|
Post by Ratty on Mar 11, 2019 0:10:50 GMT
Glad that's sorted but I think I'll make a doctor's appointment in any case. Now .... where were we?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 11, 2019 1:07:17 GMT
Glad that's sorted but I think I'll make a doctor's appointment in any case. Now .... where were we? ... at no Global Warming science. But where there's no science there's a wealth of religious dogma.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 14, 2019 17:04:23 GMT
Please excuse my stupidity but how does an example of a simple structure prove there is no God? God is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting God. Global Warming is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). Global Warming cannot be proven to exist. Global Warming cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting Global Warming.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 14, 2019 19:51:33 GMT
Please excuse my stupidity but how does an example of a simple structure prove there is no God? God is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting God. Global Warming is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). Global Warming cannot be proven to exist. Global Warming cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting Global Warming. Tho, ultimately one requires time....the other not so much (unless you witness the seven horses of the apocalypse 🤔)
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 14, 2019 23:07:02 GMT
God is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). God cannot be proven to exist. God cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting God. Global Warming is a completely unfalsifiable religious myth (my apologies to believers for the wording). Global Warming cannot be proven to exist. Global Warming cannot be proven to not exist. There is no science supporting Global Warming. Tho, ultimately one requires time....the other not so much (unless you witness the seven horses of the apocalypse 🤔) The only difference I see is that one claims that a great storm caused the ocean to rise 15 cubits (27 feet) and caused extreme weather to kill all life on the planet ... and the other insists that it is stupid to believe that such an event was even possible, but that it is inevitable by the end of the century.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 15, 2019 17:13:09 GMT
I believe in God. I believe in God because I exist. I believe I am not alone in existence. I believe others have will have greater or lesser existence than myself and when I no longer exist I will have lesser existence than others so I believe in ultimate lesser existence, that which never exists, and ultimate supreme existence. I believe existence is perfection. I believe in Plato's concepts of perfect forms and believe in perfect consciousness, intents, thoughts, desires, hopes, wishes, dreams, and good meals and wine. I think all of us will live perfect lives. It's hard to accept a broken life, or experience in life that is broken, as perfect but experiences are like numbers and negative numbers are just as perfect as positive ones. I would like to point out that you are not claiming your faith is science. I like that word "un-falsifiable" but I'm not convinced God is un-falsifiable. Actually, God is unfalsifiable and you want it that way. Imagine an atheist mocking you saying "You can't prove your god exists, hah!" and you responding "You can't prove that He doesn't." "Unfalsifiable" simply means it cannot be proven false. Science, on the other hand, has a fundamental requirement to be falsifiable or it isn't science. Falsifiability applies to models/theories and is the quality of specifying how the model/theory can be shown to be false if it is, in fact, false. For example, E=mc^2 is falsifiable because it specifies unambiguously that if you EVER find even a single occurrence in nature where that relationship does not hold then you WILL have proven it false. No one's opinion would be involved and no "convincing" would be required. It would absolutely be proven false, period. That is falsifiability and it is an absolute requirement for science. Religion, on the other hand, is completely devoid of falsifiability by its very nature. No religion is going to lay out exactly how competing religions can absolutely prove it false! God is unfalsifiable. Global Warming is unfalsifiable. Islam is unfalsifiable.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 13:29:10 GMT
Any time you want to drop this back and forth let me know. Thank you. What concept of God are we debating exists or doesn't exist? Are we talking about a traditional Judaeo-Christian God? First, I would prefer we focus on the God of your belief, as defined by you. Second, I'm not actually debating existence thereof. I am arguing the lack of falsifiability thereof. Let's say that I'm a scientist, mathematician and philosopher and you tell me that your God is real and that He can do great things. I might respond that this God of yours is worth meeting. You wholeheartedly agree. I ask you to introduce me to this amazing chap but you tell me that it doesn't quite work that way; that I have to believe that he exists first if I wish to get to know Him. At this point I become puzzled. How can it be that the only way to know about something is to first believe what I am to know about it? At this point the question occurs to me "Does codewhacker's God really exist?" I notice that you seem quite sure that He does, so I figure that I'll just apply the scientific method to sort this all out. I will devise an experiment which will show objectively, outside of anyone's opinion, that your God does not exist ... provided, of course, that He in fact does not exist. So naturally I enlist your aid. I need to know more about your God and since I apparently cannot observe Him, I must rely on what you tell me. So we get down to the business of devising just such an experiment. codewhacker, what can we do? Can I prove God exists? I think yes, I believe God exists because we exist. This doesn't work well for two reasons. 