Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 12:20 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
To sum it up more succinctly, before we can move on to debate the potential existence for this concept labelled 'god', first the concept must be sufficiently defined. In doing so, the definition can only be meaningful if it is falsifiable.


Wikipedia - Falsifiability Wrote:Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Being

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creator

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Are you an Ignostic?
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Oh Big Grin I was thinking about Agnosticism. Nevermind Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(14-04-2015 01:43 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Supreme

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Being

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creator

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe


Wow, your level of research and argumentation is staggering in it's level of inanity.


You need to define god in a cogent way that is also falsifiable. Copy-pasting a series of links to dictionary definitions does nothing to to get you to a meaningful definition.


Just watch...


"the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe"

So, is it?

the one "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief" "the fact of existing; existence", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

Or is it?

the one "last or final; ultimate" "a human being; person", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the whole world, especially with reference to humanity".


Both make use of the definitions you posted, but they lead to different meanings with different conclusions. You made zero effort to even hint at which of the various meanings for each word that you intend to use.


Not only that, but how is that definition falsifiable? It is not, and thus it is meaningless. To use these definitions would be as useful as arguing about married bachelors or the existence of the Jabberwocky or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


[Image: pp375x360.u1.jpg]


Try again. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-04-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(14-04-2015 01:46 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Are you an Ignostic?


Do I believe you need a meaningful definition of god before you can have a meaningful conversation or debate?

Yes.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
14-04-2015, 11:21 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Let's go with the first definition.

the one "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief" "the fact of existing; existence", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

Seems to make the most sense.
Find all posts by this user
15-04-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(14-04-2015 11:21 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Let's go with the first definition.

the one "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief" "the fact of existing; existence", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

Seems to make the most sense.


Is that definition falsifiable?


If it is not, then it is meaningless.


And we're back to married bachelors, invisible pink unicorns, and Jabberwokys.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-04-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
You could just say, there is none who is "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief" "the fact of existing; existence", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

Then the statement would be false.
Find all posts by this user
16-04-2015, 05:53 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(15-04-2015 12:11 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  You could just say, there is none who is "highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief" "the fact of existing; existence", the "a person or thing that creates" and ruler of the "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

Then the statement would be false.


Doesn't work that way. You need to come up with a cogent definition (you are the one arguing in the affirmative after all), and in order for that definition to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable.

I get the impression that you still do not understand the concept.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astro...index.html


Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.

Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it.

Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements
  • An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico.
  • A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains.
  • Loch Ness contains a giant reptile.

In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch.

That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch."

None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.


Examples of Falsifiable Statements
  • No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico.
Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it.
  • This critter (just pulled from Loch Ness) is a fish.
Just one observation --- "Uh, it has fur all over it." --- is enough to disprove this statement, so it is falsifiable.


How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable

In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did you get all that?

Now come up with a cogent definition for god that is falsifiable. Key point here is that your definition need to be able to be potentially proven false. So for example placing your definition of god as something that exists outside of space or time would make it unfalsifiable, because it's outside of any possibility of being tested and falsified, and is thus a meaningless definition.

A god outside of time and space is as meaningless as a doughnut outside of time and space.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: