Theology and Falsification - Antony Flew

[backspace]

http://www.rasmusen.org/g406/backu-g406/__PAPERS-1stCURRENT1st-tier/Concealing.Himself/Lit-cited/Flew-Mitchell.pdf

,,,,,, ‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute
for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of God?’,,,,,,,

God is defined as infallible , He can't lie. A being defined as
infallible and unfalsifiable says of Himself that he glues the
universe together by faith alone, by what he assumes. God holds the
universe together by the principle of unfalsifiability and
not falsifiability. It is a principle in philosophy that one can only
raise a question if the presuppositions allows one to raise the
question or we will induce infinite regress.

Thus lets try and generalize Flew's question:

rephrase1:
‘What would constitute a disproof of the existence of God?

rephrase2:
What would constitute a disproof of the existence of a being defined
as infallible and unfalsifiable?

rephrase3:
The question is raised as to how one would construct a falsifiable
test for a phenomena defined as unfalsifiable?

rephase4:
How do we falsify that which is unfalsifiable.

Flew thus raised a question which by logic the principle of Popper
falsifiability does not allow him to raise.

[Boikat]

On May 22, 12:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.rasmusen.org/g406/backu-g406/__PAPERS-1stCURRENT1st-tier/C...

No. He explained why it was not possible to falsify the claims about
the unfalsifiable nature of the "god-thingy". His comment was not a
question. That was your doing via "rephrasing" his comment.

Boikat

[backspace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener

''................ The Parable of the Invisible Gardener is a tale
told John Wisdom's it was later developed in the university debate, by
Anthony Flew who made a few changes such as changing the gardeners to
explorers. It is often used to illustrate the perceived differences
between assertions based on faith and assertions based on scientific
evidence, and the problems associated with unfalsifiable beliefs. The
main point of the parable is that religious believers do not allow
anybody to "falsify" thier assertions, instead they simply change
thier beliefs to suit the questioner. This is why for Flew religious
believers cause God to "Die the death of a thousand
qualifications" ...............''


All of logic is based on faith, if what you say is based on science,
then this very sentence itself contradicts itself because it is not a
scientific sentence: there is no test we can devise to test it.

Faith is a dissimilar term for Logic. No test can be devised to refute
or verify the claims of logic or faith. In the beginning was the
Logos(Christ). Specifically Logos, because Logic isn't falsifiable. In
other words in the beginning was the principle of unfalsifiability, of
calling those things that be not as though they were. Everything we
say has at its base the claims of Logic, all of falsifiable testable
science and its algorithmic instantiations (machines with zero and
span calibrations) have to assume something the algorithm maker know
to be true but can't prove.

Take the following sentence: "There will always be something I know to
be true but can't prove". The very sentence itself can't be proven
and thus does not contradict itself.

[raven1]

Thousand Island, or oil and vinegar, monsieur?

[Burkhard]

On May 22, 6:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.rasmusen.org/g406/backu-g406/__PAPERS-1stCURRENT1st-tier/C...
>

By the logic of Popper, statements, and nothing else, are falsifiable
(theories for him are just sets of statements) God is not a statement,
so God is unfalsifiable in the same way that chairs, clouds,
mountains, the president of the US, Cindy Lauper etc are
unfalsifiable, they are all of the wrong syntactic category.

Statements about God on the other hand are a different matter, and the
usual rules apply. That you want to introduce by definition "God is
that and only that entity that is unfalsifiable" does not matter a
bit, the sentence "There is such a being the is defined as being
unfalsifiable" is either falsifiable (in which case it has empirical
content) or is not falsifiable (in whihc case we could discuss what
its status is) The sentence: "I believe taht thete is an unfalsifiable
being" is easily falsifiable.

None of this matter, as the statement under consideration in your
quote, before you mutilated to by rephrasing, would be closest to :
"Are there good reasons for me to believe that there is.is not an
god"
which is falsifiable even if you define (in contravention of syntactic
rules) God as unfalsifiable.

[Burkhard]

On May 22, 7:41 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener
>
> ''................ The Parable of the Invisible Gardener is a tale
> told John Wisdom's it was later developed in the university debate, by
> Anthony Flew who made a few changes such as changing the gardeners to
> explorers. It is often used to illustrate the perceived differences
> between assertions based on faith and assertions based on scientific
> evidence, and the problems associated with unfalsifiable beliefs. The
> main point of the parable is that religious believers do not allow
> anybody to "falsify" thier assertions, instead they simply change
> thier beliefs to suit the questioner. This is why for Flew religious
> believers cause God to "Die the death of a thousand
> qualifications" ...............''
>
> All of logic is based on faith, if what you say is based on science,
> then this very sentence itself contradicts itself because it is not a
> scientific sentence: there is no test we can devise to test it.
>
> Faith is a dissimilar term for Logic. No test can be devised to refute
> or verify the claims of logic or faith.

Perfectly fine, no arguments there. But if yo take this extremely
sensible stance, then you also can't derive from faith any type of
statement that is in turn falsifiable (has empirical content) and in
particular, you can't derive from faith any statement about the
(biological) origins of species, the age of the universe etc etc. You
get a version of NOMA instead.

In the beginning was the
> Logos(Christ). Specifically Logos, because Logic isn't falsifiable. In
> other words in the beginning was the principle of unfalsifiability, of
> calling those things that be not as though they were. Everything we
> say has at its base the claims of Logic, all of falsifiable testable
> science and its algorithmic instantiations  (machines with zero and
> span calibrations) have to assume something the algorithm maker know
> to be true but can't prove.
>
> Take the following sentence: "There will always be something I know to
> be true but can't prove".  The very sentence itself can't be proven
> and thus does not contradict itself.

Of course the statement can be proven, nor is it in any way
problematic. I know for instance that I prefer chocolate over vanilla
ice cream, but can't prove this subjective preference to anyone. There
are lots of similar things I know to be true but can't prove.

[backspace]

Lets discuss the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener
further :

Quote:
''........ One explorer says, ‘Some gardener must tend this plot’. The
other disagrees, ‘There is no gardener’..... ''

This first explorer when he asserted that some gardener(gardener1)
must tend this plot, did he mean by this the gardener was invisible or
undetectable? If something is invisible, it does not imply that it is
undetectable by any of the other four remaining senses(touch-electric
fence, smell - blood hound etc). Thus in what way did Flew
accurately or inaccurately state the premise of gardener1.

By logic a question can't be raised, if the premise doesn't allow the
question to be raised.

[backspace]

On May 22, 9:31 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets discuss thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener

I meant in what way did flew accurately or inaccurately state the
premise of the first explorer, explorer one?

[DougC]

backspace wrote:

> God is defined as infallible , He can't lie. A being defined as
> infallible and unfalsifiable says of Himself that he glues the

> universe  together by faith alone.....

If you are going to define a god, you may as well make Him infallible,
to join all the other gods of the world with the same attribues, like
Zeus, Thor, the Great Thunderbird and all other gods in history.

Most religions also have a Satan, with whatever name, and some a
prankster.

Doug Chandler

[backspace]

On May 23, 4:13�am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:

> �backspace wrote:
> > God is defined as infallible , He can't lie. A being defined as
> > infallible and unfalsifiable says of Himself that he glues the
> > universe �together by faith alone.....
>
> If you are going to define a god, you may as well make Him infallible,
> to join all the other gods of the world with the same attribues, like
> Zeus, Thor, the Great Thunderbird and all other gods in history.

If God the Lord Jesus Christ were not infallible, it would raise the
question: why is he not infallible,
potentially leading to another question on top of that one to be
raised into infinite regress. Logos or logic is defined as
infallible , this must be so by logical necessity to avoid infinite
regress. I will get back to the explorer and in the
Gardener(undetectable God) question during the day to show that Flew
really formulated a construct, that twisted the premise of explorer1
so that he could raise a series of questions, each correlated with the
five senses in order to induce infinite regress. It pivots on the
ambiguity with invisible and undetectable: they are not same devoid of
context.

[A.Carlson]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener
>
>''................ The Parable of the Invisible Gardener is a tale
>told John Wisdom's it was later developed in the university debate, by
>Anthony Flew who made a few changes such as changing the gardeners to
>explorers. It is often used to illustrate the perceived differences
>between assertions based on faith and assertions based on scientific
>evidence, and the problems associated with unfalsifiable beliefs. The
>main point of the parable is that religious believers do not allow
>anybody to "falsify" thier assertions, instead they simply change
>thier beliefs to suit the questioner. This is why for Flew religious
>believers cause God to "Die the death of a thousand
>qualifications" ...............''
>
>
>All of logic is based on faith, if what you say is based on science,
>then this very sentence itself contradicts itself because it is not a
>scientific sentence: there is no test we can devise to test it.

Logic is based on reason, not faith.

>Faith is a dissimilar term for Logic.

Apparently you missed the actual intended lesson of the Parable of the
Invisible Gardener.

>No test can be devised to refute
>or verify the claims of logic or faith.

False on it's face. There are many claims of faith, for example, that
can and have been tested and failed. I can think of any number of
logical fallacies that reflect untenable contradictions that support
the validity of said fallacies.

>In the beginning was the
>Logos(Christ). Specifically Logos, because Logic isn't falsifiable. In
>other words in the beginning was the principle of unfalsifiability, of
>calling those things that be not as though they were.

You do know, don't you, that if you name your child 'Truth' he is
still perfectly capable of lying! Just because a faith (any faith)
declares itself unfalsifiable does not ipso facto make it
unfalsifiable by any stretch of the imagination. See: Circular
reasoning.

>Everything we
>say has at its base the claims of Logic, all of falsifiable testable
>science and its algorithmic instantiations (machines with zero and
>span calibrations) have to assume something the algorithm maker know
>to be true but can't prove.
>
>Take the following sentence: "There will always be something I know to
>be true but can't prove". The very sentence itself can't be proven
>and thus does not contradict itself.

Even if so, what does this have to do with sentences that CAN be
proven to be false.

The statement itself relies on it being extremely vague on whose
knowledge and what specifics. Once one gets into the specifics it may
very well be an totally different matter.

For instance at one time most people believed, to a certain degree
without proof, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. T. Pagano's
malarkey notwithstanding, this has long since been soundly refuted.

At one time it was simply believed that a heavier object would fall
faster than a lighter one. This too has been soundly refuted.

The point is that examples can be brought forth to show that, as a
general rule, the statement can be falsified on a case-by-case basis
depending on the knowledge or lack thereof of the person making the
statement.

[walksalone]

DougC <prig...@aol.com> wrote in news:dd4c6afc-406f-4b05-a2eb-
459639...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

A satan, only if you exclude the Hebrew Bible versions. There are two
distinct satans there, neither one evil. On an accuser, & one who still
accuses, but without the respect of the heavenly hosts. The second one
showed up after the babylonian vacation, along with duality.

The xian satan is a composite made up to help contro;l the masses. That
way, you not have one bogey man to fear, but two.

there is a book by Elaine Pagels titled, IIEC, the demonization of the
devil. Like all such books, it is dry reading, unlike all dry books,
shje has some interesting ideas. Even though the title indic ates a
possible non-believer, she is a beliver in god according to her.
In spite of that, she appears to be a good historian & possibly of
interest to some on this group.

walksalone who has to admit, as a child I only kmew about the xian
version of satan, & then around the age of thirteen, I had a working
definition. Girls, bless them, were possibley one of the best antedotes
to the pulpit that one could find. They verified there was more to life
than fear and gloom of the mainline xian doctrine.

All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to demons;
chiefly do they torment freshly-baptized Christians,
yea, even the guiltless new-born infants.
[Saint Augustine (354-430)]

[backspace]

On May 23, 8:48 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> The point is that examples can be brought forth to show that, as a
> general rule, the statement can be falsified on a case-by-case basis
> depending on the knowledge or lack thereof of the person making the
> statement.

Is the statement defined as unfalsifiable or falsifiable ? Is the
concept the statement or sentence refers to testable with an
instrument calibrated between its zero and span. Falsifiable
constructs like Newton's inverse square law does not generate heated
debate, because it can be tested with a laser beam. Claims of logic
can't be tested, yet we are forced to assume claims of logic, hence
have different interpretations of such logic.

If we assume for sake of argument that God exists and it is true what
Gen.1 wrote , that the earth was made before the sun, thus God's own
light provided light to the earth: what was the speed of this light?
Note I asked you to assume for sake of argument, not accept or believe
for sake of argument.

If God exists, why would it be impossible for him to write down in a
book 6000 years ago how he made the earth. Where are the machines and
measurements to falsify such arguments.

[backspace]

On May 23, 9:10 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote in news:dd4c6afc-406f-4b05-a2eb-
> 459639f7a...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

Augustine , like Luther and Calvin denied free will by baptizing
infants. Christianity is defined as believing in free will, you can
freely choose to accept Christ. Those who denied free will murdered
those who believed in free will by drowning the Anabaptists and
roasting them at the stake. Anabaptists were the first to give Jews
full religious rights in the New world , something those who denied
free will disagreed with.

[Burkhard]

It wouldn't be impossible. That's the problem with falsification, and
why nobody takes Popper too serious these days. Falsification can't be
forced. it is always possible to defend a "core commitment" with
auxiliary hypotheses. The problem is that these always come at a cost.
In a science context, they reduce the empirical content of the theory,
making it less interesting and of less explanatory value. In theology,
you get additional costs in terms of the characteristics of the deity
in question - the more you protect the deity from falsification
through empirical data _while maintaining_ religious statements are
assertive (as opposed to performative, my preferred reading of them) ,
the more you get a) a trickster god who created humans with sense
perception that is systematically misleading and b) eventually
epistemological nihilism (the methods we use to determine the age of
the universe are not of a different category than those we use for all
sorts of knowledge about the world, if we can't trust them, we can;t
really trust any of our senses)

You also lose both in science and religion more and more arguments
that can convince others. while you may think you've good reasons to
protect your core beliefs this way, there is no reason anyone else
needs to agree with you - and of course, any conflicting model, (that
is also, any other religion) can equally employ this strategy for
their core beliefs.
IF you have te type of religion that considers its statements to be
assertive, with clear truth values and claims to validity that are
intelligible and convincing also for non-believers, that is a high
price to pay

Flew seems to be aware of this, even if he does not make it too
explicit. His argument is not that existence claims for deities must
not be unfalisfiable, rather that the costs of making them
unfalisfiable are too high even for a believer to stomach - the death
by a thousand cuts. Every time you protect your belief against a
possible falsifiction, it becomes that bit more difficult to a)
convince someone else of your belief b) explain why it differs from a
purely imagined one, or a belief in any other deity.

[Slow Vehicle]

BackSpace
:
(snip)

you write...

> God is defined as infallible ,

...and that's the start of the problems.

By whom is "god" "defined" as "infallible"?

All you are doing is the sophomoric self-indulgence of defining as an
existing fact the attribute you want to be able to use to demonstrate
that the attribute exists.

(snip)

[backspace]

On May 23, 12:43 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BackSpace
> :
> (snip)
>
> you write...
>
> > God is defined as infallible ,
>
> ...and that's the start of the problems.
>
> By whom is "god" "defined" as "infallible"?

By Himself. Remember I assume He exists and thus believe what he has
written about himself in his Word: this is a point of logic. My
conclusion follow logically from my premises. The only issue we are
dealing with for now in this thread is whether the conclusions follow
logically from the YEC premise. You are confusing whether the premise
is true in the first place with whether the conclusions from such
follow logically.

> All you are doing is the sophomoric self-indulgence of defining as an
> existing fact the attribute you want to be able to use to demonstrate
> that the attribute exists.

How would one demonstrate infallibility ? Since God can't lie , there
is no
means of forcing him to lie or contradict himself. There can't be
anything beyond Infallibility.

[Kent]

Nice discussion, but you neglect simplicity. The cost of avoiding falsification is two fold: 1) loss if ability to make predictions and 2) simplicity. Eventually a simpler model is developed that has more predictive power.

