Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

Interesting that I left out a quote from a different post? You'll have to explain that one. Did you get the post # incorrect?

You said 168.

In *my* naturalistically explained universe*? I didn't even know I had one.

Yes, you told me. This was before we made that determination.

Inconsistent: [Adjective] Not staying the same throughout; having self-contradictory elements.

How so?

And you do realize that you used the word "gap" again?

Yes, the "gaps".

Ok whatever. I just don't care anymore to try to get my point across to you.

If your arguments look like god-of-the-gaps, and sound like god-of-the-gaps...

What's the problem with the "god-of the-gaps" label anyway?

Nothing if that is what I was doing.

What has that to do with the veracity of your claims?

Nothing about my claims. That is the point you are missing. It isn't the evidence or lack thereof of either position. It is the consistency of them.

And it is understood to be metaphysical. So?

For you probably nothing.

I ask yet again, do you have testable criteria, for either design, or for "fine-tuning"?

Not according to you.

Got anything? If not, say so.

Not for you.


Really? Do you think the authors of that book might have had access to alternate universes?[/Quote]

...

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Then how do you explain when they react to our observation?

??? Are you talking about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory?

 

[Oncedeceived]

??? Are you talking about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory?

No. I am talking about the Double slit experiment.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

No. I am talking about the Double slit experiment.

Right well yes you are talking about the Copenhagen interpretation then when measurement collapses the wave function randomly within defined probabilities. I don't see what that has to do with the regularity of nature being predicated on the absence of supernatural entities messing with it.

 

[Smidlee]

Those are all proposed natural phenomena. Trying to relabel them superntural to make cover up your own religious beliefs is not fooling anyone.

This is false since something isn't natural unless it is actually seen in nature. I believe it atheist who tries to hide the religious belief as I'm open about my beliefs. I have strong scientific evidence that matter and energy alone isn't enough but information (a product of a mind) is required for the first life. So even if I wasn't a Christian I still couldn't be an atheist for scientific reasons.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

This is false since something isn't natural unless it is actually seen in nature. I believe it atheist who tries to hide the religious belief as I'm open about my beliefs. I have strong scientific evidence that matter and energy alone isn't enough but information (a product of a mind) is required for the first life. So even if I wasn't a Christian I still couldn't be an atheist for scientific reasons.

Well opinions about whether or not supernatural beings exist isn't really a scientific question so either your "scientific reasons" aren't really scientific or you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right well yes you are talking about the Copenhagen interpretation then when measurement collapses the wave function randomly within defined probabilities. I don't see what that has to do with the regularity of nature being predicated on the absence of supernatural entities messing with it.

Well while the CI is referring to this function, I was specifically citing Feynman's double split experiment currently.

Feynman's double-slit experiment gets a makeover - physicsworld.com

 

[Davian]

You said 168.

And you were quoting me from 148.

Still no explanation.

Yes, you told me. This was before we made that determination.

I don't see that it matters.

Ok whatever. I just don't care anymore to try to get my point across to you.

I get your point. You want me to accept your unfalsifiable claims as being of significance.

I don't, as they are unfalsifiable.

Nothing if that is what I was doing.

Then why shy away from the label. I have Fred, after all.

Nothing about my claims. That is the point you are missing. It isn't the evidence or lack thereof of either position. It is the consistency of them.

I just asked you point blank for those inconsistencies. Nothing, only gaps.

Speaking of inconsistencies, let's take a look at your "worldview":

You cite the scientific consensus for the appearance of design for the universe, the appearance of fine tuning, and the apparent beginning of the universe (often conflated with beginning, or instantiation of our cosmos).

Then, on the subject of evolutionary theory, scientific consensus goes out the window and you go hunting for gaps, such as abiogenesis and common ancestry.

For you probably nothing.

True. If the multiverse was proved or disproved tomorrow I doubt it would affect the price of milk.

Not according to you.

Not according you either, if you cannot provide this criteria.

Not for you.

Nothing, then. Without testable criteria, your claims are unfalsifiable, are they not?

Really? Do you think the authors of that book might have had access to alternate universes?

...

It is my understanding that one cannot do the math needed to establish the probability of our universe being "fine tuned" without observational data from other universes. Do you concur?

 

[Davian]

This is false since something isn't natural unless it is actually seen in nature. I believe it atheist who tries to hide the religious belief as I'm open about my beliefs. I have strong scientific evidence that matter and energy alone isn't enough but information (a product of a mind) is required for the first life. So even if I wasn't a Christian I still couldn't be an atheist for scientific reasons.

Are you going to post this "strong scientific evidence" or will you keep it to yourself?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Well while the CI is referring to this function, I was specifically citing Feynman's double split experiment currently.

Feynman's double-slit experiment gets a makeover - physicsworld.com

Well ok but the regular results, we must assume, in order for it to be science, are not the result of the interference by a supernatural being.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you were quoting me from 148.

Still no explanation.

#168 Originally Posted by Davian

You are still not clear on this. And where is the gap that your god is to fit?
​

You are the one that is unclear on this. Man describes the force by its effect. It is a gap in your naturalistic explained universe. It makes the naturalistic origin of the universe inconsistent.

"Elementary particles" have explanatory power, and scientifically agreed upon meanings. This is not the case for "gods" or "God"
​

So? That doesn't mean that it is true, just because scientist agree upon a meaning of something doesn't mean that it makes it true. The Christian worldview does have explanatory power which is consistent with what we see in the universe.

Now you want qualified stories of miracles as evidence. You really want to go down that rabbit hole?
​

I was just curious with what other religious miracles you were referring to.

I don't see that it matters.

I get your point. You want me to accept your unfalsifiable claims as being of significance.

I don't, as they are unfalsifiable.

Then why shy away from the label. I have Fred, after all.

I just asked you point blank for those inconsistencies. Nothing, only gaps.

Speaking of inconsistencies, let's take a look at your "worldview":

You cite the scientific consensus for the appearance of design for the universe, the appearance of fine tuning, and the apparent beginning of the universe (often conflated with beginning, or instantiation of our cosmos).

Then, on the subject of evolutionary theory, scientific consensus goes out the window and you go hunting for gaps, such as abiogenesis and common ancestry.

True. If the multiverse was proved or disproved tomorrow I doubt it would affect the price of milk.

Not according you either, if you cannot provide this criteria.


Nothing, then. Without testable criteria, your claims are unfalsifiable, are they not?



It is my understanding that one cannot do the math needed to establish the probability of our universe being "fine tuned" without observational data from other universes. Do you concur?

[/QUOTE]
The whole post from 168. I didn't take your quote from 148.... you just say the same thing over and over that you forget how often you say it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you were quoting me from 148.

Still no explanation.

As you can see, I was not quoting you from 148 but was correct when posting 168.

I don't see that it matters.

It only matters in that it doesn't apply to you. It most certainly applies to someone who claims to be a materialist/empiricalist.

I get your point. You want me to accept your unfalsifiable claims as being of significance.

No, you don't get the point in the least. The claims that I am making have supportive evidence. Yes, God is unfalsifiable by His very nature. Proving Design seems to be in the eye of the beholder, secular and theist alike see the design in the universe and one claims it is in appearance only, while the other says it is real. Choice, it always comes down to choice. However, the point is that even if we only allow for the appearance of design, we can see how that supports the Theists claim that the universe is designed. My point continues to be that the universe does support the theists worldview, while the materialist has inconsistency. You being someone that is not a self professed materialist or a theist of course stay clear of this paradox.

I don't, as they are unfalsifiable.

There are most certainly unfalsifiable areas of the theist's worldview. However, my point in this whole discussion is to show that the Christian worldview has supportive evidence and that reason and logic can and does live in the worldview. Blind faith or what secularist believe is blind faith has nothing to do with our position (at least for many of us).

Then why shy away from the label. I have Fred, after all.

