Questions for Christians

[MarkT]

Let's take an a prior argument. It's necessarily true that 2+2=4. In order to know this, you have to have a knowledge of 4 things. Otherwise the idea of adding 2 things to 2 things would not occur to you. To the ones who have a knowledge of God, it occurs to us to read the Bible. To those who don't have any knowledge of God, reading the Bible would be like adding 2 things to 2 things without any knowledge of 4 things. It would seem like a total waste of time; a foolish thing to do without an a priori knowledge of 4 things. I would maintain that the believer had an a priori knowledge of God that came from God that led him to read the Bible and believe, and that the atheist, having not received any knowledge and therefore being without this knowledge, he can not believe. Aside from the belief in God, there is no difference between the athiest and the believer. Neither one believes in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. To the believer no more proof is required but that he believes. But the atheist, besides being ignorant, is not satisfied with thinking the belief in God is foolishness. He is not agnostic. The atheist has to promote the idea that there is no God. His whole purpose in life seems to be to engage people, mainly Christians, in arguments. We may conclude that he was born to this end. So we feel great sorrow and anguish that God has left him blind and without any knowledge, and we pray God will spare this man if it is his will to do so.

 

[AAA]

This whole 'it must be falsifiable or it isn't scientific' thing is so phony. Now the scientific types have to find a way to falsify their own existence to prove they exist, otherwise the knowledge of their own existence is in trouble ( because it can't be falsified it can't be scientific so it can't be knowledge and it must be rejected) Now they have to find some evidence that could show that they don't exist and finding a lack of evidence, they have to reject the idea that they exist.

Science likes claims to be testable. A claim can be tested is if there are ways to verify it, and if there are ways to falsify it. So falsifiability really is as simple as it sounds, and its just a way of testing a claim.

If I say that there is a can of Coke in the fridge, that is a scientific claim because it is testable.

You can go and look in the fridge, and if there is not a can of Coke, then my claim was false. On the other hand, if you find a can of Coke, then it was true. It's that simple.

Falsifiability doesn't mean that one has to falsify a claim to prove that it was true, which is what you seem to be saying. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim, and it's possible to falsify the claim in a number of ways, support for the truth of the claim can come in the form of showing that the claim cannot be falsified in those relevant ways.

I'll use an example to illustrate, though because I am not an expert in the field of palaeontology, this might not be the truest example, even though I still think it illustrates the significance of falsifiability nevertheless: the claim that dinosaurs and humans did not live on earth at the same time could be falsified by just once showing dinosaur fossils and human fossils found in the same sediment and dating to the same time period. This claim is strengthened then, by the knowledge that in the hundreds (thousands?) of sites where dinosaur fossils have been found, no human fossils have ever been found.

So falsifiability just means that a claim is testable in some way.

Claims that are not testable may not be trustworthy, or may even be completely useless.

For instance, the claim that an undetectable supernatural entity exists is a useless and meaningless claim since, if the entity is undetectable, there is no possible basis for the claim.

 

[AAA]

I would maintain that the believer had an a priori knowledge of God that came from God that led him to read the Bible and believe, and that the atheist, having not received any knowledge and therefore being without this knowledge, he can not believe.

So what do you make of Muslims, and Hindus, and Zoroastrians, and Jains, etc?

Do they have a priori knowledge of Allah, Vishnu/Rama/Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Tirthankars, etc.?

 

[MarkT]

This whole 'it must be falsifiable or it isn't scientific' thing is so phony. Now the scientific types have to find a way to falsify their own existence to prove they exist, otherwise the knowledge of their own existence is in trouble ( because it can't be falsified it can't be scientific so it can't be knowledge and it must be rejected) Now they have to find some evidence that could show that they don't exist and finding a lack of evidence, they have to reject the idea that they exist.

Science likes claims to be testable. A claim can be tested is if there are ways to verify it, and if there are ways to falsify it. So falsifiability really is as simple as it sounds, and its just a way of testing a claim.

But not all claims are scientific and not all claims can be tested. Scientific claims involve a characteristic which is implied.

If I say that there is a can of Coke in the fridge, that is a scientific claim because it is testable.

You can go and look in the fridge, and if there is not a can of Coke, then my claim was false. On the other hand, if you find a can of Coke, then it was true. It's that simple.

I don't think so. It's a claim. But I wouldn't call it a scientific claim. Saying there's a can of coke in your fridge isn't a scientific claim. If there is a can of coke in your fridge, then there is no way to make your statement false. You can't falsify or make false something that is true. However, if you said there was a can of coke in your fridge but it's not there now, or there is an invisible can of coke in your fridge, then we could test your claim.

Falsifiability doesn't mean that one has to falsify a claim to prove that it was true, which is what you seem to be saying. On the other hand, if someone makes a claim, and it's possible to falsify the claim in a number of ways, support for the truth of the claim can come in the form of showing that the claim cannot be falsified in those relevant ways.

I'll use an example to illustrate, though because I am not an expert in the field of palaeontology, this might not be the truest example, even though I still think it illustrates the significance of falsifiability nevertheless: the claim that dinosaurs and humans did not live on earth at the same time could be falsified by just once showing dinosaur fossils and human fossils found in the same sediment and dating to the same time period. This claim is strengthened then, by the knowledge that in the hundreds (thousands?) of sites where dinosaur fossils have been found, no human fossils have ever been found.

Ok. Since we can't go back in time to verify the claim, we might use this test. However, the only thing you can say here is that there is a lack of evidence. And you can't really conclude anything based on a lack of evidence. In order to prove something true you need positive evidence (like a coke stain or a pull tab in your fridge example). Seems to me you're trying to prove a negative here.

So falsifiability just means that a claim is testable in some way.

Claims that are not testable may not be trustworthy, or may even be completely useless.

For instance, the claim that an undetectable supernatural entity exists is a useless and meaningless claim since, if the entity is undetectable, there is no possible basis for the claim.

I suppose so. But I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm saying the Lord Jesus went away. What are you going to say when He returns?

I will concede you could probably prove you exist because one of the characteristics of humans is that they have mass and you can use instruments to measure your mass.

 

[MarkT]

I would maintain that the believer had an a priori knowledge of God that came from God that led him to read the Bible and believe, and that the atheist, having not received any knowledge and therefore being without this knowledge, he can not believe.

So what do you make of Muslims, and Hindus, and Zoroastrians, and Jains, etc?

Do they have a priori knowledge of Allah, Vishnu/Rama/Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Tirthankars, etc.?

Yep. Same goes for them as for you. There are vessels made for destruction and there are vessels made for glory. Whatever God filled them with is what they are.

 

[francisdesales]

Argument #7

Bias is unavoidable, and really shouldn’t factor into considerations of historicity. (Others have also advanced this argument here relating to the quality of the historical evidence found in the gospels.)

As to "unbiased", practically every writing is biased in some way. Even scientific journals are full of bias, bias for one's own opinions and hypothesis... Historical accounts are biased. Read battlefield accounts by the winners and then the losers... You'll get the point. Bias does not discount the validity of the basic truth of a writing. A writer is not taken seriously ONLY when OTHER sources that are reliable are taken together and discount the first source, calling into question the validity of the first source.

Thanks for a summation of some arguments against disbelief in God... Wonderful to see how you have changed their meanings in every case.

The above is a fine example of your bias. When did I say that bias isn't a fact to consider in historicity??? Of course it is. I have even made that express comment - but we CONTINUE to give the benefit of the doubt to the historian, (UNTIL proven unreliable) otherwise, we couldn't believe anything written, since everything written is subject to personal bias. It is naive to think otherwise. One's point of view, by nature, is biased by one's point of view!

Rather than show how your "arguments" are all strawmen, I'll just make my comment and close - since there is really little point in continuing, since you are biased and I am biased, thus, "nothing we write is worthy of historical value"...

Like I said, it's a philosophical issue here, nothing you have said disproves God or makes faith unreasonable.