[backspace]

On May 23, 11:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On May 23, 9:49 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 8:48 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The point is that examples can be brought forth to show that, as a
> > > general rule, the statement can be falsified on a case-by-case basis
> > > depending on the knowledge or lack thereof of the person making the
> > > statement.
>
> > Is the statement defined as unfalsifiable or falsifiable ? Is the
> > concept the statement or sentence refers to  testable with an
> > instrument calibrated between its zero and span. Falsifiable
> > constructs like Newton's inverse square law does  not generate heated
> > debate, because it can be tested with a laser beam. Claims of logic
> > can't be tested, yet we are forced to assume claims of logic, hence
> > have different interpretations of such logic.
>
> > If we assume for sake of argument that God exists and it is true what
> > Gen.1 wrote , that the earth was made before the sun, thus God's own
> > light provided light to the earth: what was the speed of this light?
> > Note I asked you to assume for sake of argument, not accept or believe
> > for sake of argument.
>
> > If God exists, why would it be impossible for him to write down in a
> > book 6000 years ago how he made the earth. Where are the machines and
> > measurements to falsify such arguments.

> It wouldn't be impossible.

My post perhaps was not clear, let me therefore try again. If we
assume for sake of argument the
earth was made 6000 years ago, what measurements from 6000 years ago
would disprove this. There are no such measurements. How do we know
the speed of light was a certain speed 6000 years ago if there were no
measurements. How far can we extrapolate our present measurements into
the distant future or distant past, what is being assumed?

If a person walks into a room seeing a candle burn, takes a watch and
measures it rate, in what way would he be able to determine the
original length of the candle. Would it be 10m, 5m or mayby 5km or
maybe we can't say ? Thus by analogy in what way would the present
rate of radio active decay extrapolated back into the past provide us
with the age.

[Kermit]

On May 22, 10:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:13 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > God is defined as infallible , He can't lie. A being defined as
> > > infallible and unfalsifiable says of Himself that he glues the
> > > universe together by faith alone.....
>
> > If you are going to define a god, you may as well make Him infallible,
> > to join all the other gods of the world with the same attribues, like
> > Zeus, Thor, the Great Thunderbird and all other gods in history.
>
> If God the Lord Jesus Christ were not infallible, it would raise the
> question: why is he not infallible,

There are several possible explanations. The simplest is that there is
no divine entity called Jesus.
(That is, there may have been a teacher once, but he was human, or he
may have never existed at all.)
Other explanations include:
There is a divine Jesus who is not infallible.
There is a divine Jesus who is not honest - a trickster, perhaps.

> potentially leading to another question on top of that one to be
> raised into infinite regress.

Why? What regression are you thinking of?
Seems that any regression you are imagining would apply equally to
Brahma or Wodin.

> Logos or logic is defined as
> infallible , this must be so by logical necessity to avoid infinite
> regress.

OK.

>  I will get back to the explorer and in the
> Gardener(undetectable God) question during the day to show that Flew
> really formulated a construct, that  twisted the premise of explorer1
> so that he could raise a series of questions, each correlated with the
> five senses in order to induce infinite regress.  It pivots on the
> ambiguity with invisible and undetectable: they are not same devoid of
> context.

Yes. Past events are also invisible, and there aren't even any
memories for those who were no t witnesses. But we can induce events
with appropriate perceptible evidence.

A burnt out shell, reeking of smoke, where a house recently stood,
strongly implies there was a house fire. There is always a chance of
error; statements about the world are never infallible. But we live
our lives based on this kind of interpreting evidence. Only organisms
*much simpler than humans live lives with no concept of the past
(Perhaps most, but not all of them).

>
> > Most religions also have a Satan, with whatever name, and some a
> > prankster.
>
> > Doug Chandler

Kermit

[Kermit]

On May 23, 6:40 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 12:43 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BackSpace
> > :
> > (snip)
>
> > you write...
>
> > > God is defined as infallible ,
>
> > ...and that's the start of the problems.
>
> > By whom is "god" "defined" as "infallible"?
>
> By Himself. Remember I assume He exists and thus believe what he has
> written about himself in his Word: this is a point of logic. My
> conclusion follow logically from my premises. The only issue we are
> dealing with for now in this thread is whether the conclusions follow
> logically from the YEC premise. You are confusing whether the premise
> is true in the first place with whether the conclusions from such
> follow logically.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is ancient, and the whole of the
universe more so.

Either he did not create the universe as you claim, in which case
a. He doesn't exist,
b. Your understanding of the bible is wrong, or
c. he lies,
Or...
He did create it as he said, but made it look as though it were
billions of years old, and has provided no clarifying evidence for
those honestly trying to figure out its nature.

Or, of course, he doesn't exist.

>
> > All you are doing is the sophomoric self-indulgence of defining as an
> > existing fact the attribute you want to be able to use to demonstrate
> > that the attribute exists.
>
> How would one demonstrate infallibility ? Since God can't lie ,

Didn't he lie when he told Adam and Eve that they would die the same
day if they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
Evil?

> there is no
> means of forcing him to lie or contradict himself. There can't be
> anything beyond Infallibility.

By our definition of it, true.

But how about your trusting this claim? Are *you infallible? Sounds
like the salesman saying "Trust me; sign here".

Kermit

[Burkhard]

Bit intentional on my part, I think simplicity is overrated. Or
rather, that we have good pragmatic, or even aesthetic reasons to
prefer between two otherwise equally powerful theories the one that is
simpler, but this is not about the correctness of the theory. Occam's
razor is not an ontological principle (and I don't shave)

[Burkhard]

From that data point alone? We could not say. What we could say is
which length it would have had, hypothetically, 2min, 10 min, 10 years
etc ago. To determine if it ever had any of these lengths, we'd need
another set of data, e.g. the wax deposit on the bottom of the candle.
Now, that too would give us only a theory which in turn is falsifiable
- the wax may have been partly put there for decorative reasons at the
point of manufacture. so we could look for other data points that
either support of refute that theory, for instance any difference in
room temperature, wax deposition on the walls etc.

> Thus by analogy in what way would the present
> rate of radio active decay extrapolated back into the past provide us
> with the age.

I think I got your post all right. As I said, you can as a matter of
principle _always_ protect a claim from falsification, and that
includes the claim that the earth is 6000 years old, provided you are
willing to accept lots and lots of ad hoc hypotheses. In this
particular case, we would need to explain away the numerous, mutually
independent, methods of measurement that all converge towards a very
long age - and we would have to explain not just why all these
measurements are erroneous, but why they converge towards the same
results, within the error margins of the respective method

The result, as I said, is something that gets empirically more and
more empty, has less and less predictive power , and in particular
can't distinguish between claims that the earth is a minute, a day, a
year, 1000 years, 6000 years, 60oooo years etc old - resulting
ultimately in something close to epistemological nihilism - you have
to throw out too many methods we use all the time with great success.
Always possible, but the costs are high, both scientifically and
theologically.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Actually, that is one place where you fall apart: Your assumptions
presuppose that God is lying: the evidence from radioactive decay,
recorded history, geology, paleontology, DNA, etc. shows that the
Earth cannot be 6,000 years old; for it to be true that the Earth is
6,000 years old God would have had to create the existing evidence
such as to misrepresent the truth.

Mitchell Coffey

[backspace]

With nuclear decay rates we are in the same situation. The only data
we have are the decay rates measured
the last few decades. See http://www.raherrmann.com and his book
http://www.raherrmann.com/zsgs.zip

He refers to it as the ''Set theoretic error of generalization'',
namely that you can't generalize into the distant past or future.

[backspace]

> the last few decades. See  http://www.raherrmann.comand his bookhttp://www.raherrmann.com/zsgs.zip

>
> He refers to it as the ''Set theoretic error of generalization'',
> namely that you can't generalize into the distant past or future.

The content of the terms "Scientists" and "discovered" is not the same
in article I as in article II. Indeed, it's due to this fact that I'm
writing this book and attempting to explain to you some of the deep
ramifications associated with these differences. The mathematical
processes that have led to what is called the theory of ultralogics
and their application to scientific communication imply that the
Associated Press article I, in order to be more correct in content,
should have been written as follows:

III
Scientists Speculate About New Planet PASADENA, Calif.
(AP) Scientists at
the California Institute of Technology have
shown that data interpreted in their T-
theory of star behavior indicates that a
T-theory planet might exist at a distance of
1,000,000 light years from earth. However,
this does not imply that such a planet exists
in objective reality. . . .

Now III could be shortened somewhat and still convey the correct idea
by use of the terms "might" and "theoretically." However, one would
need to know what the term "theoretically" signifies. Then in the
second paragraph of the article the correct additional information
would be stated.

