Do you believe in God?

[Scaff]

Very true. I was taking the path that for @SuperCobraJet's God to exist, then it is a requirement for the Bible to be true in all its content. Therefore I was pointing out just one of the many oddities about the Bible based on that required truthfulness.

Add in that flood myths are not uncommon at that period of history and before.

Most civilizations were around rivers out of simple need and many rivers are going to flood from time to time causing huge amounts of devastation.

The OT flood itself has a huge amount in common with the Gilgamesh flood myth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

...and given that they both come from the same area its not out of the question that the OT myth borrows heavily from the Gilgamesh myth.

I believe that SCJ may have been asked to comment on this in the past, I don't recall if he ever answered.

 

[Imari]

Most civilizations were around rivers out of simple need and many rivers are going to flood from time to time causing huge amounts of devastation.

This.

I don't think there's any need for a worldwide phenomenon to explain the preponderance of flood myths. Chances are that anyone living by water will experience a flood at some point in their life. Some town gets washed away in Australia pretty much every other year.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You either don't understand or are seeking to redefine (shock!) the word "non-falsifiable". It means "not able to be falsified". This is an immutable quality - and your deity's characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are each individual non-falsifiable.Nope. The teapot is non-falsifiable.

Which only establishes the fact, as said there is absolutely no objective evidence, currently, to preclude or establish existence.

You could have made the same "non-falsifiable" claim in 1800 regarding practically all the technological advancements in regular use today, and in 1800 it would have been true.

So much for your "non-falsifiable" claim.

As well, in reality, the only evidence that exists concerning the teapot is subjective evidence for existence.
There is absolutely no objective evidence to support existence or non existence.
However, obviously that does not constitute a conclusive case.

Unlike the teapot however, in regaurd to my deity, there is a voluminous amount of collaborative testimony or subjective evidence, in support of existence and no objective evidence either way.

Again as said, under the those circumstances, the only objectively reasoned position that can be taken is one of neutrality.

Le sigh.

No. It does not. That is the point of objective evidence, that it is not dependent on a subjective viewpoint.

Sorry, yes it absolutely is.
All evidence is established by subjective human beings.
Nothing can be established apart from that fact.
Objective evidence is an established consensus of those human beings on a guideline for
what is considered objective and to preserve it as such.
That is not to say, it is illogical or irrational.
Or if integrity is preserved properly, it is not objective.
The goal is to insure that it is not subjectively influenced, but that is close as you can get to a complete contradiction, considering the whole process is under subjective, not to mention imperfect, control.

There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. There is only evidence of existence, or the absence of evidence of existence.

Perform this thought experiment. What evidence might you expect to find regarding the non-existence of hobgoblins?.

Only regarding a belief claim of non existence, based on objective evidence is it a factor.
For basis purposes, the fact that there is no objective evidence to preclude existence balances the fact there is none for existence.
From a purely objective standpoint, there is actually no basis for any belief position.
In fact of reality, any belief position taken, including on hobgoblins, is based on a purely subjective assumption.
And BTW there is again, a huge contingent of subjective evidence for God's existence.
I am not aware of any for hobgoblins, unicorns, spaghetti monsters or any other obscure possibilities that bare no comparative relation.

Incorrect.

In fact of historical reality, it is completely correct.
My 1800 example clearly shows that it is.

Non-falsifiable means that there is no test that can be designed to test the validity of the claim. Not now. Not ever.

Then your defnition here is patently false.
There is no entity of any kind in this world that is not entirely subject to the dynamic of time and space and the changes that it brings.
The future is completely unknown, along with what maybe discovered or applicable.
Therefore, there is no such term as "Not ever" at least as can be applied indefinitely to any unknown.
Again this fact is clearly proven in the historical record, of which my 1800 example is a part of.
Your conclusion is purely subjective, since clearly established objective evidence is completely to the contrary.

This is different to being able design an experiment to test the validity but not being able to actually construct it. Which is what happened with the Higgs Boson, they knew how to test it but the technology literally didn't exist to be able to do so.

This statement is a direct contradiction to your statement that precedes it.
Prior to any knowledge of the Higgs Bosun, the concept could only reside with Russell's teapot.
Or "non falsifiable".

There is no test that would return results based on the existence or non-existence of God. He is by the Christian definition (and the definition of a lot of other religions) not falsifiable.

Again in reality, thus far, my deity is "non falsifiable" .

Do you remember when I asked you what specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief in God is wrong, and you answered "none"?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-523#post-10109722

That's the problem. If there is no circumstance under which you would be convinced that God does not exist, even when given complete freedom to think of absolutely anything you like, then He's non-falsifiable.

If you can name some situation that might change tomorrow that would make God falsifiable, then be my guest. Prove me wrong. But I suspect the only way you're going to be able to do it is by Him losing some of his defining characteristics, in which case He isn't God any more.

No that's not the problem.
The problem is you fail to include the comprehensive scope of objective evidence to the contrary.
The year is 1800.
Practically everything in common use today is "non-falsifiable".
And that was just over 200 yrs ago.
That already clearly proves by objective evidence, your "non falsifiable" basis for determining existence, is seriously undependable as a predictor of what can exist.

