't even relevant to my point in the first place. It's the *concepts* that are unfalsifiable, not your personal opinions about those concepts.

You act as if it is some kind of gospel to me that is not to be questioned and which I see as "the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Dark Matter!"

You missed my entire point I'm afraid. It's not about me or you or our personal "faith" in LCDM that I'm addressing. It's the claim that falsification of an idea is *necessary* for something to be "scientific" that I'm arguing against. Your personal position on topics of cosmology are ultimately irrelevant to my point. My point is that *falsification* isn't a *requirement* in "science".

 

[Michael]

Under "User Panel" there is an option to add people to your ignore list. Just sayin' . . .

Denial is easy. Dealing with your error isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Falsification is the topic of discussion

The discussion you stepped into, the very post you are replying to, was about the difference between assuming something and hypothesizing something.

, and that is one of *four* different unfalsifiable elements of current cosmology theory. Your entire argument about some "need" for falsification is itself *falsified* by the fact that current cosmology theory *isn't falsifiable*. You guys don't want to embrace reality, so you avoid the topic at all costs. I understand why you're forced to do that, but it doesn't mean I'm obligated to ignore your error.

Yawn.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

I had assumed that Fcf implies this, "That means that the current state of affairs must provide grounds for believing the proposition is true." The relevant dichotomy is true/false, in the sense that the imaginative change would affect precisely the state of affairs that is responsible for the truth of the statement. And what is imagined must be actually possible, not fictitious. If we want to make that explicit:

Fcf: something is falsifiable if and only if the current state of affairs gives a reason to believe it is true and I can imagine a different state of affairs in which it is false.​

Again, I think that for most this is intuitive, just as it is intuitive that Fmse is not meant to refer to experiments performed thousands of years in the future.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your personal position on that stuff isn't even relevant to my point in the first place.

You also misrepresent the sciences on the matter, so yes, it's relevant.

You missed my entire point I'm afraid. It's not about me or you or our personal "faith" in LCDM that I'm addressing. It's the claim that falsification of an idea is *necessary* for something to be "scientific" that I'm arguing against.

And it is necessary, no matter what personal grudge you hold to mainstream physicists for whatever reason.

Your personal position on topics of cosmology are ultimately irrelevant to my point.

And your position on those matters are quite irrelevant to me as well.

Glad we sorted that out.
Maybe now you can finally drop the topic and move on.

My point is that *falsification* isn't a *requirement* in "science".

And your point is false.

 

[zippy2006]

Why is it worthy of belief?

It is worthy of belief because it is revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Catholic Encyclopedia gives it in a syllogism:

Thus, to return to the act of faith which we make in the Holy Trinity, we may formulate it in syllogistic fashion thus: Whatever God reveals is true but God has revealed the mystery of the Holy Trinity therefore this mystery is true. The major premise is indubitable and intrinsically evident to reason; the minor premise is also true because it is declared to us by the infallible Church (cf. RULE OF FAITH), and also because, as the Vatican Council says, "in addition to the internal assistance of His Holy Spirit, it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation, viz. certain Divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies, for since these latter clearly manifest God's omnipotence and infinite knowledge, they afford most certain proofs of His revelation and are suited to the capacity of all." Hence St. Thomas says: "A man would not believe unless he saw the things he had to believe, either by the evidence of miracles or of something similar" (II-II:1:4, ad 1). The saint is here speaking of the motives of credibility.

 

[Michael]

You also misrepresent the sciences on the matter, so yes, it's relevant.

How have I misrepresented anything? Be specific. It sounds like sour grapes because your falsification argument falls apart the moment we look at cosmology theory.

And it is necessary, no matter what personal grudge you hold to mainstream physicists for whatever reason.

It's not only "not necessary" in science, it's often not even empirically physically *possible* to "experiment" with every cause/effect claim made by "science".

And your position on those matters are quite irrelevant to me as well.

Ya, except you still can't falsify LCDM theory or explain how it's even falsifiable.

Glad we sorted that out.
Maybe now you can finally drop the topic and move on.

Sure, just as soon as you demonstrate that LCDM theory is actually *falsifiable*. I'll be happy to move on at that point.

And your point is false.

How? Demonstrate it.

 

[Michael]

The discussion you stepped into, the very post you are replying to, was about the difference between assuming something and hypothesizing something.

As far as I can tell however, astronomers simply "assume" that "space expansion" is a potential *cause* of photon redshift *without* any empirical justification whatsoever! What's the difference in that case?

 

[Chriliman]

Fcf: something is falsifiable if and only if the current state of affairs gives a reason to believe it is true and I can imagine a different state of affairs in which it is false.​

Would this mean that the concept of God is falsifiable because we can imagine a universe which came into existence by random chance, rather than by God's intentional command?

On the flip side, would this also mean that the concept of a multiverse is falsifiable because we can image a single universe which came into existence by God's intentional command, rather than by the collision or contraction of other universes?

Just trying to grasp the implications of what you're saying.

 

[zippy2006]

Would this mean that the concept of God is falsifiable because we can imagine a universe which came into existence by random chance, rather than by God's intentional command?

Sure, but remember we are talking about Fcf, an incredibly weak kind of falsifiability.

On the flip side, would this also mean that the concept of a multiverse is falsifiable because we can image a single universe which came into existence by God's intentional command, rather than by the collision or contraction of other universes?

Just trying to grasp the implications of what you're saying.

The sense of Fcf is this: as long as there is a reason to believe something, then there is a possible reason to disbelieve that thing, namely the negation of the first reason. Suppose I see a butterfly and conclude that at least one butterfly exists. Even though I know the butterfly exists, it is possible that I might not have seen the butterfly in which case I would not have drawn the same conclusion.

Every legitimate belief is based on reasons, reasons that could have been different in which case the belief would have been different. And I think this is true for all beliefs, even false ones. Russell's teapot is a chimera in the sense that there is no possible motive for believing such a thing. Things that are unfalsifiable in so strong a sense are not possible.

 

[variant]

Zippy in post #107
Theology and Falsifiability

We don't need to worry about the lack of falcifiability if your standard for a reasonable belief is "The bible says so".

Cut the window dressing and just say claim that your beliefs are authoritative, no one will guess that you mean it to stand in for a real epidemiological claim.

 

[zippy2006]

Zippy in post #107
Theology and Falsifiability

We don't need to worry about the lack of falcifiability if your standard for a reasonable belief is "The bible says so".

Cut the window dressing and just say claim that your beliefs are authoritative, no one will guess that you mean it to stand in for a real epidemiological claim.

My standard for a reasonable belief--minimally reasonable, I admit--is Fcf. Perhaps you ought to read the OP.

 

[variant]

My standard for a reasonable belief--minimally reasonable, I admit--is Fcf. Perhaps you ought to read the OP.

I read how you justified your position and called you on it.

There is no need to speak about how "reasonable" you are if your standards for truth are based upon an appeal to authority.