III
Scientists Speculate About New Planet PASADENA, Calif.
(AP) Scientists at
the California Institute of Technology have
shown that theoretically a planet might exist
1,000,000 light years from earth.

I have my doubts that you'd ever see an article such as III actually
published in any newspaper if the science writers, to be correct and
not mislead the public, were required to write as in example III.
Notice that the general public would need to know the meaning of such
terms and phases as "speculate, data interpreted, T-theory," and
"reality."

[Burkhard]

> See  http://www.raherrmann.comand his bookhttp://www.raherrmann.com/zsgs.zip

>
> He refers to it as the ''Set theoretic error of generalization'',
> namely that you can't generalize into the distant past or future.

Well, if you stipulate that the rate changed, you need to find a
mechanism that changed it uniformly for all measurements based on
radioactive decay, and no such mechanism has been proposed.
And you 'd need to account for all those techniques that use other
dating methods. While they all in varying degree extrapolate from the
present to the past, they extrapolate different aspects of the
present, and again, you'd need a mechanism that uniformly causes them
to give wrong results.

No such mechanism has been suggested.

And even if we accepted that it is in principle impossible to
extrapolate into he distant past/future (and accept epistemological
nihilism) that simply means that after that, _any_ date will be of
euqal value, from 6 days to 6000 years to 600000 years to 60 bn years
etc etc.

[Slow Vehicle]

BackSpace:

(snip)

you write:

> By Himself. Remember I assume He exists

....and there's most of the REST of the problem.

>and thus believe what

...you assume...

> he has written about himself in his Word: this is a point of logic.

No, this is an article of faith; a creed. Since you are starting
form your assumption, all of your conclusions are just that:
assumptions. All you are doing is playing a realtime-RPG, where the
rules work for you because you assume they work: one of your rules is
that your rules work. When you try to apply your assumptions, and
your rules, to others, as if they should assume that your assumptions
apply, you are taking your RPG out of your parents' basement and into
the mall, with predictable results.

>My conclusion follow logically from my premises.

...your assumptions...

> The only issue we are dealing with for now in this thread s whether the conclusions follow

> logically from the YEC premise.

"I have set up a rule set that I believe rules out everything but YEC,
so you have to admit that YEC is reality..."

>You are confusing whether the premise
> is true in the first place with whether the conclusions from such
> follow logically.

You are pretending that conclusions based entirely on assumptions have
any bearing outside your own mind.

(snip)

> How would one demonstrate infallibility ? Since

...you say your...

>God can't lie , there is no
> means of forcing him to lie or contradict himself. There can't be
> anything beyond

...what you have tried to finesse into reality: your assumption of
her...

>Infallibility.

Remarkably onanistic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

<snip everything which does not address the refutations of
your previous posts>

Nothing left...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 01:49:53 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 23, 8:48 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[[ Statement in question that was clipped ]]:

Take the following sentence: "There will always be something
I know to be true but can't prove". The very sentence itself
can't be proven and thus does not contradict itself.

>> The point is that examples can be brought forth to show that, as a
>> general rule, the statement can be falsified on a case-by-case basis
>> depending on the knowledge or lack thereof of the person making the
>> statement.
>
>Is the statement defined as unfalsifiable or falsifiable ?

It depends on what your definition of 'know' is. People often claim
to 'know' a lot of things that are in fact demonstrably false.

One can also hold the belief in random concepts such as the existence
of invisible pink unicorns, concepts that cannot be proved or
disproved. Can someone truly 'know' that invisible pink unicorns
exist? There needs to be a clear distinction between what is
'believed' on faith alone and what is 'known' based on observations
and empirical evidence.

>Is the
>concept the statement or sentence refers to testable with an
>instrument calibrated between its zero and span.

?zero and span?

>Falsifiable
>constructs like Newton's inverse square law does not generate heated
>debate, because it can be tested with a laser beam. Claims of logic
>can't be tested, yet we are forced to assume claims of logic, hence
>have different interpretations of such logic.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Logic as a tool can be shown to be effective. Take the concept of
logical fallacies for example. A fallacy does not prove or disprove a
given argument, it only identifies an argument as being a poor one,
essentially a non sequitur (IE "it does not follow").

Take for example the fallacy of appeal to authority: Dr. Smith is an
expert and he states that 'A' is true. Who are we to argue with an
expert? We should therefore accept that 'A' is true.

The logical response is that even if Dr Smith is an expert it still
does not *necessarily* follow that 'A' must therefore be true. In
this example logic is used not to prove or disprove 'A' but to
identify 'A' as being a weak argument, something that can be
independently verified.

There are countless examples, particularly in regards to scientific
creationism, where arguments that are well recognized as being logical
fallacies such as argument from authority are provably false. As such
I would claim that logical concepts can indeed be tested for what they
are actually worth.

>If we assume for sake of argument that God exists and it is true what
>Gen.1 wrote , that the earth was made before the sun, thus God's own
>light provided light to the earth: what was the speed of this light?

Or we can assume that Santa Clause really does exist and that, just as
Moses did, Clement Moore had special insights into his mythos.

>Note I asked you to assume for sake of argument, not accept or believe
>for sake of argument.
>
>If God exists, why would it be impossible for him to write down in a
>book 6000 years ago how he made the earth. Where are the machines and
>measurements to falsify such arguments.

This is just as nonsensical as asking if Santa Clause exists why
wouldn't it be possible for him to write down how he travels around
the world delivering presents.

Note that according to their respective mythologies, neither God nor
Santa Clause wrote down their own histories. It is generally held
that this was actually done by Moses and Clement Moore respectively
and neither was done anywhere near 6000 years ago.

Note also that there is far more valid evidence supporting the
existence of Santa Clause (as presents under the tree repeatedly
prove) than there is for any of the number of deities various peoples
claim, including your own God of Abraham.

The bottom line is that just because something might not be
falsifiable does not mean that it should earn any level of credibility
to the point where it can be considered some sort of known truth. A
belief yes, a reality no!

[Boikat]

On May 22, 1:41 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Invisible_Gardener
>

<snip>

That does not change the fact that you created a strawman argument
since you started with a statement and "rephrased" it into a question.

Boikat

[backspace]

On May 24, 12:23 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The bottom line is that just because something might not be
> falsifiable does not mean that it should earn any level of credibility
> to the point where it can be considered some sort of known truth.  A
> belief yes, a reality no!

I am not sure about this but isn't claims of logic solely concerned
with whether a proposition contradicts itself or not? Credibility or
plausibility can't override a proposition that non-contradictory.
Godels theorem that in any logical system there will always be
something we must assume and know to be true, but will never be able
to prove to many are not plausible.

[backspace]

What was the premise of Explorer1? Did he believe God was
undetectable by either of the five senses. If so , then no question
about his visibility,touch(electric fence), smell(blood hound) etc.
can be raised: the premise would not allow the questions to be raised.

You can't raise a question if your premise does not allow you to raise
the question, or we induce infinite regress like with the Who made God
question.

I will make a full post about this later.

[backspace]

On May 23, 9:32 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BackSpace:
>
> (snip)
> you write:
>
> > By Himself. Remember I assume He exists
>
> ....and there's most of the REST of the problem.
>
> >and thus believe what
>
> ...you assume...
>
> > he has written about himself in his Word: this is a point of logic.
>
> No, this is an article of faith; a creed.   Since you are starting
> form your assumption, all of your conclusions are just that:
> assumptions. All you are doing is playing a realtime-RPG, where the
> rules work for you because you assume they work: one of your rules is
> that your rules work.

Is your position therefore that you are not assuming anything, but
only accept science? If so your position contradicts itself because it
isn't a testable position. There is no instrument calibrated to test
it.

[Perseus]

You start by talking of Jesus the Christ, as it were a banal reality
the existence of a man-god such as Jesus the Christ. But the
existence of such a god is not a matter of banality in the sense that
it is accessible to all to observe, touch, and talk to, or something.
Being a man-god is not a banal matter either like talking about a
famous footballer that you see playing on TV, or you perhaps had
watched him on TV while he was being interviewed. If Jesus would be
a banal human being like any other of the seven billion people in the
planet, it would not be any big deal to accept that he can be real.
He is another man among seven billions human beings.