You still don't understand that Teapot.

Name me one piece of evidence for non-existence. Of anything.

Nothing?

So given that there's no such thing as evidence of non-existence, we're left with two states.

1. We have evidence of existence. The thing exists, no problem.
2. We have no evidence of existence. The thing may or may not exist.

If we don't define 2 as "the thing doesn't exist", then there's no way to be able to say that anything doesn't exist. That might be fine for you, but it's not a very helpful way to think about the universe, that everything ever imagined is just beyond the next rainbow.

On the other hand, humans are very adaptable, and if evidence of existence turns up later then most of us are capable of saying "well, fancy that, there ARE Underpants Gnomes!" It's not a crime to be wrong, and most of the time if there isn't evidence of something's existence whacking you in the face, you're probably not going to be inconvenienced much even if you are wrong about saying it doesn't exist.

I already stated there is no objective evidence for non-existence. Or in other words it does not exist.
Unfortunately, your states are as woefully incomplete as your basis for existence.
Below I will list it in entirety.
Keep in mind I am doing so from the "out of common" perspective, as pertains to God's existence.

1. We have no objective evidence in support of existence or non-existence.
2. We have voluminous amounts of subjective evidence in support of existence.
3. We have a small amount of subjective evidence in support of non-existence.
4. God may or may not exist.

Believing God does not exist, under the actual circumstances present, can only be done from a subjective assumption, since there is no objective evidence in support of a belief.
The absence of objective evidence, leaves nothing else upon which to base a belief.

The historical record clearly shows that we can't even begin to imagine what the future may hold in store.

 

[Scaff]

The historical record clearly shows that we can't even begin to imagine what the future may hold in store.

Nonsense.

The historical record clearly shows that we most certainly can imagine what the future may hold in store.

http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/sci-fi-books-the-future/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16444966
http://interestingengineering.com/leonardo-da-vincis-prototypes-that-predicted-the-future/

All of them falsifiable, a concept you are now in the process of attempting to redefine.

You are also trucking ahead again with the claim that subjective evidence is a globally agreed standard, as if its not then claims such as "And BTW there is again, a huge contingent of subjective evidence for God's existence." are worthless. Now lets be clear, you have utterly failed to establish that point, posting deliberately misleading information that is not backed up by your own sources and let avoiding the follow up.

Not to mention you continue failure (and another claim you have abandoned) to establish the unique elements of Christianity (and no its not the same religion as Judaism).

So rather than redefining yet another word how about you either back-up or retract some of the claims you ave run away from.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm not going to even try to convince you by discussing the issue about evidence of non-existence of things you assert. That's clearly a waste of my time.

However, moving away from hard "evidence", I wonder if you think there is anything odd or lacking in credibility in the following story?

Immediately after the Flood, the only humans alive on the planet were Noah's family members, correct?

So every human alive was aware of Noah, the Flood and particularly of Yahweh's ability to exact vengeance upon humans who were evil, corrupt etc.

Would you agree that the survivors were rather likely to have found the events to be "memorable", to say the least? Also, is it probable that they all believed in Yahweh? For the moment, I'll assume that the answers are Yes and Yes.

The descendants of Noah were ultimately to spread across the planet, presumably taking their beliefs and family history with them.

Here is where things become just a little strange. The vast majority of Noah's descendants managed to completely forget Noah, the Flood and even Yahweh, with one tiny exception. That is people near where Noah lived. Not one other tribal pocket passed on this knowledge to their descendants. Not in Australia, Polynesia, New Guinea, South America, Lapland, South Africa, North America, China, Japan, Indonesia and so on to name a few. What could have caused this global amnesia? Except of course, incredibly coincidentally, in the tiny geography which gave birth to belief in Yahweh. Most of the world abandoned Yahweh, and came up with other religions. Why did the Yahweh story lack any real durability?

Of all the places where Noah's descendants settled, what are the chances that the only place where Yahweh survived was exactly the same place where Yahweh first emerged. Noah's descendants were all confronted with signs of the devastation which must have resulted from the land being submerged for about a year, yet they forgot the Flood?

Right now, I'm not going to claim that this is "evidence" that the Flood story was a human invention, but I'm smelling a smoking gun.

Then we move on to the more modern question, which is this. If parts of the Bible are not literally true, then we have no way of distinguishing true passages from invented passages, which calls into question the whole Christianity thing.

@SuperCobraJet, what's your opinion on the above? Does your God explain why almost all of humanity was ready to forsake belief and even all memory of Yahweh so soon after Yahweh's demonstration of how he treats non-believers?

"If" is undoubtedly the hurdle that must be overcome.

As explained in the new covenant, and evidenced by the old, man's nature was irreversibly skewed due to the choice made in the garden of eden, and consequently the law was a miserable failure at affecting the change that is truly required.

In that condition he is encapable of adhering to any Godly influence, for long.
As time passes the same faults reappear and proliferate.