1) you are claiming that your proof is your belief 2) you have not established that the existence of X implies the existence of Y, i.e. We exist -> God exists. We would also have to accept the statement We exist -> fairies exist Let me assume you have a physical relationship with a chair. They do make some pretty nice chairs these days. When you began this physical relationship was it unfalsifiable? Did you request permission? Did you seek permission to begin the relationship? Or did you follow your gut and intuition? Did the chair accept you? How do you know? Does it tell you? Or is it self evident? Do you deny existence? All I know is that we met on a cold, rainy, miserable day. I was tired, she was welcoming and I just fell into her arms. It felt right from the first moment we touched. Our relationship has been solid ever since. If someone were to ask me to prove my chair exists, I would have the chair as empirical evidence. The chair can be observed, measured and tested physically. Side note: My son told me about his views on the Big Bang. He thinks the traditional view of matter expanding is false. The theory holds that matter is moving outward from the center. No matter is "expanding" per the theory. I thought he was wrong, classic expansion theory is pretty widely accepted, and we have evidence for it. Then he explained is thoughts and now I think he's right. I wish I could tell you more but he has sworn me to privacy. He's worried someone else will take his idea and claim it as their own before he can develop it. I wish him luck. The Big Bang theory is merely speculation about the past. The upside to the theory is that it is internally consistent and externally consistent with existing science. The one thing it is not is falsifiable. It is just a theory. As to the notion of E=mc^2 it holds to be valid until it is proven false. Correct. Nothing in science is "True"; Everything in science is that which has not YET been proven false.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 21:34:40 GMT
I don't believe I exist, I know I exist. Are refuting I exist? Are you refuting you exist? Not at all. I am refuting the falsifiabilty of your God. I claim He can never be proven false, regardless of whether He exists or not. Previously you were of the opinion that your God is falsifiable. So, for you to be correct, there has to be some verifiable, objective test that, if successful, will absolutely prove that your God does not exist. So let's build that test or else resign ourselves in the conclusion that your God is unfalsifiable. He thinks it is not moving outward, he thinks it is an illusion of motion. How is he reconciling the red shift? Is his theory internally consistent? Is his theory externally consistent with existing science? If not, with what existing science does it not agree?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 22:39:33 GMT
First the red shift. I can't speak for him but his idea has nothing to do with refuting red shift, he is not refuting some places are farther away, so red shift is still valid because some places are farther away. He will have to account for the red shift because it is an observation. The red shift is not about objects being further away; it is an indication of objects moving away. Since everything is red shifted, it appears everything is moving away from earth. The current theory is the expanding universe (with the universe expanding, not the matter in it) which explains everything moving away relatively from the earth. If your son's theory is that the universe is not expanding, he will have to explain why everything is red shifted when observed from earth. I don't recall suggesting God is falsifiable? Did I? Maybe I did? This discussion of ours began by you wondering about my use of the word "unfalsifiable" and applying it to religion. Just as a review, religion is unfalsifiable by its nature (meaning it cannot be proven false) whereas falsifiability is an absolute requirement for science. Global Warming is a religion that claims to be science. Its worshipers get bent out of shape when Global Warming is referred to as unfalsifiable because it correctly implies that it is a religion and not science. You believe it has to be unfalsifiable. Ok, give me proof? Give me an example? It is interesting that you use this wording. The burden of proof, in this case, lies with you to show that your God is falsifiable. Until you do that He remains unfalsifiable. In science, he who makes the claim bears the burden to provide the falsifiable model so that others may try to prove it false in the scientific method. By the way, this is the definition of an "experiment"; it is a test designed to show that a falsifiable model is false. So given a falsifiable model (that predicts nature) and no one being able to show it false, well then you have some pretty solid science. If a model is not falsifiable then it cannot even enter the scientific method and cannot be considered science. Nothing about Global Warming is falsifiable. Nothing about Christianity is falsifiable. They're both religions. I will assume, for example, you think because you can't converse with God that proves God doesn't exist? Right wrong? Again, I am not addressing the existence of God. I make no statement regarding existence. I am merely making an observation of not being falsifiable. Let's say that you want to do what the Global Warming crowd is doing and claim that God is not just a figure in a religion but is settled science! Well, you could do that but you would have to provide the falsifiable model that spells out (typically in math) the exact relationships