Critique of falsification criteria of Popper

[TagliatelliMonster]

God-less evolution is falsified by this thread, but God-induced evolution is proven.

All you did was make bare claims.
It takes quite a bit more to falsify or support anything, then just bare claims - let alone to prove something.

Humans are not birds? Yes. Humans are not bears? Yes. The humans are not cats? Yes. Humans are apes? Yes. I see no logic here.

There is indeed no logic in what you say here.
If you would take the time to learn at least the basics of how evolution works and some basic notions concerning the tree of life, you'ld realize it.

But alas. As you have stated yourself yesterday (?), you go out of your way not to educate yourself on these matters.

So yeah.....

God explains all

Bare claims, aren't explanations.

Because knowledge is what God knows. Such definition the knowledge has.

Word salad

In particular, that definition proves the existence of God.

Mere definitions prove nothing, except what is meant by a word.
I can define bigfoot for ya, but that won't prove bigfoot exists.

Who is telling that? You? Or Donald Trump? Or Richard Dawkins?

The popper principle. You know, the very principle to which you dedicated this thread to bash it. Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn what it says first.

You seem to have a habit of "critiqueing" things you know nothing about.

I obey no god-less authority.
Science itself can't be falsified.

Science is a method of inquiry. Not a proposed explanation that is subject to falsification or testing.
Once again, you make zero sense.

Who has told you, that General Relativity can be falsified?

General Relativity itself.
It makes verifiable / testable predictions. Meaning that there are tests that can be performed which can potentially confirm or falsify the theory.

Derp-di-derp-derp.

It is not an obvious statement.
I mean, if GR is true, it is not possible to make it false. Even in principle.

Once again, you expose your ignorance.
As I said in my first reply to your OP: you don't seem to understand what is meant by "falsifiability" in context of Popper. Which is very strange, considering you felt like you understood it well enough to create a thread dedicated to "critiqueing" it. Once again, I'll advice you to first learn about the things you are hellbend on arguing against.

It will help you in not making stupid statements like you just did and make yourself look like a fool.

The way to find true claims is the way of Church Fathers. That is why abortion is sin,

Preaching isn't going to help your case.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus

Not if it's false.

God can not be disproven.

The god of the Christian Bible can be ruled out, but nondescript gods such as the deist god cannot. The Christian god is described in scriptures allegedly authored by it to tell us what that god like. The Christian god, we are told is both perfect, and makes decisions that it regrets and has to amend. That god cannot exist.

Science can not be falsified but confirmed.

If an idea is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

God-less evolution is falsified by this thread, but God-induced evolution is proven.

Sorry, but naturalistic evolution is doing fine despite you proclamations to the contrary.

Humans are not birds? Yes. Humans are not bears? Yes. The humans are not cats? Yes. Humans are apes? Yes. I see no logic here.

You see no logic here? I do.

Don't you think that undermines your entire thesis and your credibility here - not being able to see what your target audience does? What else do you think they want to hear from somebody discussing evolution unfamiliar with clades?

 

[questfortruth]

Mere definitions prove nothing

You can not argue with definitions. Thus, according to my definition, God is proven.

 

[questfortruth]

Don't you think that undermines your entire thesis and your credibility

make yourself look like a fool

Do not look at me, look elsewhere.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can not argue with definitions. Thus, according to my definition, God is proven.

According to my definition, you are wrong and undetectable graviton pixies regulate gravity.

You can not argue with definitions.
Thus, according to my definition, you are wrong and pixies regulate gravity.

This questfortruth-methodology of "proving" things is so easy.

So from henceforth, let it be known that everything you say is by definition incorrect. And we should consider this proven, because it has been defined.

Hurray!

 

[Valjean]

I suggest the scientists in Hitler's countries to call "ptisers". Look: there is no single common word between God and satan. So, let Science be the Name of God, but Ptiser - name of satan.

Ptisers? Etymology, please. Did you just make that up? Why? Why do we need that word?
Why should science -- "knowledge" -- be the name of God? What does science have to do with God?

God-less evolution is falsified by this thread, but God-induced evolution is proven.

How falsified? How proven? You keep making these sweeping statements, but you don't support them.

Humans are not birds? Yes. Humans are not bears? Yes. The humans are not cats? Yes. Humans are apes? Yes. I see no logic here.

Logic? You're misusing the word. You don't know what it means.
What, exactly, are you skeptical of?

God explains all. Because knowledge is what God knows. Such definition the knowledge has.
In particular, that definition proves the existence of God.

If God explained all we'd have one world religion. As it is, we have a thousand different denominations of protestantism alone.
When has God ever explained anything?

Who is telling that? You? Or Donald Trump? Or Richard Dawkins? I obey no god-less authority.
Science itself can't be falsified.

Noöne's asking you to obey anything.
Science can't be falsified? Hypothesis testing and falsification is the sine qua non of science. Science is all about falsification. If it's not falsifiable it's not even within the purview of science.
Quest, you don't know what science is.

Who has told you, that General Relativity can be falsified? It is not an obvious statement.
I mean, if GR is true, it is not possible to make it false. Even in principle.

You don't understand either reason or science. Everything in science can be falsified. If it's not falsifiable it's not within the purview of science.
If any prediction of GR fails to occur, GR is falsified. How do you not see this?
The only reason GR is presumed to be true is because repeated attempts have failed to falsify it. If it were unfalsifiable, the attempts themselves would be impossible.

The way to find true claims is the way of Church Fathers. That is why abortion is sin,

What is this "way of church fathers?" When has religion ever had a research methodology?

And how does abortion relate to any of this? Why is it a sin? How did the way of church fathers determine it was a sin? How was this tested?

 

[Valjean]

You can not argue with definitions. Thus, according to my definition, God is proven.

This makes no sense. Please explain yourself.

 

[questfortruth]

This makes no sense. Please explain yourself.

Definitions of any scientific theorem or theory are not subject to criticism; the proof, which uses the definition can be falsified. For example, space is defined as what the meter measures. Space is used in String Theory. The thickness of any such string is absolute zero. Everything in nature has a non-vanishing size. Thus, the String Theory fails to describe nature.

 

[blü 2]

If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus,

Unfalsifiable propositions are excluded from science. Indeed, they exclude themselves, since they always involve some aspect not found in reality.

So it's not a good idea to waste too much time on them, let alone think they carry any cred,

I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven.

2+2 mod 3 = 1, for example. And (my usual exhibit) if you have a 2-pint pot and you fill it and empty it twice into a 3-pint pot, 2+2=3, not 4.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why couldn't general relativity be disproven?

Excellent! And as I'm sure you know, there are all sorts of ways that General Relativity could have been been disproven already. Einstein himself proposed several -- and they've been tried and have only confirmed the theory. This would include gravitational lensing, gravitational red shift, and the precesion of the perihelion of Mercury.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If something can not be disproven, it is a huge plus, it is a positive circumstance. How such a positive fact would take away the scientific status? I bet that 2+2 is 4 can not be disproven, or General Relativity can not be disproven. Is it bad for them? God can not be disproven.

So, it should better be:
1. Science can not be falsified but confirmed.
2. False science can be falsified while running a confirmation test.

ANOTHER TOPIC

I simply say: humans are some apes in Darwinism. Thus, there was no evolution from animal to human.

So, there is no evolution from animal to non-animal.
But there is the transition from non-living to life.

The God-induced evolution has the following stages:
1. Nothing (absence of matter and space and time),
2. Non-living nature (stars, ice, air, dust,...)
3. Living nature (cats, microbes, dogs, trees, rose,....)
4. People.
5. God. Namely: God-like saints.

ANOTHER TOPIC: Will there be money in Heaven?

I argue, that the world ruled by Love needs no money.

ANOTHER TOPICS

A. Sinning does not make one an Atheist?!
Sin is the door for any bad spirit, including the spirit of atheism.

B. The Miracle of Creation is the scientific explanation for any theist because knowledge of a person is defined as information, which has his God. The Atheists have a god - "nonexisting god" is his name. Thus, the atheists are sure, that they have a lack of faith.

C. You might think: "So science is good at saving children and good at killing children depending on the subjective standard. Once we decide on which, that science can do both. It means, it is neutral. It is a neutral method."

I suggest the scientists in Hitler's countries to call "ptisers". Look: there is no single common word between God and satan. So, let Science be the Name of God, but Ptiser - name of satan.

Why is it a huge plus? Magical fairies can't be disproven. Vampires can't be disproven. It can't be disproven that the universe came about as an unintended consequence of a cosmic pixie farting. Why do you think this is a positive circumstance?

 

[questfortruth]

Excellent!

thank you.

2+2=3, not 4.

I was taught in school and Tartu University, that 2+2 is 4. How can you explain it, mastermind?

Unfalsifiable propositions are excluded from science. Indeed, they exclude themselves, since they always involve
some aspect not found in reality.

List aspects of my God (Eastern Orthodox Christianity one), which are "false doctrines". There are none because there is no peer-reviewed paper condemning Christianity.
Science has never disproved any of the religions, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster church
, which members are atheists.

 

[questfortruth]

Why is it a huge plus? Magical fairies can't be disproven. Vampires can't be disproven. It can't be disproven that the universe came about as an unintended consequence of a cosmic pixie farting. Why do you think this is a positive circumstance?

I like fairytales. Our life is in fact one because an electron is a wave and particle at the same time. Thus: no logic in wave-particle dualism. Our world is a fairytale because it is reality+illusion. Good illusion, we must not get rid of good illusion: it is part of life, like the run of time is the illusion in Einstein's worldview. Dates of history are real, but the run of the clocks is an illusion.

 

[darkskies]

The God-induced evolution has the following stages:
1. Nothing (absence of matter and space and time),
2. Non-living nature (stars, ice, air, dust,...)
3. Living nature (cats, microbes, dogs, trees, rose,....)
4. People.
5. God. Namely: God-like saints.

And this is why theistic evolution doesn't work.

 

[questfortruth]

And this is why theistic evolution doesn't work.

Wrong, It works really well, or do you argue, that you have done more good than Mather Teresa? No, She is way above any of you, She is a higher being: a saint. You can not even distinguish between good and evil, no speaking about to do good.

List aspects of my God (Eastern Orthodox Christianity one), which are "false doctrines". There are none because there is no peer-reviewed paper condemning Christianity.
Science has never disproved any of the religions, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster church, which members are atheists.

 

[darkskies]

Humans are not birds? Yes. Humans are not bears? Yes. The humans are not cats? Yes. Humans are apes? Yes. I see no logic here.

Do you see no difference between birds, bears, cats, apes? Are other apes you see not the closest animals to humans? Even if you consider only the appearance, I mean. You're just putting all animals in the same box.

 

[darkskies]

Wrong, It works really well, or do you argue, that you have done more good than Mather Teresa? No, She is way above any of you, She is a higher being: a saint.

Appeal to authority changes nothing about evolution.
If it worked so well you'd know the answer to your questions earlier.

List aspects of my God (Eastern Orthodox Christianity one), which are "false doctrines". There are none because there is no peer-reviewed paper condemning Christianity.

I don't have to, and yes because scientists don't care what you believe.

Science has never disproved any of the religions, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster church, which members are atheists.

You realize that's a joke religion right? It's meant to be unfalsifiable like any other.

 

[questfortruth]

Do you see no difference between birds, bears, cats, apes? Are other apes you see not the closest animals to humans? Even if you consider only the appearance, I mean. You're just putting all animals in the same box.

All listed animals (birds, bears, cats, apes) have legs, have heads, have ears, have eyes, have hearts, have skin, etc. Thus, any of them could be picked as the closest ancestor, if there were no apes.

 

[darkskies]

All listed animals (birds, bears, cats, apes) have legs, have heads, have ears, have eyes, have hearts, have skin, etc. Thus, any of them could be picked as the closest ancestor, if there were no apes.

That criteria isn't enough. Birds have too low a bone density, cats and bears don't have opposible thumbs, they have all evolved differently. Apes show striking similarity in almost every function.
That aside, I urge you as many have done before, to actually study evolution before any of this.

 

[questfortruth]

You realize that's a joke religion right? It's meant to be unfalsifiable like any other.

The Flying Spaghetti church is not a joke any longer, it gives the atheist the illusion of comfort and peace. The supporting community.

because scientists don't care what you believe.

Science can not disprove any of the religions, because it is not Theology. The reason is lack of spirituality, not the lack of desire/intention.

Appeal to authority changes nothing about evolution.

"Saints and humans" division is not appeal to authority, they are standing fundamentally on different levels. Why? Because the highest level of existence is God.