 

[Famine]

Which only establishes the fact, as said there is absolutely no objective evidence, currently, to preclude or establish existence.

Nope. Non-falsifiability is a property, not a state. I already explained this to you.

You could have made the same "non-falsifiable" claim in 1800 regarding practically all the technological advancements in regular use today, and in 1800 it would have been true.

No it wouldn't.

Look, I already explained to you that "non-falsifiable" means "cannot be falsified", not "has not been falsified". If nothing else, the latter makes no sense whatsoever - it's really easy to falsify anything that does not have the property of non-falsifiability.

Since you now understand that, there's only one reason I can think of for you persisting to claim that "non-falsifiable" means something it doesn't mean - and that's that you've recognised that this is a problem for your evidence-based argument in favour of your deity and are seeking to deliberately redefine it so it's no longer a problem for you.


Where've we seen that before, eh?

 

[Imari]

1. We have no objective evidence in support of existence or non-existence.
2. We have voluminous amounts of subjective evidence in support of existence.
3. We have a small amount of subjective evidence in support of non-existence.
4. God may or may not exist.

What subjective evidence exists that supports non-existence?

 

[zzz_pt]

"Voluminous amounts of subjective evidence" must be the amount of people believing in conflicting concepts of god/gods...

I'm also curious about the subjective evidence supporting a negative.

This is such a frustrating conversation...lol

 

[Imari]

Sorry, yes it absolutely is.
All evidence is established by subjective human beings.
Nothing can be established apart from that fact.
Objective evidence is an established consensus of those human beings on a guideline for
what is considered objective and to preserve it as such.
That is not to say, it is illogical or irrational.
Or if integrity is preserved properly, it is not objective.
The goal is to insure that it is not subjectively influenced, but that is close as you can get to a complete contradiction, considering the whole process is under subjective, not to mention imperfect, control.

Whatever words you want to use or misuse, do you deny that that there are two distinct types of evidence?

1. Can be observed by anyone, and they will observe the same thing.
2. Can only be observed by one person, another observer will observe something different or nothing at all.

I don't care what names you want to put on them, you know what names the rest of us use. Tell me that these things aren't different, and that there's not value in treating them differently.

Only regarding a belief claim of non existence, based on objective evidence is it a factor.
For basis purposes, the fact that there is no objective evidence to preclude existence balances the fact there is none for existence.

What? In English, please.

This statement is a direct contradiction to your statement that precedes it.
Prior to any knowledge of the Higgs Bosun, the concept could only reside with Russell's teapot.
Or "non falsifiable".

No. The Higgs boson is and always has been testable. Russell's teapot is not testable*.

There's a difference between something being testable, and actually having the equipment and expertise to test it.

*(By definition of the set up of circumstances surrounding the teapot. In reality, there would be things you could do, like send guys out with spacesuits and teabags. But it's an example to teach people how to think critically about claims of existence, something you continue to miss.)

Again in reality, thus far, my deity is "non falsifiable" .

And will remain so forever unless you can specify an observation that would falsify Him.

I've asked you for one several times. You cannot supply one. Until you do you're not going to convince anyone. A hypothesis that cannot be wrong is a completely useless hypothesis.

No that's not the problem.
The problem is you fail to include the comprehensive scope of objective evidence to the contrary.
The year is 1800.
Practically everything in common use today is "non-falsifiable".

No, it's not. You're redefining "non-falsifiable".

It does not mean "currently not able to be tested". That's fine. Just because we lack the ability to test something doesn't make it non-falsifiable.

It means "there is no observation that if made, would invalidate this hypothesis".

In 1800, all our current theories still had observations that if made would invalidate them, just as they do today. The fact that people in 1800 are less capable of making certain observations is neither here nor there. It's not about actually making the observations. It's that there is the potential to make an observation that would invalidate the theory, under the right circumstances.

I already stated there is no objective evidence for non-existence. Or in other words it does not exist.
Unfortunately, your states are as woefully incomplete as your basis for existence.

Good, you'll have no trouble clearly describing the additional states that you say I've missed out then.

 

[GBO Possum]

"If" is undoubtedly the hurdle that must be overcome.

As explained in the new covenant, and evidenced by the old, man's nature was irreversibly skewed due to the choice made in the garden of eden, and consequently the law was a miserable failure at affecting the change that is truly required.

In that condition he is encapable of adhering to any Godly influence, for long.
As time passes the same faults reappear and proliferate.

That still doesn't explain why there are no written or oral records of Noah, his ark and the Flood story anywhere in the world other than, wait for it, in Noah's own geography.

It doesn't explain why, when the memory of the Flood so nearly died out on this planet, that the memory only survived in one place (and not more than one), and that that place just happened to be in the Middle East. What are the chances of that!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Nonsense.

The historical record clearly shows that we most certainly can imagine what the future may hold in store.

http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/sci-fi-books-the-future/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16444966
http://interestingengineering.com/leonardo-da-vincis-prototypes-that-predicted-the-future/

All of them falsifiable, a concept you are now in the process of attempting to redefine.