But being the case that Jesus the Christ was not a common man, but a
man-god made his existence more controverted if he existed here, like
the guy that lives in Australia and declares he is Jesus the
Messiah.
Let us forget for a moment the existence of Jesus the Christ and start
arguing for a while about Alan John Miller of Australia that declares
he is the reincarnation of Jesus the Messiah. If that is true, he
must be also a man-god.

If we are going to analyze this statement of Alan John Miller, how can
we falsify it?
Ok. He said that. How can we take this statement seriously? Is he
joking? Is he trying to ridicule our intelligence?
Then, seriously, how can we prove or disprove this statement is false.
Or otherwise, how can we prove or disprove he is really the Messiah?

That lead us to the next step, any stupid statement can ever be
falsified? Or, how would conduct a preliminary analysis to see if a
given statement is a stupid one, and do not deserve any attention from
us?

The main clue that comes to my mind is that "any statements about
gods" have not any merit to engage us in a serious work of thinking.
Why? Because the mere scarcity of gods as a matter of fact. We are
not walking by main street and suddenly bump with a man-god that start
to perform wonders and miracles just to prove he is really a god.

Then, there must exist a category about weird things, on the very
verge of mythology, or a swindle. I recalled one day a young lady
wife of a coworker that was talking about the house of his grandfather
in the country. She talked about a well with all sort of weird
creatures in it, among them some "hairy snakes". I told the lady if
they were able to retrieve one of those "hairy snakes" they would earn
a fortune. She got very upset at me, and challenged me "are you
calling me a liar?" I shut my mouth, and we change the topic of
conversation.

Then, if you are before the said Alan John Miller you would ask him,
can you perform a miracle to prove it? He would played you are
calling him a liar. He would tell you he has not any need to prove
you anything. You are either to believe him on faith, for he is not
going to perform any miracle for the unbelievers.

Then, this sort of statements are of the class "trashy statements" and
do not have any merit to waste our time to explore them.

Why trashy statements? Because miracles are not an observable
phenomenon. I mean, some people declare that they had witnessed a
miracle, or several. But these statements played in the same league
as the UFOs. There are a lot of testimonies, but they all look
suspicious of being a fraud.

Then, only the phenomena that can be observed frequently and recorded
in some formed, are deemed to have merit to be studied.

Perseus

[Slow Vehicle]

BS:

(snip)

you write--

> Is your position therefore that you are not assuming anything, but
> only accept science? If so your position contradicts itself because it
> isn't a testable position. There is no instrument calibrated to test
> it.

...which leaves me wondering to what it is that you think you are
responding.

You started out with the premise, "...god is defined as..." and used
that passive-voice-and-therefore-oh-so-authoritative definition to
prove the existence of the god that you believe in.
Which is fun, but pointless...you would have been more honest to have
said, "I define god as..." and then used that to demonstrate why you
believe what you believe. The issue then becomes whether your belief
creates reality, or is something in which one must have faith about in
order to "know".

In another part of my life, I would have risen to this bait...but no
longer. You should come to terms that your assumption that your idea
of god exists does not prove anything about god; nor does it provide a
foundation for demonstrating the properties of your idea about god;
nor does it demonstrate why your idea of your god is superior to, say,
Great Dancing Ganesh or the Convoluted Dreams of Lord Brahma. At
most, it demonstrates that you believe you believe what you believe
you believe.

Others define their idea of god differently, and, unsurprisingly, come
to different conclusions.

I don't care what you "name the whirlwind"; just don't act as if you
were not caught palming that card off the deck you tried to stack,
playing Holy Hold 'Em against a straw man...

[Boikat]

Don't forget to run it through a "sanity checker".

Boikat

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 12:23 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The bottom line is that just because something might not be
>> falsifiable does not mean that it should earn any level of credibility
>> to the point where it can be considered some sort of known truth.  A
>> belief yes, a reality no!
>
>I am not sure about this but isn't claims of logic solely concerned
>with whether a proposition contradicts itself or not?

No. One thing logic is used for is to examine the form of an argument
or proposition, whether it is valid or not. An invalid or fallacious
argument may not necessarily reflect a falsehood but it does not in
actuality support the conclusion being made.

For example, I could propose that fundamentalists lack shame or
responsibility because they consider their bad acts cleansed by their
belief system and that explains why a higher crime rate goes
hand--in-hand with an increased level of religiosity.

There is indeed a correlation between crime rate and religiosity, that
is there is a consistent pattern but it does not automatically follow
that there is an actual cause and effect relationship between the two
even though within my proposal I suggested one.

This type of invalid argument is what is called post-hoc ergo
proctor-hoc or correlation does not equal causation. The bottom line
is that even if there is indeed a correlation one cannot
*automatically* assume causation. That said there may be a causal
relationship after all whether it be the one suggested or another on
entirely. At the end of the day causation has to be supported
independently.

Note that with the post-hoc ergo proctor-hoc fallacy, with or without
a suggested cause, there is typically no internal contradiction.

Even with a sound argument one still has to separately consider
whether or not the premise and/or conclusion are even true to begin
with.

A sound argument with a false premise is just as invalid as a
fallacious argument with a true premise. A good argument must be both
sound and true.

>Credibility or
>plausibility can't override a proposition that non-contradictory.

Why not? An incredible or implausible argument is still just that.

>Godels theorem that in any logical system there will always be
>something we must assume and know to be true, but will never be able
>to prove to many are not plausible.

And one can assume pretty much anything under the sun that is not self
contradictory. One can use such an argument to support any number of
absurdities which, intuitively, suggests the unreliability of such an
endeavor.

If God, then why not invisible pink unicorns? Why not Santa Clause?
Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pbuh)? Why not any number of
concepts that are not self-contradictory but contradict each other?
Why not Russel's teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars?

The last example, in fact, was put forward as a rebuttal to
ontological arguments such as Godels'. Bertrand Russel pointed out
that such arguments shift the burden of proof and reflect the logical
fallacy 'argument from ignorance'.

[backspace]

Do you have beliefs ?

[backspace]

On May 23, 9:32 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ........ one of your rules is that your rules work. ............

Certainly , this must be so by logical necessity. It is a claim of
logic that what happens, happens. If this were not an implicit
assumption, my conclusions would not follow logically.

It is when a logical validity is formulated as a proposition in a
falsifiable argument in order to guarantee the truth of the argument,
preventing it from being falsified in principle , that any conclusion
don't follow logically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFPeQW5XLcc&feature=g-vrec
from the video:
''.....random mutations that make a species more likely to survive are
beneficial.......'' - Lynn says it is a very simple idea that
explains why some species survive and others do not. Claims of logic
are simple because they are not falsifiable.

In a generalized context it is claim of logic those who are beneficial
will be more likely to survive over those less beneficial in the
struggle for life. There is no test to refute or verify claims of
logic, thus guaranteeing that his conclusion(new species) does not
follow logically.

[Burkhard]

That was provably wrong last time you made that claim, and it is
provably wrong still, and for the same reasons. There is nothing in
logic that prescribes that differential reproductive success must
happen. In an environment of plenty (as described e.g. in the Eden
story) everyone would equally survive, thus falsifying the claim that
(only) hose with beneficial traits survive. In an environment of too
much need, everything might get extinct at an equal rate, again a
possible world in which the statement would not be true - logically
true statements by contrast are true in all possible worlds.

There are in fact plenty of contingent, empirical facts that would
render the idea that those with beneficial traits survive over those
with less beneficial traits, e.g. a world were no traits are
inheritable.

To find out if the statement is true, we therefore have to look into
the world, do research, find things out - and what we find out could
falsify the theory.

Nor is it true that an inference that has _some_ tautologies amongst
its premises would necessarily lead to an unfalsifiable argument -
only if _all_ premises are tautologies would that follow.

[backspace]

The Evolutionary premise as formulated by Spencer,Darwin,Tyndall etc.
is the acquisition of new attributes in each succeeding generation and
not the expression of unseen pre-existing attributes via the
natural(purposeless) means of competitive differential(incremental)
survival,preservation(selection) of favorable characteristics enabling
the organism to survive. This paragraph constitutes and argument and
as such must have a premise and conclusion.

