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.
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?
What exactly is the empirical tangible difference between "assuming" that space expansion is a valid cause of photon redshift, and *hypothesizing* that it happens?
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!
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' . . .
Hey Michael
Change records please. Space expansion is not the topic of discussion.
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.
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!"
Under "User Panel" there is an option to add people to your ignore list. Just sayin' . . .
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.
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.
Your personal position on that stuff isn't even relevant to my point in the first place.
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".
Why is it worthy of belief?
Catholic Encyclopedia said: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.
You also misrepresent the sciences on the matter, so yes, it's relevant.
And it is necessary, no matter what personal grudge you hold to mainstream physicists for whatever reason.
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.
And your point is false.
The discussion you stepped into, the very post you are replying to, was about the difference between assuming something and hypothesizing something.
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.
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.
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?