We were discussing "non-falsifiables" not "falsifiables".

You are also trucking ahead again with the claim that subjective evidence is a globally agreed standard, as if its not then claims such as "And BTW there is again, a huge contingent of subjective evidence for God's existence." are worthless. Now lets be clear, you have utterly failed to establish that point, posting deliberately misleading information that is not backed up by your own sources and let avoiding the follow up.

If you wish to consider subjective testimonial evidence "worthless", that is up to you.
However it has no bearing on its evidential standing in reality.

Yes lets be clear, I have already established by source, Global consensus on the use of subjective evidence, which is also commonly known and fact of reality.

So your claim that I am "posting deliberately misleading information" is baseless as well as reckless and petty beyond any normal standard.
Unfortunately, you seem to consistently revert to threats and accusations, in lieu of substantive rebuttal.
BTW perhaps you can provide a source to support your claim that subjective evidence is not accepted as evidence, and is not used around the world by jurisdictional authorities?

Otherwise, I see nothing productive to be gained by continuing this discussion.

Nope. Non-falsifiability is a property, not a state. I already explained this to you.No it wouldn't.

You can refer to it as anything you want.
The fact is, it is subject to the dynamic of time and space and any applicable changes that occur as a result.
The 1800 example clearly proves that.
If you wish to ignore it, thats up to you as well.
If you do, then all the "non falsifiable" future technological advancements of 1800, that we have today don't really exist, they are just figments of your imagination.

There is no redefinition involved, except at which time something considered "non falsifiable" is affected by the progressive changes of discovery overtime, and shown to be falsifiable. That is an ongoing process of change clearly demonstrated by the historical record.

Whatever words you want to use or misuse, do you deny that that there are two distinct types of evidence?

No, certainly not.
They are distinctly different by definition.

But thats not the point.
The point is that objectiveness, including objective evidence, is concieved by subjective reasoning and consensus of subjective reasoning. And likewise originates and is derived from the same.
That establishes proof positive that subjective reasoning can be completely true and reliable.
Therefore, generally the assumption is that it is are true and reliable, subject to any evidence to the contrary.
However, just as that which is presented as objective evidence can be corrupted, so can be subjective evidence.

No. The Higgs boson is and always has been testable. Russell's teapot is not testable*.

There's a difference between something being testable, and actually having the equipment and expertise to test it.

*(By definition of the set up of circumstances surrounding the teapot. In reality, there would be things you could do, like send guys out with spacesuits and teabags. But it's an example to teach people how to think critically about claims of existence, something you continue to miss.)

How do you arrive at "always" from 1964.

And will remain so forever unless you can specify an observation that would falsify Him.

Almost.
It is not dependant on just me, but all discovery overtime which again is unpredictable and unknown.
It could happen tomorrow, next week, next year, a thousand years, or never.
There is no way presently to determine that.

I've asked you for one several times. You cannot supply one. Until you do you're not going to convince anyone. A hypothesis that cannot be wrong is a completely useless hypothesis.

That is your classification, not mine.
I've already stated what I am testifying to has no foundation in science.

No, it's not. You're redefining "non-falsifiable".

No I am not.
At the time invoked (1800) there was no way to test or observe the vast majority of technological advancements that were forthcoming over the next 200+ years.
Hence their classification could only be considered, "non-falsifiable".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable
However, as explained in my post to Famine, and else where in this thread, the condition of "non falsifiable"
is not necessarily permanent, and can become "falsifiable" subject to progress in discovery and testing.
http://www.courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html
Even Karl Popper states that a non falsifiable statement can be right or wrong and hence by that logical admission, opens the door wide open for a change of state at a future advent.

It does not mean "currently not able to be tested". That's fine. Just because we lack the ability to test something doesn't make it non-falsifiable.

Nice try, but that won't fly.
Inability to prove by test or observation is the defining criteria for "non-falsifiable".

It means "there is no observation that if made, would invalidate this hypothesis".

That is what I just stated.

In 1800, all our current theories still had observations that if made would invalidate them, just as they do today. The fact that people in 1800 are less capable of making certain observations is neither here nor there. It's not about actually making the observations. It's that there is the potential to make an observation that would invalidate the theory, under the right circumstances.

You can keep dancing around all you like.
But there is no ligitimate way out of the fact that in 1800, practically every technological advancement in use today, would be under the "non-falsifiable" classification.

Good, you'll have no trouble clearly describing the additional states that you say I've missed out then.

I have already posted it.

 

[Famine]

You can refer to it as anything you want.
The fact is, it is subject to the dynamic of time and space and any applicable changes that occur as a result.

No it isn't.

Something non-falsifiable cannot be falsified. Ever.

The 1800 example clearly proves that.

Nope. It proves the exact opposite - and that you either do not understand what the word means or you do not want to.

"Non-falsifiable" means "Cannot be falsified". You're talking about things that are hypothesised but not proven as if they are non-falsifiable. They are not - the very concept of a testable hypothesis requires falsifiability.

 

[zzz_pt]

SCJ are you trolling?

 

[Scaff]

We were discussing "non-falsifiables" not "falsifiables".

Oh dear.

If you wish to consider subjective testimonial evidence "worthless", that is up to you.
However it has no bearing on its evidential standing in reality.

Yes lets be clear, I have already established by source, Global consensus on the use of subjective evidence, which is also commonly known and fact of reality.

No global consensus exists, your own source clearly states that.

When one third of the worlds population isn't covered then its not global. This has been shown using your own source.

So your claim that I am "posting deliberately misleading information" is baseless as well as reckless and petty beyond any normal standard.

You mean apart from the 41 countries that are not part of your global standard, a point that is in your own source and you ignored.

Now you either did that out of ignorance or you did so deliberately. Which is it?

Unfortunately, you seem to consistently revert to threats and accusations, in lieu of substantive rebuttal.
BTW perhaps you can provide a source to support your claim that subjective evidence is not accepted as evidence, and is not used around the world by jurisdictional authorities?

Not to a globally agreed standard its not.

I've given you a detailed rebuttal that you have ignored. Approx. 2.5 billion people are not covered by your 'global' standard.

Otherwise, I see nothing productive to be gained by continuing this discussion.

So as you are clearly wrong you wish to just try and ignore the fact.

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, Just because no one has the knowledge to test something doesn't mean it's not testable.

That's like the saying, "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?".

Of course it did.

We keep asking for a description of your evidence for your beliefs, evidence which you say you have. This is a request you have steadfastly ignored.

As you have ignored the impossibilities in the Noah story, and a gazillion biblical inconsistencies.

And that if the Bible is even partially wrong, then none of its content can be trusted.

 

[orimarc]

How many times do we have to say this? Screw it, let's make it N+1:

"non-falsifiable" = CANNOT BE FALSIFIED EVER. NEVER. NOT IN A QUADRILLION YEARS.

"falsifiable" = CANNOT BE FALSIFIED NOW. WITH THE PROPER OBSERVATION, COULD BE FALSIFIED IN THE FUTURE

Simple example:

Person A makes the observations that different things weight differently, and makes the hypothesis "heavier things fall faster than lighter things". Let's call this the hypothesis of ouch (because things falling on you hurt). Because of the lack of proper equipment for doing a definite test (very accurate stop-watches and hit sensors, for example), Person A can't do an experiment that proves his hypothesis right OR wrong.

Time passes, and Person B decides to quickly observe if that's true, so he drops something heavy and something light from the same height and notices they drop at the same speed. Based on that observation, he decides to falsify the hypothesis of ouch by proving it wrong.

If an experiment can prove that, when controlling all the other variables (room temperature, atmospheric pressure, etc.) and making object weight the only thing that changes, all things do indeed fall at the same speed, then he's falsified the hypothesis of ouch.

The hypothesis of ouch (heavier things fall faster than lighter things) was falsified by having an observation that proves it wrong (a heavy thing and a light thing seem to fall at the same speed) confirmed by an experiment.

 

[Imari]

SCJ are you trolling?

He's a troll. I'm sick of playing this game of redefinitions. Any time he has any concept explained to him clearly, he claims that the word used for it is not the correct word, as if that makes any difference to the point being made.

For example, he acknowledges the difference between objective and subjective evidence when I describe the two in sentence, but continues to argue over the definitions of those words. Despite everyone else being more or less on the same page as to how they're used.

He has no understanding of the scientific method as far as I can tell, and his dubious grasp of English makes trying to figure out what he's saying in any given post mind-bendingly difficult.

I'm out. Someone call me when he's gone away and we can get on with reasonable discussions again without having to rewrite the dictionary.

 

[LeMansAid]

@SuperCobraJet, Just because no one has the knowledge to test something doesn't mean it's not testable.

That's like the saying, "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?".

Of course it did.

Probably not the best example to use. There's plenty of angles with that one.

To a certain extent it's similar to the question of whether or not things actually have colour. "If a wall is in the dark, does it have a colour?" Well no, apparently it doesn't. It only shows what we call colour based on what light it absorbs and reflects. With no light it has no colour. But further, it has no colour anyway, only our perception of a thing we call colour.

The tree falling creates vibrations which we resolve as sound. It can be argued that without resolution, there is no sound, only the material to generate it. That's just one of the many, many angles.

Expanding on the possibilities makes my brain feel like it's being stretched like pizza dough.

 

[GBO Possum]

@LeMansAid, let's try another one.

Ten billion years ago, light was emitted from a galaxy far, far away. Let's say ten billion light years away. Today, a tiny sliver of that light was captured by the Hubble telescope and recorded.

It might or might not be viewed in the future by an astronomer.

If it is, we can say that the Galaxy did emit light ten billion years ago. If it is never observed by a human, and only captured by a machine, can we say that said Galaxy did not emit light?

And what about the light that went off in other directions, outside the tiny angle subtended by the Hubble. Can we say that the Galaxy far, far away only emitted light in the direction of the Hubble, and in no other direction, based upon its non-observance outside that tiny angle?