It is not my point. Again, it is not my point to show how God is able to fill the gaps left by a materialistic world; it is a position that I feel is not tenable. There are possible answers that can fill the gaps materialistically. We may not have them now, we may never have them but I don't find that argument is the point. I think that the real issue is that it is no problem for the materialist to accept those areas that have no materialistic answer, or to accept something without empirical evidence if it fits within the presuppositions that he or she holds. So the materialist is in the same position of the theists but he or she allows this because it fits into their worldview.

I just asked you point blank for those inconsistencies. Nothing, only gaps.

Gaps are inconsistencies. So is anything that can not be proven empirically. It is not the gap or inconsistency that I am aiming to fill. It is the fact that they are so readily accepted in the presuppositions of the materialist. Do you really not get it? It is so in your face, that I don't know if you are just ignoring it or what.

Speaking of inconsistencies, let's take a look at your "worldview":

You cite the scientific consensus for the appearance of design for the universe, the appearance of fine tuning, and the apparent beginning of the universe (often conflated with beginning, or instantiation of our cosmos).

You see it isn't a inconsistency. In the appearance of design for instance, what in secular science is going to confirm design? It is outside of the realm of science. If every physicist and astrophysicist truly believed the universe was really designed do you think that they would make that claim? Seriously? It is outside of the realm of science. The same holds true of the fine tuning argument; although many know that the fine tuning is real and there, they will not go where that logically leads because they have no where to go with it. Design and fine tuning my be labeled just as an appearance of such, but that doesn't mean that they are.

Regardless, when looking at the Christian's worldview, we can see the evidence of these as support for our position. We have supportive evidence that is how the universe portrays itself. If we are correct and God created the universe like we claim, the universe would have a beginning. The universe would have the appearance of being designed. It would be such as life forms would be able to form and evolve from the universe. The universe would show visible and invisible elements in its design. The universe would be held together by an unseen and undetected force. These are the claims, these are what we see in the universe. Are those elements unfalsifiable, I believe that they are. Do we have proof that those elements are the way they are because of God, no. What we do have is support of our worldview that is consistent, reasonable, logical and is reflected in the universe.

Then, on the subject of evolutionary theory, scientific consensus goes out the window and you go hunting for gaps, such as abiogenesis and common ancestry.

Would we expect anything less? Science is secular in its nature. We have a model that we use that eliminates the supernatural and lives in the natural. Which is fine and it works but science can't be used to define, confine or falsify the supernatural. That is how it works. So those who live in the natural world and nothing else can point to science and proclaim that they will only accept that which can be proven scientifically which in its definition can not include the supernatural. Science can not say anything for or against God, but must have God to do anything if what we claim is true.

So, can science give a reason for reason? Can science logically provide an answer for logic? The very essence of science relies on those elements of reason, logic, intelligence to determine what science discovers. It discovers what it does due to the fact that the universe is intelligently made to allow for it to be comprehensible. It is uniform and has rules that govern it that allow for the universe to be used to form knowledge. This is all outside of the natural but science rests upon it by necessity.

True. If the multiverse was proved or disproved tomorrow I doubt it would affect the price of milk.

I would agree.

Not according you either, if you cannot provide this criteria.

I can do what I am doing. Showing that the Christian worldview is one of reason, logic and is consistent within itself.

Nothing, then. Without testable criteria, your claims are unfalsifiable, are they not?

Some are, some are not. However, the point is what I have written above.

It is my understanding that one cannot do the math needed to establish the probability of our universe being "fine tuned" without observational data from other universes. Do you concur?

No I do not concur. First, we are not establishing the probability of the universe being fine tuned. We are establishing the probability of life in the universe by alternating the constants numerically to provide the mathematical change to show that if the universe was not fine tuned as it is, life would not have been allowed to form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well ok but the regular results, we must assume, in order for it to be science, are not the result of the interference by a supernatural being.

That is my point. Science can not venture into the supernatural and by not allowing that which is supernatural can not scientifically disprove Him. Nor can one claim that there is no evidence for Him in what we have learned scientifically. There is evidence that does support His existence.

 

[Davian]

As you can see, I was not quoting you from 148 but was correct when posting 168.

Whatever. Still no explanation. Your point?

It only matters in that it doesn't apply to you. It most certainly applies to someone who claims to be a materialist/empiricalist.

Not by your definition, no.

No, you don't get the point in the least. The claims that I am making have supportive evidence. Yes, God is unfalsifiable by His very nature. Proving Design seems to be in the eye of the beholder, secular and theist alike see the design in the universe and one claims it is in appearance only, while the other says it is real. Choice, it always comes down to choice. However, the point is that even if we only allow for the appearance of design, we can see how that supports the Theists claim that the universe is designed. My point continues to be that the universe does support the theists worldview, while the materialist has inconsistency. You being someone that is not a self professed materialist or a theist of course stay clear of this paradox.

Unfalsifiable claims don't support anyone's claims (or "worldview"), your opinion notwithstanding.

"Proving Design" is not in the eye of the beholder, it is about coming up with testable criteria, if your intent is to do science.

There are most certainly unfalsifiable areas of the theist's worldview. However, my point in this whole discussion is to show that the Christian worldview has supportive evidence and that reason and logic can and does live in the worldview. Blind faith or what secularist believe is blind faith has nothing to do with our position (at least for many of us).

Silly me. Somewhere in our exchanges I got the impression you were here to explore reality.

If you cannot present this "supportive evidence" in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not supportive evidence.

It is not my point. Again, it is not my point to show how God is able to fill the gaps left by a materialistic world; it is a position that I feel is not tenable. There are possible answers that can fill the gaps materialistically. We may not have them now, we may never have them but I don't find that argument is the point. I think that the real issue is that it is no problem for the materialist to accept those areas that have no materialistic answer, or to accept something without empirical evidence if it fits within the presuppositions that he or she holds. So the materialist is in the same position of the theists but he or she allows this because it fits into their worldview.

However, your answer - "God did it" - has no explanatory value. Your position is no more tenable that this hypothetical materialist that you have created.

Gaps are inconsistencies.

I do not accept your redefining of that word.

So is anything that can not be proven empirically. It is not the gap or inconsistency that I am aiming to fill. It is the fact that they are so readily accepted in the presuppositions of the materialist. Do you really not get it? It is so in your face, that I don't know if you are just ignoring it or what.

Please provide an example of one of these presuppositions that is not subject to revision upon the introduction of new data.

What are these "inconsistencies" that are not just gaps?

You see it isn't a inconsistency. In the appearance of design for instance, what in secular science is going to confirm design? It is outside of the realm of science. If every physicist and astrophysicist truly believed the universe was really designed do you think that they would make that claim? Seriously? It is outside of the realm of science. The same holds true of the fine tuning argument; although many know that the fine tuning is real and there, they will not go where that logically leads because they have no where to go with it. Design and fine tuning my be labeled just as an appearance of such, but that doesn't mean that they are.

Regardless, when looking at the Christian's worldview, we can see the evidence of these as support for our position. We have supportive evidence that is how the universe portrays itself. If we are correct and God created the universe like we claim, the universe would have a beginning. The universe would have the appearance of being designed. It would be such as life forms would be able to form and evolve from the universe. The universe would show visible and invisible elements in its design. The universe would be held together by an unseen and undetected force. These are the claims, these are what we see in the universe. Are those elements unfalsifiable, I believe that they are. Do we have proof that those elements are the way they are because of God, no. What we do have is support of our worldview that is consistent, reasonable, logical and is reflected in the universe.

Unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and no proof, but you are asking that I accept that your worldview is consistent, reasonable, logical? No, thanks.

I think you should you really be in the Exploring Christianity forum and not this sciences subforum. Have I said that before?

The inconsistency that I was pointing out, that you glossed over, is your cherry-picking of scientific consensus' that suit your argument of the moment.

