HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Post by Tartonga

It's not flawed, it's a statement of fact. If an observation fits a theory, that is evidence towards the theory.
That evidence is determined by the strength of the observations. You said that the universe was your observation about God existence theory. That observation could also fit the the theories that God no longer exist, that God will exist or that God never existed. Your observations are not strong enough in the sense that they could fit any theory.

Just because you don't like the theory doesn't make it any less of a theory.
This made me lol.

Firstly, 'inductivism' isn't a real word in the sense that it's not a way of thinking, it's a scientific method.
HAHAHA. Ok genius, do you know what scientific method do scientific theories follow? I will give you a hint: you don't know anything about it.
Secondly, I understand induction very well.
Oh really? I thought you didn't because of statements you said like this:
If it can't be falsifiable, then it's not a theory.
Why? To either bit, really.

a) Prove that it's not falsifiable.
b) Demonstrate why a non-falsifiable concept cannot be a theory.
...or this...
The point about theories being falsifiable isn't that all theories must be falsifiable, it's that a single false result can 'disprove' a theory.
...or this...
False. An unfalsifiable theory can make unfalsifiable predictions.
...or this...
Take in account that scientific theories use inductive logic.
That's irrelevant to our discussion - it can be impossible to disprove a scientific theory using inductive logic.
...or this...
After all, I believe that God existence is theoretically falsifiable to the extent that every scientific theory is falsifiable.
...or this...
Strength of observation doesn't preclude a theory from being valid.
...or this:
Secondly, if you can't falsify a theory, you can't know if it may be true or if it's false (Remember? "The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth.").
That was the rubbish that you presented, and is not supported by any logic.
Inductive logic says "Hi!".
Thirdly, you obviously don't, if you think that anything is can be proven true or proven false by induction.
*facepalm*
May I ask what made you think that? Oh nevermind, I'm already getting used to your unintelligent statements based on nothing, like your worthiest statement "God existence theory is falsifiable", which you didn't argument.
If you are not going to read what the predictions say (i.e. Revelations), I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you. Go do your own research. Proof by ignorance is not a valid argument.
THIS...LOL. After you said that you went to the school yard to play in the sand-box after using the slide, right? I will use your own words on this one:
You're making the claim that religion predict that God exists, and thus making a statement that needs to be proven. I happily await your proof.
-
You cannot prove that we will not be able to identify God's existence in the future. Therefore, your argument is false.
If I cannot prove nor falsify it, then it's an unfalsifiable theory. Therefore, your argument is false.

I'll even prove it using an induction example, since you seem so fond of it.

Premise: God existence is unfalsifiable.
Observation: Tartonga has provided no evidence of unfalisifability.
Conclusion: We cannot conclude that God is unfalsifiable. In view of the lack of evidence, it is prudent to assume that God existence, like everything else, is falisfiable.

You are sooo funny. I can make jokes too! Let's give a better theory than yours:

-Dr. House is always right.
-Dr. House is atheist.
-Therefore, it's right to assume that God doesn't exist.

See? And I'm basing my predictions and observations on a TV show, which is no different from basing your predictions and observations on a 2000 years old book...
And if you really think that all theories are falsifiable, dude...You keep proving me that you don't understand inductivism nor falsifiability.

-

Look, Squish. I firstly tried to sound polite, but your very way to argument lead the discussion to this. You didn't argument why "God existence" is falsifiable. I did argument why it is unfalsifiable; I said noone in the world is able to falsify it's existence, therefore it's unfalsifiable. But then you came with a sh^ty argument:
That's not a proof. Making that argument is evidence towards the conclusion that you're unintelligent. Try again.
Now I ask you to prove how "God existence" is falsifiable. If you can do that, you can put an end to this debate, which, by the way, I loved.

Post by Squishalot

Post by Skreeran

Post by Orranis

If prove meant to demonstrate with such a supply of evidence that it is literally impossible to see any other scenario, which I believe in itself to be impossible, then the very word 'disprove' is an impossibility. Right now you're asking me to prove God does not exist, I am not required to prove a negative. Only after you've proved he existed is there any reason for me to refute this proof.

Essentially, asking me to disprove God exists before you've proved he exists is asking me to disassemble a puzzle that was never put together in the first place.

Wait, so by what definition of 'proof' did you want?

When has 'proof' ever, by itself, meant 'definitive, to the point of metaphysical inevitability, proof?'

Post by Tartonga

I don't have time to go into a lengthy discussion about why most of your points are wrong today. I'll leave you with this though:

Premise A: God exists. Unfalsifiable theory, according to you.
Premise B: God does not exist. Unfalsifiable theory, by definition with relation to A.
Premise C: An unfalsifiable theory can be accepted as true (according to you).
Conclusion: We can accept that God exists and that God does not exist, which is an impossible result.

Therefore, either Premise C is false, or Premise A and B are false. Q.E.D.All the premises are right, but the conclusion is not. We can accept either if it exists or if it does not. It's not a result. The problem of unfalsifiable theories is that we can't challenge nor test them; in other words, we can't know the result. That's why we can either accept that God exists or that he does not (remember: "An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactly identical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory."). Either way, believing if it does or not exist, won't change anything. That's why I said "If something is not falsifiable and you accept it as a truth; that something is called belief", even though believing in an unfalsifiable theory could end up being right, just like it could end up being wrong.

The whole debate started, because you said that "God exists" is a valid theory, remember? Now, the theory may be true or false, but we can't know. If noone can challenge nor test a theory, then it's not considered a valid theory.