This is a claim of logic, no machine can be constructed with a zero
and span to falsify it. Your reply also was a claim of logic and not
of science, because no "differential reproduction" machine calibrated
on a scale of 1 to 10 was proposed to falsify my interpretation of
Darwin,Spencer, John Tyndall who constructed propositions in such a
way that the truth of the propositions can't be refuted or verified.

Differential reproduction is a term and not a sentence. Only with
sentences can we convey ideas, once the idea is defined , terms can be
used as contracted shorthand. This is the basic problem with Darwin's
semantic construct , term and oxymoron natural selection: it isn't a
sentence. You used differential reproduction as a term in your
sentence, but did not define its usage as a dissimilar term for
incremental , because the incremental increase in attributes was the
intended idea with differential by Spencer, Tyndall. On a point of
historicity , Darwin never used the term ''differential reproductive
success'' nor ''differential reproduction'' in any of his works.
Tyndall and other authors after him used ''differential reproduction''
to refer to the same ideas as my opening paragraph.

Newton's square law can be tested with laser beams bouncing of
planets, the gravitational constant can be tested with a
stop watch , tower and stone. The absence of such testing instruments
in your reply is significant. Newtons' inverse square law isn't a
claim of logic but a claim of science. All claims of science involves
calibrated instruments. My arguments are that there is an equivocation
between the claims of logic and claims of science by Atheists in order
to reduce the YEC (God is infallible) premise to a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum . Since the YEC
premise is that God is infallible , it negates via the inferences from
logic a series of questions leading to infinite regress.

(I am still working on a full reply to Anthony Flew, the conclusions
from his argument depends on the relevant premises by Explorer1, he
could be YEC (God is infallible) or pantheist, Buddist, Hindu, meaning
that some of Flew's questions could therefore be raised. It seems to
me that Flew could indeed raise the series of questions, only if the
Gardner, god(Zeus) did not expressly forbid that an image or some
representation of him could not be made. Since God is infallible, he
forbids us (Exodus) from making images of him: images of infallibility
is impossible. )

Differential was used as a dissimilar term for incremental by Tyndall
and Spencer. At http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence#The_Blank_Swan
I wrote that the author of http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Swan-End-Probability/dp/0470725222
uses ''contingency'' as a metaphor for ''uncertainty''. From a
Platonic primary binary contrast position there is only
uncertainty(probability) and certainty in the financial markets. He
wants to go ''..... beyond contingency....'' meaning he wants to
introduce some third option to certainty/uncertainty dichotomy, like
with "selection's" biological definition in dictionaries beginning
around 1940, which from the KJV YEC [[Pattern or design]] dichotomy
premise doesn't exist. See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

At http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki , as a point of
logic, I wrote that assuming a premise which isn't in dispute by all
*relevant* observers isn't a fallacy.

In the other replies by Burkhard to my posts , he is twisting my
premise. I have said that my premise are not falsifiable, he then
proceeds to raise a series of questions as to how to make it
falsifiable or to show that I am introducing auxiliaries in order to
shield it from potential falsification.

By logic, if something is defined as unfalsifiable, it does not
therefore allow you raise the question as to how one would
falsify it. The ToE is proposed as scientific , hence it must make
falsifiable claims and not claims of logic. Claims of logic shields a
theory from potential refutation. God is defined as infallible , he
isn't subject to potential anything. He can't even lie, his infallible
nature does not allow that.

It is a claim of logic that the best explanation doesn't need itself
an explanation or the explanation would need yet another explanation
into infinite regress. God's infallibility is the best explanation,
hence does not need
an explanation and raises no further questions beyond it.
Infallibility became flesh and said: I am Alpha and Omega, beginning
and End, the personification of Truth itself. He established Platonic
primary binary contrasts as the framework in which all of language
must take place, in order to avoid Infinite regress. Our interaction
with anything, such as trading forex or determining the level of
uncertainty(biased idea) or uncertainty in financial markets for
example is only within this Platonic constraints or we wind up Blank
Swan type meaningless sentences such as by Elie Ayache.

It is only withing this certainty/uncertainty constraint that we can
sensibly evaluate the biases that plague financial traders: Forward
looking bias, Data-snooping bias and Survivalist bias.

[backspace]

On May 25, 9:56 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

[Burkhard]

You might say that as often as you want to, that alone does not make
them so. Whether or not some premises are falsifiable is a property of
these premises and can be tested, in a reasonably objective way.

>he then
> proceeds to raise a series of questions as to how to make it
> falsifiable or to show that I am introducing auxiliaries in order to
> shield it from potential falsification.
>

Well, yes, because that is one way in which premises can be made
unfalsifiable. Not by declaring them to be, which is neither here not
there,
but by protecting them through auxiliary hypothesis

> By logic, if something is defined as unfalsifiable, it does not
> therefore allow you raise the question as to how one would
> falsify it.

Of course this is "allowed". if you _claim_ that something is
unfalsifiable, this claim can be disproven (falsified) by showing that
there is in fact an observation that falsifies it.
Again, defining something as unfalsifibale does not make it so.

>The ToE is proposed as scientific , hence it must make
> falsifiable claims and not claims of logic. Claims of logic shields a
> theory from potential refutation.

No they don't, that is one of your numerous misunderstandings of what
falsifiable means, and what logic does. Every scientific theory, and
indeed every even minimally complex theory , will contain numerous
tautological statements. The entire mathematical apparatus for
instance that is needed for the theory. The only problem comes up wif
you have an empirical claim that is derived _solely from_ logical
claims. In that scenario, something went badly wrong

>God is defined as infallible , he
> isn't subject to potential anything. He can't even lie, his infallible
> nature does not allow that.

First, there is no logical connection between infallibility and
inability to lie.
Second, defining, or rather declaring, something as infallible does
not make it so.

>
> It is a claim of logic that the best explanation doesn't need itself
> an explanation or the explanation would need yet another explanation
> into infinite regress. God's infallibility is the best explanation,

for what?

> hence does not need
> an explanation and raises no further questions beyond it.
> Infallibility became flesh and said: I am Alpha and Omega, beginning
> and End, the personification of Truth itself. He established Platonic
> primary binary contrasts as the framework in which all of language
> must take place, in order to avoid Infinite regress. Our interaction
> with anything, such as trading forex or determining the level of
> uncertainty(biased idea) or uncertainty in financial markets for
> example is only within this Platonic constraints or we wind up Blank
> Swan type meaningless sentences such as by  Elie Ayache.
>

speaking of meaningless sentences your paragraph above is an excellent
example.

[Burkhard]

No, that;s not a premise, that is a conclusion.

> This paragraph constitutes and argument and
> as such must have a premise and conclusion.
>

Which argument, yours or Spencer's?

> This is a claim of logic, no machine can be constructed with a zero
> and span to falsify it.  Your reply also was a claim of logic and not
> of science, because no "differential reproduction" machine calibrated
> on a scale of 1 to 10 was proposed to falsify my interpretation of
> Darwin,Spencer, John Tyndall who constructed propositions in such a
> way that the truth of the propositions can't be refuted or verified.
>

Well, that is your provably wrong claim, a claim that my
counterexamples falsify
With other words, your interpretation of Darwin etc is simply wrong.

> Differential reproduction is a term and not a sentence. Only with
> sentences can we convey ideas, once the idea is defined , terms can be
> used as contracted shorthand.

Ehh, nonsense?

>This is the basic problem with Darwin's
> semantic construct , term and oxymoron natural selection: it isn't a
> sentence. You used differential reproduction as a term in your
> sentence, but did not define its usage as a dissimilar term for
> incremental , because the incremental increase in attributes was the
> intended idea with differential by Spencer, Tyndall. On a point of
> historicity , Darwin never used the term ''differential reproductive
> success'' nor ''differential reproduction'' in any of his works.

Most of this is word salad. as for the rest: whether or not natural
selection is incremental or not has no bearing on the question whether
or not Darwin's theory that individual with beneficial traits had
greater chance of survival is falsifiable. It is equally irrelevant
whether or not Darwin used the term "differential reproductive
success. The claim you made is that the statement that those with
beneficial traits survive over those without them can't be falsified.
It would be falsified if we did not observe differential reproductive
success,
There are several possible models where there is no differential
reproductive success. Hence your statement is wrong.