Back to testability, I still hold the opinion that the lack of actual testing doesn't define a lack of testability.

 

[Imari]

Probably not the best example to use. There's plenty of angles with that one.

To a certain extent it's similar to the question of whether or not things actually have colour. "If a wall is in the dark, does it have a colour?" Well no, apparently it doesn't. It only shows what we call colour based on what light it absorbs and reflects. With no light it has no colour. But further, it has no colour anyway, only our perception of a thing we call colour.

The tree falling creates vibrations which we resolve as sound. It can be argued that without resolution, there is no sound, only the material to generate it. That's just one of the many, many angles.

Expanding on the possibilities makes my brain feel like it's being stretched like pizza dough.

This sort of stuff is only mindbending if you attempt to push language to it's limits.

What does someone mean when they say what colour an apple is? They mean what colour does it reflect when white light is shone upon it. It's a description of certain properties of the apple's surface and how they interact with light. Those properties don't change when there's different kinds of light or no light, although what we perceive does.

Basing everything on perception tends not to lead anywhere useful. If everything is perception, then we can never know if anything is real and why bother? We assume that there's an actual reality there and our perception is simply whatever part of that impinges upon us at any given moment. We're using our perception to outline the shape of reality, even though that shape is often incomplete or misleading.

As such, it helps to use language in such a way that when in doubt, it's assumed that you're describing the objective reality.

If the wall is in the dark, we still call it green because that's useful information. Saying that it has no colour until the light is turned on is blatantly obvious and simply forces everyone else to ask the obvious question "so what colour would it be if the light was turned on?", and makes the person answering look like a pretentious tool.

Ditto the tree in the forest. The tree displaces air in such a way that is perceived by humans as sound (and pressure). That happens whether there is an observer present or not. The "does a falling tree make a sound?" question is a disingenuous attempt to abuse the English language. Does the questioner mean "did anyone hear the tree fall?", or do they mean "did the tree displace gas and create pressure waves that a human might perceive?"

Care with language is very important. The questioner needs to be very careful that they're asking the right questions. The answerer needs to be very careful that they're providing the information that the questioner wants, not just an answer to the ambiguous question they asked.

And what about the light that went off in other directions, outside the tiny angle subtended by the Hubble. Can we say that the Galaxy far, far away only emitted light in the direction of the Hubble, and in no other direction, based upon its non-observance outside that tiny angle?

You could make the hypothesis that a certain galaxy only emits light in a certain direction. That would be falsifiable, because if you were to view the galaxy from a different direction and found it to emit light there also, the hypothesis would be incorrect.

Back to testability, I still hold the opinion that the lack of actual testing doesn't define a lack of testability.

Correct.

It's very hard to put into words that don't allow any room for misunderstanding. It's very reliant on the reader understanding what is trying to be achieved with the distinction between falsifiable and non-falsifiable.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No it isn't.

Something non-falsifiable cannot be falsified. Ever.Nope. It proves the exact opposite - and that you either do not understand what the word means or you do not want to.

It proves someone doesn't understand what the the word means, but it's not Karl Popper or me.

The historical record clearly proves otherwise.

In fact of reality "non-falsifiable" is a temporal term for most things and possibly all things.

If you wish to believe otherwise, is your choice.

Like I said way back in this round, you are entitled to your opinion.

However, that may have nothing in common with reality.

"Non-falsifiable" means "Cannot be falsified". You're talking about things that are hypothesised but not proven as if they are non-falsifiable. They are not - the very concept of a testable hypothesis requires falsifiability.

Your whole argument is an exercise in contradiction.

By your own statement here you are declaring, that in reality there is nothing that is truly "nonfalsifiable".
The very qualifying definition for "nonfalsifiable", is not provable by test or observation.

The term "non-falsifiable" was invented and used basically to describe a scientific wild goose chase.
That doesn't imply the goose cannot be caught, but that presently it cannot be.
And further, it may never be.
That is precisely why Karl Popper, believed a "non-falsifiable" statement should not be a part of science.
Which is a basic admission, on the limitations of science.

SCJ are you trolling?

Hardly.
It may appear that way, because I am one of the few, and at times, the only one who will challenge the Atheistic view based primarily in science.
Anytime you probe the corners of someone's "belief system" things can get challenging.

This sort of stuff is only mindbending if you attempt to push language to it's limits.

It's not the language that is mind bending, but rather the impending consequences it can impose on one's belief system.

Basing everything on perception tends not to lead anywhere useful. If everything is perception, then we can never know if anything is real and why bother? We assume that there's an actual reality there and our perception is simply whatever part of that impinges upon us at any given moment. We're using our perception to outline the shape of reality, even though that shape is often incomplete or misleading.

Oh my you finally hit upon it Imari.
The final truth in reality.
Everything and all things, are a question of individual perception and consensus of collective perception.
Nothing for us humans can exist apart from it.
It is the basic building block for all of our existence.
Now the next procedural connective step is the most crucial.
Formation of belief from that individual perception.
That process begins the seperation for what is believed, or not believed from that perception.
This thread, is a ongoing display to that fact.