 

[GrayJedi_Lightshade]

.....man, I feel sorry for that poor innocent kid who just asked simple questions up there. He completely stopped replying about 7 or 8 pages ago, and now all this debating on symantecs, theories, and arguments probably did more damage than good if he still keeps up with it.

 

[AAA]

Science likes claims to be testable. A claim can be tested is if there are ways to verify it, and if there are ways to falsify it. So falsifiability really is as simple as it sounds, and its just a way of testing a claim.

But not all claims are scientific and not all claims can be tested.

Agreed.

Scientific claims involve a characteristic which is implied.

What is the implied characteristic of scientific claims?

 

[AAA]

If I say that there is a can of Coke in the fridge, that is a scientific claim because it is testable.You can go and look in the fridge, and if there is not a can of Coke, then my claim was false. On the other hand, if you find a can of Coke, then it was true. It's that simple.

I don't think so. It's a claim. But I wouldn't call it a scientific claim. Saying there's a can of coke in your fridge isn't a scientific claim.

It is a scientific claim, but it just seems too mundane a claim for you to consider it that way.

When I make the claim that there is a Coke in the fridge, the claim can be considered a hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. That is, the claim is either true or false. Lastly, we can conceive of a way to test the claim: by opening the fridge and making a repeatable empiric observation.

If there is a can of coke in your fridge, then there is no way to make your statement false. You can't falsify or make false something that is true.

And that's exactly the point. If a claim is true, one should not be able to show that it is false. Similarly, if a claim is false, one should not be able to show that it is true.

The claim that there is a Coke in the fridge is falsifiable if there isn't a Coke in the fridge. If you open the fridge and find no Coke, then the claim is falsified (ie. it was a false claim).

Falsifiability is not about making true statements false. Its about being able to test claims and determine if they are false.

The claim that there is a Coke in the fridge is also verifiable if there indeed is a Coke in the fridge. If you open the fridge and find a Coke, then the claim is verified (ie. it was a true claim).

 

[AAA]

I admire your passion on the subjects of faith, and the quality of the historical evidence for the gospel claims of Christianity, and I am enjoying our conversation so far...Perhaps I can try to summarize [your arguments] before we move forward. In my experience, trying to summarize and understand an interlocutors opinions and arguments is a good way to ensure that a conversation is really getting to the heart of the relevant matters, so If you are inclined, I’d be interested in having you try to summarize what my arguments in our conversation have been, though I won’t hold you to that request, and I’d be happy to just move forward based on your arguments.

I will use a separate post for each argument I think you have raised and I will include quotes from your posts that I think support my summaries in each post (bold emphasis is mine). If I have failed to accurately summarize your arguments, then please explain what it is that I misunderstood. I look forward to continuing our conversation.

Your reply, after I summarized what I thought were 7 of your arguments including your own wording to support why I thought those were your arguments, was mere sarcasm plus:

Rather than show how your "arguments" are all strawmen, I'll just make my comment and close - since there is really little point in continuing, since you are biased and I am biased...

Uh...Ok then...

I guess I'm also very comfortable leaving the readers to decide who was making strawmen, though it's still disappointing to me francisdesales, that you do not think that there is a point in continuing our dialogue, especially after I tried to understand your arguments as you wrote them and provided you the opportunity to individually clarify your arguments specifically so that we might have been able to continue.

I will point out how ironic it is that you would conclude that our dialogue is pointless because of bias, immediately after stating in your last post that :

everything...is subject to personal bias. It is naive to think otherwise. One's point of view, by nature, is biased by one's point of view.

After understanding that, according to you, bias makes dialogue pointless, one might be tempted to think that one ought to consider claims based entirely on historical accounts that all represent a certain biased perspective as pointless also.

 

[AAA]

I would maintain that the believer had an a priori knowledge of God that came from God that led him to read the Bible and believe, and that the atheist, having not received any knowledge and therefore being without this knowledge, he can not believe.

So what do you make of Muslims, and Hindus, and Zoroastrians, and Jains, etc?

Do they have a priori knowledge of Allah, Vishnu/Rama/Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Tirthankars, etc.?

Yep. Same goes for them as for you. There are vessels made for destruction and there are vessels made for glory. Whatever God filled them with is what they are.

I'm saying the Lord Jesus went away. What are you going to say when He returns?

I guess that if your claims are true as they are written above, then I would have to ask Jesus why he filled me with untruths and made me for destruction, since all I'm doing is asking reasonable questions and looking for reasonable answers, employing reason: the faculty that most distinguishes us from the other species we share Earth with. I would also ask him why he would have filled you with the truth and made you for glory.

Do you, while waiting for Jesus to return, honestly consider the possibility that you've come to believe in a world view that happens to be so incredibly convenient for you by a means other than that the "truth" of this incredibly convenient situation was planted in you by an invisible supernatural entity for glory?And if Jesus doesn't return, what are you going to say then?

 

[MarkT]

If I say that there is a can of Coke in the fridge, that is a scientific claim because it is testable.You can go and look in the fridge, and if there is not a can of Coke, then my claim was false. On the other hand, if you find a can of Coke, then it was true. It's that simple.

I don't think so. It's a claim. But I wouldn't call it a scientific claim. Saying there's a can of coke in your fridge isn't a scientific claim.

It is a scientific claim, but it just seems too mundane a claim for you to consider it that way.

When I make the claim that there is a Coke in the fridge, the claim can be considered a hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. That is, the claim is either true or false. Lastly, we can conceive of a way to test the claim: by opening the fridge and making a repeatable empiric observation.

What are you explaining? An hypothesis is an explanation; something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation. In this case, a true explanation of what? If there was a puddle of coke on the floor near the fridge, then we might think it came from a can of coke in the fridge. We might want to know how a can of coke got into the fridge. Your claim might make us think you put it there. We might think of other explanations. But opening the door would be no fun.

Scientific claims are charcterized by the use of inductive reasoning. Therefore, they can be falsified.

 

[AAA]

When I make the claim that there is a Coke in the fridge, the claim can be considered a hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. That is, the claim is either true or false. Lastly, we can conceive of a way to test the claim: by opening the fridge and making a repeatable empiric observation.

What are you explaining? An hypothesis is an explanation; something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation. In this case, a true explanation of what?

The statement, "There is a Coke in the fridge" represents one possibility regarding the fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. It means to explain whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. It could happen to be my belief, and that belief may be based on, say, my having put a 6-pack of Coke in the fridge 3 days ago and the belief that not all 6 had been consumed. If I haven't recently looked in the fridge, so that I don't know for sure if there is a Coke in the fridge, then my perhaps reasonable assumption that there is a Coke in the fridge is either true or false, and can be tested. It is the testability of the hypothesis that makes it scientific. I hope that the context I have provided will clarify the answer to your question. It's really that simple.

Scientific claims are charcterized by the use of inductive reasoning. Therefore, they can be falsified.

Science involves adduction, deduction, & induction.

Scientific claims can be tested in some way, and that is where induction comes in.

 

[MarkT]

I guess that if your claims are true as they are written above, then I would have to ask Jesus why he filled me with untruths and made me for destruction, since all I'm doing is asking reasonable questions and looking for reasonable answers, employing reason: the faculty that most distinguishes us from the other species we share Earth with. I would also ask him why he would have filled you with the truth and made you for glory.

It's just possible that the knowledge of God is in everyone and you either can't or you won't hear the words of God. The tree is made good or it is made bad and no one gathers figs from thistles. When I hear good things being said about God, then I think the tree must be good, but when I hear bad things, then I think the tree must be bad.

I can't say he made you for destruction; he made some for destruction. But why can't you be agnostic and say you don't know and you don't care? Why do you say false things about God when you don't know?

But if Jesus doesn't return, what are you going to say then? And will you, while waiting for Jesus to return, ask yourself how or why you've come to believe in a world view that happens to be so incredibly convenient for you?

Jesus Christ said he will return, he will return.

I am born of the Spirit of God. If I serve God, and you call it convenient, then it must be that I serve the truth. For I don't care for your world or your world view. It is better to serve God than to perish.

 

[MarkT]

When I make the claim that there is a Coke in the fridge, the claim can be considered a hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. That is, the claim is either true or false. Lastly, we can conceive of a way to test the claim: by opening the fridge and making a repeatable empiric observation.

What are you explaining? An hypothesis is an explanation; something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation. In this case, a true explanation of what?

The statement, "There is a Coke in the fridge" represents one possibility regarding the fact of the matter as to whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. It means to explain whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge. It could happen to be my belief, and that belief may be based on, say, my having put a 6-pack of Coke in the fridge 3 days ago and the belief that not all 6 had been consumed. If I haven't recently looked in the fridge, so that I don't know for sure if there is a Coke in the fridge, then my perhaps reasonable assumption that there is a Coke in the fridge is either true or false, and can be tested. It is the testability of the hypothesis that makes it scientific. I hope that the context I have provided will clarify the answer to your question. It's really that simple.

If you opened the door and you found some cans missing, then you could create an explanation for why they are missing. But when you say, 'It means to explain whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge', I have to ask you what you mean by 'it means to explain'? How does your sentence make sense? You're explaining what to whom? How are you explaining whether something is or isn't before there is anything to explain? If you put a six pack in the fridge, then it's not a hypothesis. You know you put it there. No explanation as to how it got there is necessary and whether there is or isn't a can left isn't an explanation. It's a question.

Scientific claims are charcterized by the use of inductive reasoning. Therefore, they can be falsified.

Science involves adduction, deduction, & induction.

Scientific claims can be tested in some way, and that is where induction comes in.

Scientific claims can not be 100% proven; ie. they must be falsifiable. So it's not like claiming there is a can of Coke in the fridge. That sort of claim can be proven 100%. Scientific claims are like how the universe was created. Unless you created the universe, you can't know. You can only guess. That's what a hypothesis is - a guess - an explanation that seems true.

 

[AAA]

when you say, 'It means to explain whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge', I have to ask you what you mean by 'it means to explain'? How does your sentence make sense? You're explaining what to whom? How are you explaining whether something is or isn't before there is anything to explain? If you put a six pack in the fridge, then it's not a hypothesis. You know you put it there. No explanation as to how it got there is necessary and whether there is or isn't a can left isn't an explanation. It's a question.

Science is in the business of answering questions. The claim that there is a Coke in the fridge does not address how the Coke got into the fridge. Whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge is a question, and how it got there is another question. My analogy was only about the former. It really shouldn't be that hard for you to imagine the scenario where I might not be certain that there is a Coke in the fridge.

The Coke in the fridge analogy was the simplest type of question I could come up with on the fly to demonstrate what falsifiability is all about. The question of whether there is or isn't a Coke in the fridge is absolutely a scientific question, and science addresses yes/no questions all the time with 100% accuracy.

Here's an example of another question that I think you should easily accept as a scientific question because the topic is not mundane (please note: I am not a physicist, and I don't even know if this experiment has even been performed nor whether it is an adequate test of time dilation, but it should serve as an example of a scientific question that could theoretically be answered with certainty): according to special relativity, time should slow down as you move faster. But maybe Special Relativity is wrong, and time is absolute and therefore not relative to one's velocity? One could easily ask the simple yes/no question: does time slow down with increasing velocity? You could make a hypothesis that time does indeed slow down because you have reason to believe that Special Relativity is correct. You could test the hypothesis by putting an extremely accurate atomic clock in a satellite that travels very very rapidly around the earth while its perfectly synchronized counterpart stays on earth. After bringing the satellite down, you could check and see that, in fact, just as Special Relativity would have predicted, less time elapsed on the atomic clock that was orbiting earth than on its earthly counterpart. The experiment can be repeated, and if the same results are obtained, then a perfectly scientific question is answered with 100% certainty: the passage of time is relative to one's velocity. Thus, the claim in this case has been verified. That doesn't make it false! That makes it true!

