This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The falsifibility of your claims

#1DarkContractorPosted 5/7/2013 10:16:31 AM
What would it take to convince you of another position?

I'm just curious. Evolution would be easily disprovable to me.

All it would take is a good example of irreducible complexity, a single fossil of a modern animal that dates to ancient times, a single fossil that dates more recently than another yet is further underneath the Earth than the other in the same location (location defined by with the same geological conditions, pretty much). I could list much more examples.

My atheism is also entirely falsifiable. All it would take is a display of cognitive but nonmaterial creation of something, out of nothing. In fact, I would go as far to say that a creation might not even be necessary, but simply the cognitive but nonmaterial 'miracle'

My naturalism is in a state of flux atm already; I'm not sure at how where I sit as far as the supernatural goes, but the false dichtomy of naturalism vs theism is a bit annoying and needs to go. Anywho, hopefully it's self-evident what would falsify naturalism, by all means something that simply proves a supernatural event. From ghosts to magic to levitation, let your imagination run wild!

My gnostic atheism to Christianity could be falsified, if of course, someone could present reasonable evidence the Gospels were written within about 20 years at the most of 33AD, if suddenly I found Yahweh's existence to be self-evident in nature.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#2De EvolutionPosted 5/7/2013 10:31:52 AM
DarkContractor posted...
My gnostic atheism to Christianity could be falsified, if of course, someone could present reasonable evidence the Gospels were written within about 20 years at the most of 33AD, if suddenly I found Yahweh's existence to be self-evident in nature.


How would that be proof of Christianity?

Just because something is written down doesn't make it true. The first copy of the Qur'an was collected by Ali ibn Abu Talib about 6 months after the death of Muhammad. Ali knew Muhammad first hand and was involved in most of the major events during the formation of Islam.

Are you now going to convert to Islam?

---
Nonbelievers are not anti-religious, they are anti-fraud and anti-deception.
#3DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/7/2013 11:00:26 AM
De Evolution posted...
DarkContractor posted...
My gnostic atheism to Christianity could be falsified, if of course, someone could present reasonable evidence the Gospels were written within about 20 years at the most of 33AD, if suddenly I found Yahweh's existence to be self-evident in nature.


How would that be proof of Christianity?

Just because something is written down doesn't make it true. The first copy of the Qur'an was collected by Ali ibn Abu Talib about 6 months after the death of Muhammad. Ali knew Muhammad first hand and was involved in most of the major events during the formation of Islam.

Are you now going to convert to Islam?


Well there's a difference between no longer saying you're 100% certain the Resurrection happened and saying you think it DID happen?

Anyways that would predate the predictions of Jerusalem falling.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#4JonWood007Posted 5/7/2013 12:02:41 PM
Does Jerusalem falling really automatically validate everything else about the religion? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Look at how many predictions Nostradamus had that people find valid because they vaguely fit the situation at hand.

And yeah, even if it were closer to the actual event, that doesn't mean it's true. It mean's it's more reliable, but yeah, you can't really outclass islam, for example, on that.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#5Moorish_IdolPosted 5/7/2013 12:09:01 PM
My deism can be falsified if an interpersonal god is demonstrated to me (see below). My belief in a Creation event is unfalsifiable because of the limits of science, but I could be swayed by a good philosophical argument.

I already apply naturalism appropriately, and obviously believe in the supernatural, so I'm not one or the other. I suppose my belief in a non-physical mind could be falsified by neuroscience if we discover what consciousness is, exactly, and why it occurs.

My "atheism" towards interpersonal gods (ie. the Abrahamic God) would be falsified if some utterly unexplainable miracle occurred in its name. Something like an amputee sitting in front of me, praying to his God and suddenly growing his limb back. After ruling out the possibility this man was a human crustacean, I'd likely believe in his God. Not sure how willing I would be to worship it though, until I knew more about it.

As far as evolution, I refuse to consider that a "belief" on par with religious ones. It's a scientific theory so it's falsifiable by default. I don't think someone can have a belief about that fact.
#6DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/7/2013 12:11:37 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Does Jerusalem falling really automatically validate everything else about the religion? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Look at how many predictions Nostradamus had that people find valid because they vaguely fit the situation at hand.