Would we expect anything less? Science is secular in its nature. We have a model that we use that eliminates the supernatural and lives in the natural. Which is fine and it works but science can't be used to define, confine or falsify the supernatural. That is how it works. So those who live in the natural world and nothing else can point to science and proclaim that they will only accept that which can be proven scientifically which in its definition can not include the supernatural. Science can not say anything for or against God, but must have God to do anything if what we claim is true.

So, can science give a reason for reason? Can science logically provide an answer for logic? The very essence of science relies on those elements of reason, logic, intelligence to determine what science discovers. It discovers what it does due to the fact that the universe is intelligently made to allow for it to be comprehensible. It is uniform and has rules that govern it that allow for the universe to be used to form knowledge. This is all outside of the natural but science rests upon it by necessity.

"...the fact that the universe is intelligently made"?

That is not a fact. And it is wholly unfalsifiable. You are building your worldview on opinion.

I would agree.

I can do what I am doing. Showing that the Christian worldview is one of reason, logic and is consistent within itself.

Not yet, you haven't.

Some are, some are not. However, the point is what I have written above.

If you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

No I do not concur. First, we are not establishing the probability of the universe being fine tuned. We are establishing the probability of life in the universe by alternating the constants numerically to provide the mathematical change to show that if the universe was not fine tuned as it is, life would not have been allowed to form.

Show your math. Show your data. Wait - have I already asked that?

 

[Davian]

The whole post from 168. I didn't take your quote from 148.... you just say the same thing over and over that you forget how often you say it.

Have you noted that the number of times that I have repeated myself does correlate to how often you evade, ignore what I say, or obfuscate?

Reading ahead, I see you have done it again.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

That is my point. Science can not venture into the supernatural and by not allowing that which is supernatural can not scientifically disprove Him. Nor can one claim that there is no evidence for Him in what we have learned scientifically. There is evidence that does support His existence.

Science would be able to look at the supernatural if the supernatural had any measurable effect on anything. The undetectable and the non-existent look very similar.

 

[JWGU]

Science would be able to look at the supernatural if the supernatural had any measurable effect on anything. The undetectable and the non-existent look very similar.

My argument earlier in this thread--imprecisely stated--was actually that as far as science is concerned, "supernatural" is a meaningless term. At least, I still haven't seen a real definition for what "supernatural" is, and everything that science is involved with minimally has a definition. If the "supernatural" had an effect on things that could be measured, quantified, and detected in a lab, we wouldn't call it supernatural, would we?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Whatever. Still no explanation. Your point?

I gave you an explanation. I said that it is not the gap that I am aiming to fill, it is that the materialist (loudmouth's worldview) allows for areas in their worldview that is not empirically in evidence.

Not by your definition, no.

Well considering that you refuse to share your belief system, it is fairly easy to view my definition as a straw man. You refuse to provide your own position so it seems rather presumptuous of you to claim that I am creating a straw man of the materialistic view when I am using the only worldview that has been provided. If yours is not reflective of the empirical materialistic one, then by all means present it.

Unfalsifiable claims don't support anyone's claims (or "worldview"), your opinion notwithstanding.

I have given claims that are most certainly unfalsifiable. I will review a few of them here:

If the universe was proven to have always existed..claim would be falsified.
If the universe did not contain visible and non-visible elements...(in evidence) and could have been falsified. If there was no evidence of a force that keeps things from flying apart that is unseen and unexplained that would falsify my claim.
If God didn't create the universe it would not appear designed, falsifiable. The appearance of design supports the premise that God did design the universe.

"Proving Design" is not in the eye of the beholder, it is about coming up with testable criteria, if your intent is to do science.

Design is proven. It is only that the secular scientists do not want to accept that. On one hand you have the secular scientists that claim it only appears designed and the other you have Theists that believe it is reality. However, it is perfectly rational and logical to believe that the appearance of design in the universe supports the Christian worldview.

In the Christian worldview the universe is designed. The universe appears to be designed.