I think you're mistaking "unfalsifiable" with "unprovable," Squish.

You can falsify the premise that "God does not exist." All you need do is present an experimentally producible fact that shows that the model "God doesn't exist" is false. That's falsifiability. I can think of an instance in which the "God does not exist" model could definitively be proven false. That that instance has not occurred does not weaken the premise, quite the contrary, in fact.

I can not think of an instance in which the premise "God does exist" could definitively be proven false. It's unfalsifiable.
Skree, to falsify the theory "God doesn't exist", you need to show that "God exists". You are looking at 2 sides of the same coin: "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" is the same theory. One premise is accepted as a truth when the other is falsified. If you can falsify one of them, you can falsify both of them, meaning that you could also falsify that "God exists", for instance.

Post by Skreeran

I think you're mistaking "unfalsifiable" with "unprovable," Squish.

You can falsify the premise that "God does not exist." All you need do is present an experimentally producible fact that shows that the model "God doesn't exist" is false. That's falsifiability. I can think of an instance in which the "God does not exist" model could definitively be proven false. That that instance has not occurred does not weaken the premise, quite the contrary, in fact.

I can not think of an instance in which the premise "God does exist" could definitively be proven false. It's unfalsifiable.
Skree, to falsify the theory "God doesn't exist", you need to show that "God exists". You are looking at 2 sides of the same coin: "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" is the same theory. One premise is accepted as a truth when the other is falsified. If you can falsify one of them, you can falsify both of them, meaning that you could also falsify that "God exists", for instance.That's true.

Squishalot argued that the premise "God does not exist," is unfalsifiable. I'm merely showing that it isn't.

Like you said, the first step is to show evidence that God does exist.

If I suggest that "Atoms do not exist," that is a falsifiable theory that will easily be falsified. Yes, there's no point in suggesting that theory if atoms haven't been shown to exist in the first place. My point wasn't to make an argument for the nonexistence of God. My point was to show that an unfalsifiable premise is not necessarily equal to its inverse.

Let me make another argument:

Theory: We are pink cows in reality, and our senses are lying to us.

This is an unfalsifiable theory. It may be true, or it may not. There is by definition no way of proving it true or false.

You can predict "One day, at some indefinite point in the future, our cowness will be revealed to us," but that is not a scientific prediction.

Since the theory has no observable effect on the universe, it does not have any effect on science, and is pointless to suggest. If you want to devote your life to eating nothing but grass so that your cow body can be stronger and more healthy, I suppose you're free to believe that, but it is not a valid scientific theory, and I will not hesitate from thinking that you're silly if you believe it.

Post by 296147

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

No Hindus? Interesting.

I believe Adams identifies as a mix, with Hindu being one of them, but you'd have to hear it from him.

Post by Skreeran

No Hindus? Interesting.

I believe Adams identifies as a mix, with Hindu being one of them, but you'd have to hear it from him.Nice antichrist avatar, Face.

Post by Adamsm

Megaman still did it better.

Post by Skreeran

Megaman still did it better.What?

Post by Orranis

Simpsons did it, Simpsons did it!

Edit: And thanks. I didn't have anti-Christ in mind, but I guess it works...

Post by Adamsm

Megaman still did it better.What?

Dr Wily's Castle in Megaman 1, first boss is a giant Eye Golem, which the fire golem Face has looks like.

Post by Orranis

Yeah, but it's not like I could use that icon.

Post by Adamsm

Well if you got Premium you could lol.

Post by Orranis

If I could buy things online for myself I could.

Post by 240140

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

14 >_>

And my dad is paranoid. He wouldn't send in identification to get my original account back when it was hacked. It was hard enough getting him to buy Cataclysm, some random fan-sight? Korean gangsters gunna steal his moneh. Not to mention "It's not necessary" (which it probably isn't.)

He's usually rational, it's just this one thing for some reason.

Post by Tartonga

That's true.

Squishalot argued that the premise "God does not exist," is unfalsifiable. I'm merely showing that it isn't.

Like you said, the first step is to show evidence that God does exist.

If I suggest that "Atoms do not exist," that is a falsifiable theory that will easily be falsified. Yes, there's no point in suggesting that theory if atoms haven't been shown to exist in the first place. My point wasn't to make an argument for the nonexistence of God. My point was to show that an unfalsifiable premise is not necessarily equal to its inverse.

Let me make another argument:

Theory: We a pink cows in reality, and our senses are lying to us.

This is an unfalsifiable theory. It may be true, or it may not. There is by definition no way of proving it true or false.

You can predict "One day, at some indefinite point in the future, our cowness will be revealed to us," but that is not a scientific prediction.

Since the theory has no observable effect on the universe, it does not have any effect on science, and is pointless to suggest. If you want to devote your life to eating nothing but grass so that your cow body can be stronger and more healthy, I suppose you're free to believe that, but it is not a valid scientific theory, and I will not hesitate from thinking that you're silly if you believe it.

Indeed, Skree, indeed. The problem with Squish - I believe - is that he thinks that the theory "God will materialize" is valid. The problem of that theory is that it's needed to observe that God exists in the first place, and since we cannot know that, making that theory is pointless. Another example would be "pink invisible unicorns will become visible". In order to make that theory, I need to observe that invisible pink unicorns exist first. I don't know if I'm being clear enough with the comparison.
This is why observations have to be strong. They can preclude theories from being valid.

Post by 296147

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

HsR's Demographics of Wowhead: Religion

Post Reply