> Tyndall and other authors after him used ''differential reproduction''
> to refer to the same ideas as my opening paragraph.
>
> Newton's square law can be tested with laser beams bouncing of
> planets, the gravitational constant can be tested with a
> stop watch , tower and stone. The absence of such testing instruments
> in your reply is significant.

No it isn't. I have given you several tests that do exactly the same
job, tht they do not require necessarily machines is neither here nor
there.

>  Newtons' inverse square law isn't a
> claim of logic but a claim of science. All claims of science involves
> calibrated instruments.

Nonsense. Many scientific insights pre-date availability of
instruments. Statements about hunting behaviour of lions e.g. are
clearly part of biology/zoology, but do not require any instruments,
just looking at them doing it will do. Statements abot the efficacy
of medical treatments too typically do not use calibrated instruments,
just systematic, double blind test. Different scientific field use
very different methods on the ground.

> My arguments are that there is an equivocation
> between the claims of logic and claims of science by Atheists in order

> to reduce the YEC (God is infallible) premise to ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. Since the YEC

> premise is that God is infallible , it negates via the inferences from
> logic a series of questions leading to infinite regress.
>
> (I am still working on a full reply to Anthony Flew, the conclusions
> from his argument depends on the relevant premises by Explorer1, he
> could be YEC (God is infallible) or pantheist, Buddist, Hindu, meaning
> that some of Flew's questions could therefore be raised. It seems to
> me that Flew could indeed raise the series of questions, only if the
> Gardner, god(Zeus) did not expressly forbid that an image or some
> representation of him could not be made. Since God is infallible, he
> forbids us (Exodus) from making images of him: images of infallibility
> is impossible. )
>

meaningless word salad, really. A prohibition to make an image does
not result in unfalsifiability by definition. I could forbid people to
make an image of me, that would not suddenly make the statement
"Burkhard exists" unfalsifiable. At best, you could claim that some
versions of Christianity simply concede from the beginning the point
that Flew makes - something he is aware of, if you read the reply to
his respondents. So strongly mystic versions of Christianity (or any
other religion) that emphasise certain types of experience
(experience that does not rely on the public senses like smell, vision
etc) will simply not treat their statements as "assertive" (in the
sense Flew uses this), and then you get a form of religion that is
indeed unfalsifiable, but has all the "expenses" that brings with it,
in particular an in principle inability to convince a non-believer
through reasoned argument, to give good reasons why their religion is
more likely right than a competitor, and (to a degree ) how the
experience differs from a simple delusion. Flew acknowledges taht such
religions exist and are possible, but claims in his reply) that they
are so unorthodox that he feels no need to address them.

as an aside: one of the religions that take this route can possible be
on conflict with any empirical statement, and in particular can;t be
on conflict with the ToE, which like all theories uses assertive
statements.

> Differential was used as a dissimilar term for incremental by Tyndall

> and Spencer. Athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence#The_Blank_Swan

> I wrote that the author of  http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Swan-End-Probability/dp/0470725222
> uses ''contingency'' as a metaphor for ''uncertainty''. From a
> Platonic primary binary contrast position there is only
> uncertainty(probability) and certainty in the financial markets. He
> wants to go ''..... beyond contingency....'' meaning he wants to
> introduce some third option to certainty/uncertainty dichotomy, like
> with "selection's" biological definition in dictionaries beginning
> around 1940,  which from the KJV YEC [[Pattern or design]] dichotomy
> premise doesn't exist. Seehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design
>

> Athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki, as a point of

> logic, I wrote that assuming a premise which isn't in dispute by all
> *relevant* observers isn't a fallacy.

<snip stuff you reposted and was answered there)

[Slow Vehicle]

BS:
(snip to your words)

> Do you have beliefs ?

Yes.

[Slow Vehicle]

BS:

(snip)

What you have failed to admit is that you have been caught loading the
dice. Once you state your conclusions in the form of premises, thenn
of course, your conclusions will follow from those premises.

You act as if the following were that same statement, and they are
not:

"god is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and
inherently non-contradictory"
"I define god as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and
inherently non-contradictory"
"I believe god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and
inherently non-contradictory"
"Let's play a game where one of the rules is that god is omnipotent,
omniscient, omnibenevolent, and inherently non-contradictory"
"Assume, arguendo, that god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,
and inherently non-contradictory"
"god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and inherently non-
contradictory"

Yes, humans believe things. Yes, some of the things humans believe
are true. No, those things are not true because humans believe them.

World of difference between "I believe X, therefore X is true", and
"X is true, therefore I believe X".

Huge moral gulf between "I believe X, therefore you should believe X";
"X is true, therefore you should believe X";
...and the game you are playing at, "I believe X is true, therefore
you should believe X".

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:24:45 AM UTC-6, backspace wrote:
> http://www.rasmusen.org/g406/backu-g406/__PAPERS-1stCURRENT1st-tier/Concealing.Himself/Lit-cited/Flew-Mitchell.pdf
>
> ,,,,,, ‘What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute
> for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of God?’,,,,,,,

>
> God is defined as infallible , He can't lie. A being defined as
> infallible and unfalsifiable says of Himself that he glues the

> universe together by faith alone, by what he assumes. God holds the
> universe together by the principle of unfalsifiability and
> not falsifiability. It is a principle in philosophy that one can only
> raise a question if the presuppositions allows one to raise the
> question or we will induce infinite regress.
>
> Thus lets try and generalize Flew's question:
>
> rephrase1:
> ‘What would constitute a disproof of the existence of God?
>
> rephrase2:
> What would constitute a disproof of the existence of a being defined
> as infallible and unfalsifiable?
>
> rephrase3:
> The question is raised as to how one would construct a falsifiable
> test for a phenomena defined as unfalsifiable?
>
> rephase4:
> How do we falsify that which is unfalsifiable.
>
> Flew thus raised a question which by logic the principle of Popper
> falsifiability does not allow him to raise.

As science, theology is "so bad that it is not even wrong".

In science such things have no value.

-John

[backspace]

The atheist premise is the acquisition of attribute, while YEC is the
expression of attributes, either hidden or visible, that was created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

> > This paragraph constitutes and argument and
> > as such must have a premise and conclusion.
>
> Which argument, yours or Spencer's?

My interpretation of Spencer and the authors during his time.
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Herbert_Spencer That is to say, it
cannot but happen that those individuals whos functions are most out
of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces, will be
those to die; and that those will survive whos functions happen to be
most nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external
forces. But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of
the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before
be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By
Herbert Spencer

> >This is the basic problem with Darwin's
> > semantic construct , term and oxymoron natural selection: it isn't a
> > sentence. You used differential reproduction as a term in your
> > sentence, but did not define its usage as a dissimilar term for
> > incremental , because the incremental increase in attributes was the
> > intended idea with differential by Spencer, Tyndall. On a point of
> > historicity , Darwin never used the term ''differential reproductive
> > success'' nor ''differential reproduction'' in any of his works.
>
> Most of this is word salad. as for the rest: whether or not natural
> selection is incremental or not has no bearing on the question whether
> or not Darwin's theory �that individual with beneficial traits had
> greater chance of survival �is falsifiable.

What is a natural selection ?

> > Newton's square law can be tested with laser beams bouncing of
> > planets, the gravitational constant can be tested with a
> > stop watch , tower and stone. The absence of such testing instruments
> > in your reply is significant.

> No it isn't. I have given you several tests that do exactly the same
> job, tht they do not require necessarily machines is neither here nor
> there.
>
> > ��Newtons' inverse square law isn't a
> > claim of logic but a claim of science. All claims of science involves
> > calibrated instruments.

> Nonsense. Many scientific insights pre-date availability of
> instruments. Statements about hunting behaviour of lions e.g. are
> clearly part of biology/zoology, but do not require any instruments,
> just looking at them doing it will do.

Very good point, I will revise my position.

> �Statements abot the efficacy

> of medical treatments too typically do not use calibrated instruments,
> just systematic, double blind test. Different scientific field use
> very different methods on the ground.

I am was wrong, but only to a certain extent . Science done with
instruments able to test Newton's inverse square law carry more
"scientific" weight for lack of a better term than double blind
trials. Thus we must label science with subscripts , lets say
science1 is reserved to things where there is no dispute such as
measuring gravity, while science2 would be for double blind trials.

[John Stockwell]

Atheism is based on the notion that there is no particular reason to
believe in a deity.