Not to a globally agreed standard its not.

I've given you a detailed rebuttal that you have ignored. Approx. 2.5 billion people are not covered by your 'global' standard.

Then, you shouldn't have any problem providing a source to support your claim that subjective testimonial evidence is not accepted and used, by the jurisdictional authorities for those 2.5 billion people.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't think you're challenging the "atheistic view". You're defying logic, reality and the meaning of words.

BTW, atheism is not a belief system.

 

[Scaff]

Then, you shouldn't have any problem providing a source to support your claim that subjective testimonial evidence is not accepted and used, by the jurisdictional authorities for those 2.5 billion people.

How many times does the same thing have to be repeated to you before it gets taken on board?

As I said on the 3rd of October:

"I've not stated anything close to that, and if you miss-attribute this to me again we will be heading down the same old road of you ignoring the AUP.

You stated that "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence" exists and the point I made was that "given that it subjective I don't think you will find a global agreement of what subjective evidence is, given that its subjective."

Highlighting the issue with what subjective evidence actually is, is a subjective standard in its own right. For you point to make sense a global agreement on what subjective evidence is would need to exists (hence my request that you provide that)."

I've never said that subjective evidence is not accepted. I've stated that without an agreed standard its useless and that no agreed global standard exists in that regard.

I repeated that on the 3rd of October, to which you supplied links to the Treaty of Rome to back up (following requests from @Imari and myself), when asked if that had global agreement you replied with:

"By signing on to the agreement, it is clearly established that, yes they unequivically and absolutely do.
Otherwise if they did not, they could have abstained from signing.
A simple fact of reality."

The "simple fact of reality" here is that 41 countries/one third of nations/ 2.5 billion people are not signatories and as such no global agreement exists. They DID abstain from signing.

You are simply wrong!

You are not able to prove global agreement on the standard of subjective evidence, and you have now miss-quoted me twice, assigning a position to me that I have clearly and repeatedly not made or held.

As such a formal warning has been issued and should you repeat this action again in the future it will result in the end of your membership here at GT Planet.

You do not get to re-write the AUP in the same manner as you seem to believe you are able to with words and quite frankly the degree of leniency you have been given ends now.

 

[Famine]

It proves someone doesn't understand what the the word means, but it's not Karl Popper or me.

Actually it is you. I've no idea who Karl Popper is, but if you've found someone who joins you in your misinterpretation of the word, have a look at the last four letters of it.

They are, for reference "able". The word means "not able to be falsified", not "not falsified".

Edit: You haven't. Karl Popper agrees with me. Quite determinedly. I guess you're reading what you want to read.

Your whole argument is an exercise in contradiction.

By your own statement here you are declaring, that in reality there is nothing that is truly "nonfalsifiable".
The very qualifying definition for "nonfalsifiable", is not provable by test or observation.

All of this is correct and not contradictory in any way. In fact I've stated that things that cannot be falsified are not real - nonfalsifiable things do not exist in reality and should not ever be considered to be part of it.


The purpose of Russell's Teapot is to illustrate what falsifiability is. The Teapot has properties that render it undetectable - chief amongst them being intangibility (so it cannot interact with anything physical) and invisibility (so it cannot be seen). It is an item with properties that render it non-falsifiable - you cannot design a test to prove it does not exist.

Whatever it is you're claiming about our knowledge in the 1800s - probably about the shape of the globe or some such trite nonsense that's often brought up in complete ignorance of the fact we knew it was spherical for about 3,000 years to that point - it was falsifiable. Whatever it is you're claiming about the discovery of the Higgs Boson ("boson" is an intermediate particle involved in particle physics; "bosun" is a contraction of "boatswain", a vital job on old sailing ships), it was falsifiable. They could be proven wrong and tests were constructed to do this. Higgs is a perfect example of why you're talking absolute bollocks, because the test to prove it wrong could not be performed for 50 years as it was well beyond our technical capability - yet the test was constructed anyway.

Your deity and Russell's Teapot are non-falsifiable. It's not that we can construct tests on them that are beyond our technical capability to perform right now, but that tests cannot ever be constructed due to innate, invented properties that render them unable to be tested.


All knowledge comes from objective, independent testing. If it cannot be tested yet, we don't know it yet. If it can't be tested at all, it can't be known - and if it can't be known, it doesn't exist.

 

[Liquid]

If it can't be tested at all, it can't be known - and if it can't be known, it doesn't exist.

And to drag things somewhat back towards the thread topic at hand, god(s) fall under this.

We've spent what seems like an age talking about different levels of evidence, objectivity, subjectivity etc, etc. WHy exactly? It seems like the classic notion of "nitpick one point of the opposing argument which has nothing to do with anything, because my own argument has crumbled" on SCJ's part.

Let's get back to it. SCJ:

What evidence is there for your god?
What sets that evidence apart from the hundreds of other claimed gods in recorded history?
What experiences led you to believe in your particular god and not the other one?
Why will nothing ever change your viewpoint?
According to the 'historical record' as you like to put it, what in the Bible has been proven to be true?