Here's the Coke in the fridge analogy again: Since I put a 6-pack of Coke in the fridge a few days ago, and nobody with access to the fridge drinks Coke that much, I think that there is at least one Coke in the fridge. But maybe there were visitors last night who drank it all? Is there a Coke in the fridge? I can hypothesize that there is a Coke in the fridge because I have reason to believe that, in fact, there probably is. I can test that hypothesis by opening the fridge and looking inside. I can answer the question with 100% certainty: there is not a Coke in the fridge. Thus, the claim in this case has been falsified. That doesn't make it true! That makes it false!

Look at the similarities between the 2 examples. They are both scientific claims. If you still disagree, then I have nothing more to say to help explain how the Coke analogy represents an example of a mundane but scientific claim. I will remind you that several posts ago you got this whole discussion started by sarcastically applying the concept of falsifiabilty to the mundane claim of whether scientists exist, so my mundane Coke in the fridge analogy really shouldn't be so mysterious or inappropriate to you.

You are correct that science does address much more complex and difficult questions, but please remember that I chose the Coke analogy as a simple one to address your misconceptions about falsifiability.

Scientific claims can not be 100% proven; ie. they must be falsifiable. So it's not like claiming there is a can of Coke in the fridge. That sort of claim can be proven 100%. Scientific claims are like how the universe was created. Unless you created the universe, you can't know. You can only guess. That's what a hypothesis is - a guess - an explanation that seems true.

Some scientific claims can be proven with certainty. A falsifiable claim is one that can be tested so as to determine if it is false; ie. there is a way to test if the claim is false. A falsifiable claim may not be falsified, particularly if it is true. Falsifiabilty does not mean that one has to be able to find a way to show that a claim known to be true is actually false. As before, if I haven't yet been able to make this clear to you with the simple analogies I have used, then I can do no more to clarify the matter

A hypothesis is an assumption.

 

[AAA]

It's just possible that the knowledge of God is in everyone

Please note that what you are saying here is a complete contradiction of what you proposed in your earlier post, which I will quote below:

I would maintain that the believer had an a priori knowledge of God that came from God that led him to read the Bible and believe, and that the atheist, having not received any knowledge and therefore being without this knowledge, he can not believe.

Moving on...

I can't say he made you for destruction; he made some for destruction.

I don't know why I should accept this statement, since you clearly contradict yourself on this topic. Your views are not internally consistent. Besides, you couldn't possibly know (a) that the Christian god exists and (b) that the Christian god makes some people for destruction. How could you? (That's really a rhetorical question that I don't mean for you to answer unless you have some extraordinary evidence that is not a quote from the bible)

But why can't you be agnostic and say you don't know and you don't care? Why do you say false things about God when you don't know?

I don't think I've said anything about the Christian god. I do believe that I have questioned the existence of the Christian god because I have been thoroughly unimpressed with the reasons and evidence that are proposed to support the existence of the Christian god. That's all. So I'm an atheist with respect to the Christian god in the same way that we are both atheists with respect to Poseidon. I'm sure you understand that, and I'm sure you understand how one can be an atheist with respect to Poseidon without necessarily saying "false things" about Poseidon.

Please note that I could ask you the same questions that you ask me: Why can't you be agnostic and say that you really don't know if the Christian god exists? Why do you say all kinds of things about the Christian god when you really don't know?

Jesus Christ said he will return, he will return.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. You can't possibly know that Jesus will return. If you do claim to actually know this and all the things you claim (even the things you contradict yourself on), then you are demonstrating religious faith, and religious faith is nothing like the type of faith that francisdesales was talking about in his earlier posts (like having faith that your car will start). You will almost certainly have unwittingly demonstrated how religious faith is absolutely in conflict with reason, just as I argued.

I am born of the Spirit of God. If I serve God, and you call it convenient, then it must be that I serve the truth. For I don't care for your world or your world view. It is better to serve God than to perish.

That paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

The convenient situation I was referring to was the one implied in your previous assertion that the Christian god apparently happened to make you for glory while all others who don't happen to believe the same thing as you happened to be made by the Christian god for destruction. I don't see how my calling that incredibly convenient for you must mean that you "serve the truth".