1) There is no physical evidence that leads us to a
testable notion of a "creator".
2) There is no consistency between philosophies that purport to require
a "creator".
3) There is no apparent advantage to the creationist belief system.
4) creationism seems to require a great deal of denialism.

In short, there may or may not be a creator, but it does not seem to make
a positive difference in believing in one.

-John

[Burkhard]

Again not a premise, but a conclusion. No idea what atheism has to do
with it. Acquisition of new attributes is something we deduce from
observation, it could be falsified by finding e.g. that offspring's
DNA is always identical to that of their parents, or that DNA contains
large chunks of unused, yet potentially usable code that can be
triggered under certain circumstances. No such thing has been found so
far


while YEC is the
> expression of attributes, either hidden or visible, that was createdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

>
> > > This paragraph constitutes and argument and
> > > as such must have a premise and conclusion.
>
> > Which argument, yours or Spencer's?
>

> My interpretation of Spencer and the authors during his time.http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Herbert_Spencer That is to say, it

> cannot but happen that those individuals whos functions are most out
> of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces, will be
> those to die; and that those will survive whos functions happen to be
> most nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external
> forces. But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of
> the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before
> be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
> least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
> destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
> maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
> there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
> equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By
> Herbert Spencer

So is it _your_ argument that has a premise and a conclusion, or
Spencers? Your comment is still very confused, as it is unclear what
"the paragraph" in your post refers to .

As to the Spencer paragraph, it would be falsified by the very same
possible observations I listed above.

>
> > >This is the basic problem with Darwin's
> > > semantic construct , term and oxymoron natural selection: it isn't a
> > > sentence. You used differential reproduction as a term in your
> > > sentence, but did not define its usage as a dissimilar term for
> > > incremental , because the incremental increase in attributes was the
> > > intended idea with differential by Spencer, Tyndall. On a point of
> > > historicity , Darwin never used the term ''differential reproductive
> > > success'' nor ''differential reproduction'' in any of his works.
>
> > Most of this is word salad. as for the rest: whether or not natural
> > selection is incremental or not has no bearing on the question whether
> > or not Darwin's theory that individual with beneficial traits had
> > greater chance of survival is falsifiable.
>
> What is a natural selection ?

Same thing as last time you asked and I gave you a definition, and the
time before, and before, and before...

For this discussion it is also irrelevant. Your statement to which I
replied simply said: "In a generalized context it is claim of logic

those who are beneficial
will be more likely to survive over those less beneficial in the
struggle for life. There is no test to refute or verify claims of
logic, thus guaranteeing that his conclusion(new species) does not
follow logically."

My counterexample show that this statement is wrong, there are tests
to refute this claim. And even if it were true, it woudl not follow
that this invalidated the claim regrading speciation.

>
> > > Newton's square law can be tested with laser beams bouncing of
> > > planets, the gravitational constant can be tested with a
> > > stop watch , tower and stone. The absence of such testing instruments
> > > in your reply is significant.
> > No it isn't. I have given you several tests that do exactly the same
> > job, tht they do not require necessarily machines is neither here nor
> > there.
>
> > > Newtons' inverse square law isn't a
> > > claim of logic but a claim of science. All claims of science involves
> > > calibrated instruments.
> > Nonsense. Many scientific insights pre-date availability of
> > instruments. Statements about hunting behaviour of lions e.g. are
> > clearly part of biology/zoology, but do not require any instruments,
> > just looking at them doing it will do.
>
> Very good point, I will revise my position.
>
> > Statements abot the efficacy
> > of medical treatments too typically do not use calibrated instruments,
> > just systematic, double blind test. Different scientific field use
> > very different methods on the ground.
>
> I am was wrong, but only to a certain extent . Science done with
> instruments able to test Newton's inverse square law carry more
> "scientific" weight for lack of a better term than double blind
> trials.

Says who? As soon as you have instruments, you have potential errors
caused by them, and you need a theory of measurement, a theory of
quality control etc etc. So prima facie, instruments are just a
potential error source. No treatise in theory of science that I know
privileges epistemologically as a result sciences that use
instruments

>Thus we must label science with subscripts  , lets say
> science1 is reserved to things where there is no dispute such as
> measuring gravity, while science2 would be for double blind trials.

Lots of scientific disciplines mix the two, nor is there a field of
science where there is no possible (and often actual) dispute

[backspace]

This mp3 recording of me
http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?album=4868690&pid=34103247#top_display_media
is where I Stephanus Rensburg demonstrate what I mean with
falsifiability.

[Perseus]

On May 23, 3:09 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 11:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 9:49 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 23, 8:48 am, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The point is that examples can be brought forth to show that, as a
> > > > general rule, the statement can be falsified on a case-by-case basis
> > > > depending on the knowledge or lack thereof of the person making the
> > > > statement.
>

> > > Is the statement defined as unfalsifiable or falsifiable ? Is the

> > > concept the statement or sentence refers to  testable with an

> > > instrument calibrated between its zero and span. Falsifiable

> > > constructs like Newton's inverse square law does  not generate heated
> > > debate, because it can be tested with a laser beam. Claims of logic
> > > can't be tested, yet we are forced to assume claims of logic, hence
> > > have different interpretations of such logic.
>

> > > If we assume for sake of argument that God exists and it is true what
> > > Gen.1 wrote , that the earth was made before the sun, thus God's own
> > > light provided light to the earth: what was the speed of this light?

> > > Note I asked you to assume for sake of argument, not accept or believe
> > > for sake of argument.
>
> > > If God exists, why would it be impossible for him to write down in a
> > > book 6000 years ago how he made the earth. Where are the machines and
> > > measurements to falsify such arguments.

> > It wouldn't be impossible.
>
> My post perhaps was not clear, let me therefore try again. If we
> assume for sake of argument the
> earth was made 6000 years ago, what measurements from 6000 years ago
> would disprove this. There are no such measurements. How do we know
> the speed of light was a certain speed 6000 years ago if there were no
> measurements. How far can we extrapolate our present measurements into
> the distant future or distant past, what is being assumed?
>
> If a person walks into a room seeing a candle burn, takes a watch and
> measures it rate, in what way would he be able to determine the
> original length of the candle. Would it be 10m, 5m or mayby 5km or
> maybe we can't say ?   Thus by analogy in what way would the present
> rate of radio active decay extrapolated back into the past provide us
> with the age.

Very nice argument about radioactive decade rate. Physicists are not
burdened by theology problems. So, they assume the laws of nature are
more or less stable and do not change over time. But how they do know
this? They do not know it. They merely assume that laws of nature do
not change. They need some time and experience to discover that the
laws of nature do really change. So far they had not reasons to
believe such a thing.

Then, as I see that your force is in faith, I can only present you a
question. How can exist a true god, willing to communicate with
humans to give them instructions and directives, and only a small
minority seems aware of the existence of such true god? This is my
main reason to believe that god does not exist. If there exists such
a god, why only very small fraction of humanity, say it 2 Jews per
each thousand people in the planet. What sort of true god is this,
that only was known for a small minority of humans in this planet?

For many centuries, Christians and Muslims were competing for having
the very true god. They had received instructions about the true
doctrine of god. The Muslims took it from the Koran, and the
Christians from the Bible. How the true god was involved in the
mess that at least one of those holy books are fake?
And why the true god is unmoved that so many humans are duped by fake
holy books about gods?
Just with only this argument, I tend to believe that does not exist
any real true, but many fake gods competing to fleece the believers
out of their money.

Then, coming back to the physicists, they can be wrong here and there,
or even they do not understand this or that, or can explain this shit
or that shit. For they have not a holy book to understand nature. In
spite of their lack of a holy bible, they are doing a great job. Just
try see how difficult is to calculate, for any of us, the distance
from the earth to the moon, with the most coarse instruments. Try to
do it and later tell me how easy was the task.

Perseus

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Why should anyone with any knowledge care what you mean? All
you do is play word games. Poorly.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:48:31 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>This mp3 recording of me
>> http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?album=4868690&pid=34103247#top_display_media
>>is where I Stephanus Rensburg demonstrate what I mean with
>>falsifiability.
>
>Why should anyone with any knowledge care what you mean? All
>you do is play word games. Poorly.

....and backspace runs away again...