Many physicists and scientists claim the universe appears designed.

Physicists and scientists have the experience and expertise to understand the materialistic composition of the universe and to make educated statements such as the universe appearing to be designed.

IF God exists and created the universe it would be intelligently designed and appear so.

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the universe supports the Christians worldview that God designed the universe.

Silly me. Somewhere in our exchanges I got the impression you were here to explore reality.

So do you believe that there is nothing that can be known outside of scientific empirical knowledge?

If you cannot present this "supportive evidence" in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not supportive evidence.

I have. See above. Denying that I haven't provided falsifiable evidence is false.

However, your answer - "God did it" - has no explanatory value. Your position is no more tenable that this hypothetical materialist that you have created.

Again, provide your own position if I am not addressing yours. Regardless, I haven't left my answers to "God did it". I have provided a rational supported argument in defense of my claims.

I do not accept your redefining of that word.

It isn't a redefinition. Gap stays the same, inconsistencies remains the same.

Please provide an example of one of these presuppositions that is not subject to revision upon the introduction of new data.

Logic. Uniformity. The inconsistency is in the fact that there are a multitude of elements in Loudmouth's worldview that are not empirically in evidence.

What are these "inconsistencies" that are not just gaps?

The fact that he has a worldview that only allows for empirically proven and tested evidence when in fact, there are a multitude of elements within his position that are not held to this strict criteria.

Unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and no proof, but you are asking that I accept that your worldview is consistent, reasonable, logical? No, thanks.

Where is my worldview not consistent, or reasonable or logical?

I think you should you really be in the Exploring Christianity forum and not this sciences subforum. Have I said that before?

Of course. So you think that the forum should exclude the metaphysical from discussion? I think that would be pretty hard to do not only for the christian but for the materialist as well.

The inconsistency that I was pointing out, that you glossed over, is your cherry-picking of scientific consensus' that suit your argument of the moment.

What choices did I cherry-pick from? I made certain claims and used evidence that supported it. What evidence did I ignore?

"...the fact that the universe is intelligently made"?

That is not a fact. And it is wholly unfalsifiable. You are building your worldview on opinion.

It is a fact, one that you disagree with. However, what do you base your conclusion that it is not a fact? A fact is true regardless of whether one knows it is true or not. So what do you base your opinion on?

Not yet, you haven't.

So by what criteria do you apply my logic and reason upon?

If you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

So are you saying that knowledge is only that which can be tested and falsifiable?

Show your math. Show your data. Wait - have I already asked that?

Like I said, it is not my math. It has been presented scientifically and if there was a great deal of controversy about the results it would garner scientific condemnation. It hasn't. There are a few that disagree but for the majority of other scientists they have not come out against it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Science would be able to look at the supernatural if the supernatural had any measurable effect on anything. The undetectable and the non-existent look very similar.

How do you determine that the supernatural doesn't have any measurable effect on anything?

 

[Davian]

I gave you an explanation. I said that it is not the gap that I am aiming to fill, it is that the materialist (loudmouth's worldview) allows for areas in their worldview that is not empirically in evidence.

You never explained why it was "interesting", post #856.

Well considering that you refuse to share your belief system, it is fairly easy to view my definition as a straw man. You refuse to provide your own position so it seems rather presumptuous of you to claim that I am creating a straw man of the materialistic view when I am using the only worldview that has been provided. If yours is not reflective of the empirical materialistic one, then by all means present it.

No, it is fairly easily to view your definition as a strawman when you are using words such as "immaterial" for which you cannot provide a positive ontology. See post #2.

My worldview is irrelevant at this time, as I am not here to compare it to anything.

I have given claims that are most certainly unfalsifiable. I will review a few of them here:

If the universe was proven to have always existed..claim would be falsified.
If the universe did not contain visible and non-visible elements...(in evidence) and could have been falsified. If there was no evidence of a force that keeps things from flying apart that is unseen and unexplained that would falsify my claim.
If God didn't create the universe it would not appear designed, falsifiable. The appearance of design supports the premise that God did design the universe.

Yes, these claims are most certainly unfalsifiable, and in this context, without significance, they do not contribute to this discussion, and they do not support your world view.

The appearance of design may only be our anthropomorphic projection onto what we see around us, an illusion. That would be a far more parsimonious explanation.

Design is proven. It is only that the secular scientists do not want to accept that. On one hand you have the secular scientists that claim it only appears designed and the other you have Theists that believe it is reality. However, it is perfectly rational and logical to believe that the appearance of design in the universe supports the Christian worldview.

In the Christian worldview the universe is designed. The universe appears to be designed.

Many physicists and scientists claim the universe appears designed.

Physicists and scientists have the experience and expertise to understand the materialistic composition of the universe and to make educated statements such as the universe appearing to be designed.

IF God exists and created the universe it would be intelligently designed and appear so.

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the universe supports the Christians worldview that God designed the universe.

Design is not proven. That you believe it to be designed is not proof of design.

I am still waiting for this testable criteria by which you might determine design.

Nothing yet?

So do you believe that there is nothing that can be known outside of scientific empirical knowledge?

No, I am open to other means of exploring reality. However, I do not think your unfalsifiable claims are making any progress.

I have. See above. Denying that I haven't provided falsifiable evidence is false.

Above, where you said: "I have given claims that are most certainly unfalsifiable."

Those claims were unfalsifiable. Are you confusing "unfalsifiable" with "irrefutable"?

Again, provide your own position if I am not addressing yours. Regardless, I haven't left my answers to "God did it". I have provided a rational supported argument in defense of my claims.

You "answers" were that God designed and created the universe and God is the unseen force that keeps things from flying apart. Amirite?

Goddidit. No explanatory value at all.

It isn't a redefinition. Gap stays the same, inconsistencies remains the same.

You said, "Gaps are inconsistencies." post #872. I do not accept your assertion that they are the same thing.

Logic. Uniformity. The inconsistency is in the fact that there are a multitude of elements in Loudmouth's worldview that are not empirically in evidence.

Gaps. So you bring in your god-of-the-gaps.

The fact that he has a worldview that only allows for empirically proven and tested evidence when in fact, there are a multitude of elements within his position that are not held to this strict criteria.

And in those instances, has he claimed otherwise?

Where is my worldview not consistent, or reasonable or logical?

In post #872 where you admit that your worldview is based on what is unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and lacks proof.

Of course. So you think that the forum should exclude the metaphysical from discussion? I think that would be pretty hard to do not only for the christian but for the materialist as well.

I was speaking specifically to your efforts to validate your Christian worldview. You may have more success in that forum.

What choices did I cherry-pick from? I made certain claims and used evidence that supported it. What evidence did I ignore?

You cite the scientific consensus for the appearance of design for the universe, the appearance of fine tuning, and the apparent beginning of the universe (often conflated with beginning, or instantiation of our cosmos), then you reject evolutionary theory, which may have an even stronger scientific consensus for being accurate (as being the explanation for the diversity of life from a common ancestor). You only cite the science that supports your claim of the moment. Do you think evolutionary biologists use a different "science" than other scientists?

It is a fact, one that you disagree with. However, what do you base your conclusion that it is not a fact? A fact is true regardless of whether one knows it is true or not. So what do you base your opinion on?

Facts should be demonstrable. All you have is the appearance of design, not proof. You don't even have testable criteria, do you? That is what I base my opinion on.

So by what criteria do you apply my logic and reason upon?

What logic and reason? (got you there! )

So are you saying that knowledge is only that which can be tested and falsifiable?

I am saying that if you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

If you have an alternate means of exploring reality, please present it.

Like I said, it is not my math. It has been presented scientifically and if there was a great deal of controversy about the results it would garner scientific condemnation. It hasn't. There are a few that disagree but for the majority of other scientists they have not come out against it.

It is your math if you are citing it as supporting evidence. Where has it been presented scientifically? Show your math.