Do not sidetrack. No weaseling. Give us actual answers; we're all very interested to read.

 

[Imari]

Actually it is you. I've no idea who Karl Popper is, but if you've found someone who joins you in your misinterpretation of the word, have a look at the last four letters of it.

He hasn't found anyone who agrees with him.

Karl Popper is the man who arguably came up with the idea of falsifiable and non-falsifiable hypotheses, or at least popularised it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Falsifiability.2Fproblem_of_demarcation

SCJ continues to misread the English language for his own benefit. Popper's definition of falsifiable is the same definition that any scientist would use, and is therefore identical to your own, and mine for that matter.

=========

For those interested, philosophy of science is actually a really interesting subject. There are some pretty smart people who have spent a lot of time thinking about what it means to know something, and what things we can actually know.

Unlike a lot of philosophy which is navel gazing and logic puzzles, philosophy of science is usually directly applicable to the way you approach real world problems. Which is the point of science, I suppose. It clarifies all the assumptions that are part of the way that the scientific method words, because it's important to understand everything about how you've arrived at your conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

As with anything in science, nothing is set in stone, this would all change tomorrow if some other method was shown to be better.

One can compare to SCJ and the difficulty that he has describing how he arrives at his conclusions and why. Not that he necessarily needs to follow the same chain of reasonings and assumptions that the rest of us do, each man to their own. But he cannot describe his own fundamental assumptions clearly, and as such he finds it very difficult to explain how he has arrived at his conclusions without resorting to "because God".

That's a sign that more thought needs to go into one's own position before one goes out attacking others.

 

[GBO Possum]

And to drag things somewhat back towards the thread topic at hand, god(s) fall under this.

We've spent what seems like an age talking about different levels of evidence, objectivity, subjectivity etc, etc. WHy exactly? It seems like the classic notion of "nitpick one point of the opposing argument which has nothing to do with anything, because my own argument has crumbled" on SCJ's part.

Let's get back to it. SCJ:

What evidence is there for your god?
What sets that evidence apart from the hundreds of other claimed gods in recorded history?
What experiences led you to believe in your particular god and not the other one?
Why will nothing ever change your viewpoint?
According to the 'historical record' as you like to put it, what in the Bible has been proven to be true?

Do not sidetrack. No weaseling. Give us actual answers; we're all very interested to read.

@SuperCobraJet, all this diversion into word redefinition, claims that Atheism is a "belief system" and claims that you are using science to debunk Atheism are nothing but diversions.

You have been asked repeatedly to share your actual belief-forming experiences with us.

Consistently you ignore these requests and resume your trolling. If you are not trolling, then put up or shut up. Please.

 

[GBO Possum]

While we wait for SCJ to enlighten us, take a read of this article about how so many misunderstand science.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/23/what-scientists-really-do/?insrc=wai

Included in this story are the imprisonment of some scientists for not providing exact predictions of earthquakes, and North Carolina's banning of the use of modern sea level data readings.

There are also some terrifying statistics about the prevalence of ignorance. (To put it politely.)

 

[MatskiMonk]

While we wait for SCJ to enlighten us, take a read of this article about how so many misunderstand science.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/oct/23/what-scientists-really-do/?insrc=wai

Included in this story are the imprisonment of some scientists for not providing exact predictions of earthquakes, and North Carolina's banning of the use of modern sea level data readings.

There are also some terrifying statistics about the prevalence of ignorance. (To put it politely.)

I think you're kind of pitching that slightly as though the world is against scientists - It seemed to me more like governmental or organisational interference in the best interest of decision makers.

In the example of the Italian earthquake it strikes me the legal action was sought because the people responsible knowingly didn't act in the best interests of the area... having the information and not using it could easily be seen as negligent, and a Father grieving the loss of two children isn't necessarily going to be 100% rational. The fact that the scientists got taken down alongside the public official(s) could be for any number of legal/political/organisational reasons. But, I guess the decision was taken in order to avoid general panic. Maybe it was local election time.

As for the North Carolina situation, as soon as you read "The law, formulated to regulate development permits,..." alarm bells start ringing. This isn't so much a mis-understanding of science that's to blame (in my opinion), it's the fact that it will inevitably take into account the financial well-being of planners, developers, insurance companies and local businesses. I didn't take it as the rejection of scientific method, I took it as the prevalence of money.

Scary stats though. It's easy just to fob it off as 'Murica, but I wonder if I asked the guys in the factory some general scientific questions they would know the answers.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I've been in and out of this thread for a while now.

The last several pages have been the same players in the same arguments, maybe using different words. Just exasperating.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, I find all of this a colossal waste of time. (not reading it, that has been entertaining, but the huge posts that are being so thoughtfully written)

That being said, I feel a real appreciation for religion as far as my mother is concerned. She is the last surviving member of her immediate family. Her mother, father, and all of her siblings, including her identical twin sister have passed away. It has been her faith that has allowed her to be as strong as she has been. For that I am very grateful.