that, if found to not hold, would absolutely prove your model false, beyond anyone's opinion. As you can see, to date, no religion has opted to do this, not even the Global Warming religion that insists it is falsifiable science! I believe God exists and so does my wife. I asked my wife what she thought and she told me she doesn't care what I think, or believe, she believe her faith is not compatible with science. I like my wife. She would be mistaken. Christianity, for example, being unfalsifiable, is not subject to science and is therefore not incompatible with science. Global Warming however, by claiming to be science, renders itself incompatible with the science its dogma violates. Global Warming nutcases FEAR science as enemy number one. I would refer you to my recent conversation with icefisher. He is scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. He is only capable of spewing his religious dogma. We only had to exchange a few posts of me correcting his math and science before he absolutely panicked and rushed to block me so he could hide away in his safe space.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 19, 2019 1:38:16 GMT
I would also add Sir Roger Penrose believes thought or mind is not corporeal. Penrose and I disagree on this matter but I am not saying he is incorrect. He is taking the unfalsifiable route whereas I am taking the science perspective and sticking with the falsifiable. He is taking a religious view in addressing what we don't know, as many religious people do with some of the tougher questions faced in life. Penrose says with respect to consciousness "there is something more than just the computational laws of physics" whereas I say "we just haven't quite answered that question yet." It seems very clear to me that we are not far from achieving the understanding that Penrose mentions. We have made huge breakthroughs with artificial neural networks and we can already reproduce human judgement. But until we sufficiently reproduce sentience and self-awareness I can't validly claim that Penrose is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 19, 2019 3:33:27 GMT
Not at all. I am refuting the falsifiabilty of your God. I claim He can never be proven false, regardless of whether He exists or not. Previously you were of the opinion that your God is falsifiable. So, for you to be correct, there has to be some verifiable, objective test that, if successful, will absolutely prove that your God does not exist. So let's build that test or else resign ourselves in the conclusion that your God is unfalsifiable. How is he reconciling the red shift? Is his theory internally consistent? Is his theory externally consistent with existing science? If not, with what existing science does it not agree? First the red shift. I can't speak for him but his idea has nothing to do with refuting red shift, he is not refuting some places are farther away, so red shift is still valid because some places are farther away. Hmm, he might say it's the ponzo illusion because the big bang he thinks is an illusion of matter moving outward(not expanding, thanks for the definition clarification). Now God. I don't recall suggesting God is falsifiable? Did I? Maybe I did? You believe it has to be unfalsifiable. Ok, give me proof? Give me an example? I will assume, for example, you think because you can't converse with God that proves God doesn't exist? Right wrong? I believe God exists and so does my wife. I asked my wife what she thought and she told me she doesn't care what I think, or believe, she believe her faith is not compatible with science. I like my wife. I think I will like your wife too!!
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 19, 2019 3:37:33 GMT
faith is personal stuff and I think we should leave it there.
The linking of CAGW to faith is only to illustrate that the process is silly, its a science based process everyone.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2019 4:44:02 GMT
faith is personal stuff and I think we should leave it there. The linking of CAGW to faith is only to illustrate that the process is silly, its a science based process everyone. IMHO, having faith is an essential element a healthy mind. Science is for the known world and faith is for the unknown world. God will always treat you fairly. When you don't have that distinction well in mind you vulnerable to manipulation and human greed. Scientists in uncertain areas of science don't band together to sell a bill of goods and try to gloss over all the uncertainties. Only people serving personal agendas do that. That fact has been learned over and over again throughout history so that doctors, engineers, accountants, etc. all work under promulgated standards that carry severe civil liability and criminal penalties for any professional scoffing those standards. They didn't set up these obligations for no reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 19, 2019 10:32:08 GMT
The linking of CAGW to faith is only to illustrate that the process is silly, its a science based process everyone. You sound like someone in heavy denial. How can you refer to a religion as a "science based [sic] process"?
I don't mean to question your intelligence but do you consider yourself smart enough to recognize a religion when it is right in front of you?
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 19, 2019 10:35:55 GMT
That fact has been learned over and over again throughout history so that doctors, engineers, accountants, etc. all work under promulgated standards that carry severe civil liability and criminal penalties for any professional scoffing those standards. They didn't set up these obligations for no reason at all. In the United States, the 1st Amendment guarantees there are NO such standards for religious professions, i.e. priests, imams, climate scientists, etc...
|
|