And yeah, even if it were closer to the actual event, that doesn't mean it's true. It mean's it's more reliable, but yeah, you can't really outclass islam, for example, on that.


i didnt say it would be validation, but in the past you have contended that even it would be a step in the right direction. I would no longer be completely convinced that Jesus is not the Son of God.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#7DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/7/2013 12:12:38 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
My deism can be falsified if an interpersonal god is demonstrated to me (see below). My belief in a Creation event is unfalsifiable because of the limits of science, but I could be swayed by a good philosophical argument.

I already apply naturalism appropriately, and obviously believe in the supernatural, so I'm not one or the other. I suppose my belief in a non-physical mind could be falsified by neuroscience if we discover what consciousness is, exactly, and why it occurs.

My "atheism" towards interpersonal gods (ie. the Abrahamic God) would be falsified if some utterly unexplainable miracle occurred in its name. Something like an amputee sitting in front of me, praying to his God and suddenly growing his limb back. After ruling out the possibility this man was a human crustacean, I'd likely believe in his God. Not sure how willing I would be to worship it though, until I knew more about it.

As far as evolution, I refuse to consider that a "belief" on par with religious ones. It's a scientific theory so it's falsifiable by default. I don't think someone can have a belief about that fact.



you say tomato, I say tomato

that doesnt work on the internet, lulz
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#8fuzzypickles12Posted 5/7/2013 12:41:33 PM
I think a lot of people elevate the concept of falsifiability above what it deserves. I think there's a strong argument to be made that nothing is truly falsifiable. Falsifiability is not binary (by that I mean it's not the case that something either is or isn't falsifiable), but is rather a spectrum that varies based on how confident we are that our human infirmities are not interfering with some objective reality.

For example, you declare that your atheism is falsifiable because it can be falsified by "display of cognitive but nonmaterial creation of something, out of nothing." But we can never truly be 100% sure whether anything we perceive actually satisfies that condition. That event, at the very least, would be subject (1) to our own infirmities in how we perceive the event at that time and (2) to our memory and recollection (both short- and long-term), either immediately following the event or sometime thereafter.

As for (1), our potential infirmity in perception, even personal eyewitness of events is no more than a series of inductive inferences. Our knowledge of what we see is based on successful past interactions and inferring similarity between those events and the current event. Things like depth perception and color are inferred based on prior trial and error with the subjects and different associations we have learned to make with them. Thus, actually seeing someone shoot another person requires a series of inferences to determine our best guess at objective reality, just as hearing (but not seeing) a nearby gunshot, hearing the cry of the person shot and the footsteps of the fleeing shooter, smelling the gunpowder, and even touching the blood requires a series of inferences to determine our best guess at objective reality.

As for (2), it's probably easier to see the potential for infirmities in memory. So there's no sure way to actually, 100% falsify anything. We merely have varying degrees of confidence in what we trust to give accurate representations of objective truth. We tend to place a lot of trust in personal sight (for better or worse), largely because it's been shown to work in creating a functional society. Belief in God tends to go somewhat lower on our sliding falsifiability scale, because we have decided (in a debatably arbitrary fashion) that feelings and beliefs are not as accurate or reliable. Somewhere in the middle exist things like lie detectors. Many of the current ones operate on some sound scientific principles, but can we ever really know if someone is attempting to deceive us intentionally? That would require knowledge of an individual's actual, subjective beliefs, which can be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine with certainty.

Overall, falsifiability is a much more complicated subject than just saying, "You can test science, but you can't test religion." I wish I could explain it better, but I'm no expert on the area myself.
#9DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 5/7/2013 1:03:26 PM
well duh, whats with the new fad of saying "well, what if youre wrong and just dont know why youre wrong" all over the board?

quite clearly our premises must be falsified by our current understanding, and then are new understanding based on the falsifier is held tentatively in that the falsifier may be falsifiable.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#10Polish_CrusaderPosted 5/7/2013 1:14:43 PM
DarkContractor posted...
What would it take to convince you of another position?

I'm just curious.


-Its like asking me what would it take to convince me that gravity does not exist. I know jesus is real and i know he is God. I have seen his works and he has answered my prayers. You cannot unconvince someone of an obvious truth.