How can your belief be falsified?

[stvdv]

That there is no life after death is perfectly falsifiable

How? It's not.

Maybe for an alien this is possible

I do know that there is "life after death"
Sai Baba told us all about it in discourses

 

[stvdv]

What it would take is some kind of verifiable communication with a dead person. Mediums claim this all the time. It's the verification that poses the difficulty.

Remember, a theory does not have to be falsifiable by current available means, just possible to falsify.

Very true

 

[stvdv]

I read pay grade as gay parade. I don't know why you need to know this but here it is anyway.

I know why
I just read @Brickjectivity
His posts were all about that
Skipping parts and getting mixed up ideas

I just saw 2 very good posts he made

 

[stvdv]

If a belief cannot be falsified, it can also not be proven. That brings up the question, of course, of why would you hold it as a belief?

That question is easy for me

A belief is not the "end goal"
In the end you drop belief

You know

 

[Sheldon]

Joseph Smith had a hundred court cases and was thrown in jail many times, but my understanding is he was never found guilty.
Anyone can accuse him.

Your understanding is very wrong. He was a convicted fraudster, he got away with far worse by setting up his own religions and being leader of it, with complete autonomy over it.

 

[Sheldon]

Fear and superstition are the basis for the development of evolved religion.

Ok, I imagine there is more to it than that, but I'd accept they play a part.

Evolved religion is the scaffolding for the reception of revealed religion.

Derived from fear and superstition, so not very reliable scaffolding.

For the Son of God to incarnate on earth to reveal the Father in heaven there was a need for a monotheistic society to appear in.

Do you know what a circular reasoning fallacy is? It always starts with a begging the question fallacy, as you did here. You still haven't addressed your original claim: That your method produces a reliable result, yet we know that throughout the world, and human history, it has produced innumerable different results, results furthermore shaped by many other factors like culture, and the era from which the beliefs were and are derived, changing constantly what's more. This does not support it being a reliable method for the result you claimed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A little out side of my pay grade, but since it is a scientific hypothesis it must be falsifiable right?

Its out of my pay grade, too; however String Theory is not a single theory but myriad ideas any of which could match some new discovery. Its a net cast to find any possible indication that there is more symmetry to the standard model. There doesn't seem to be a reason to assume symmetry, however. It would convenient for there to be symmetry. String theory has not yet produced a stable scientific hypothesis. Its ideas are more like a radar array of signals sent out into idea space to see what bounces back that suggests symmetry in the standard model. String theory depends upon symmetry, but symmetry is somewhat hopeful thinking. They hope that the standard model has a certain amount of nice symmetry, and they investigate this using mathematical models.

Another possibility is that the truth is too dangerous to be released, and so a lot of people are putting in the effort to keep reality a secret. For example suppose that it would be easy to destroy the entire planet using a small microwave oven and a carefully crafted piece of tubing. You'd hide that kind of information.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Your understanding is very wrong. He was a convicted fraudster, he got away with far worse by setting up his own religions and being leader of it, with complete autonomy over it.

Your understanding is very wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Of course it does.

Evolution believers

The scientific theory of evolution isn't based on subjective belief. Nor are any scientific theories, you asked how it could be falsified, you were given the facts, and now predictably you wave them away.

can always give a new explanation and make the theory "more accurate",

Well that's not remotely what I did, and anyone can read it for themselves. I gave a candid answer, you are not reciprocating. Of course it is one of science's greatest strengths, and one of religions greatest weaknesses. More accuracy is a desirable thing for anyone who understands. but of course this is moot, as you have ignored precisely the evidence you asked for, as you anticipated not getting any, so you could parrot this creationist propaganda.

because "science is never wrong, it is just getting more accurate".

The first is a straw man, the second a true and desirable part of the methods of science. Why would anyone want a method to not become more accurate? Hell if any superstition could do this, then I might think they had something beyond bare subjective beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

Interesting answer, those can be done even if evolution theory would not be true, which is why I think it is irrelevant. And I think "violation of phylogeny" could also be explained so that evolution believers would not have to reject their belief.

Species evolution is an accepted scientific theory, not a subjective belief. Unlike the unevidenced superstition of creationism of course.

If the universe is just a few thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are billions of light years away? Did a deity magic this into existence en route?

 

[Sheldon]

My belief is not unfalsifiable any more than the existence of this world, or you or any truth.

How could it be falsified? I'm not convinced you understand what unfalsifiable means, given your response to how species evolution can be falsified.

 

[Sheldon]

Well take away all the Messengers and the resulting Holy Scriptures, then take away the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, then I guess if I then belived in God, there would be no actual proof, the promptings of my own mind would be easy falsifiable.

Regards Tony

I don't think that makes the belief falsifiable, you just seem to be imagining a scenario where the belief had never been created by anyone in the first place.

That is not my imaginings, that may be yours.

It was your scenario? It's quoted above in red?

If there is no God and I made up a God, that would be obviously falsifiable.

You have yet to explain how though? Simply imaging the belief had never been created doesn't make it falsifiable, why would it? The belief exists, now can you explain how it is falsifiable, if indeed it is?

If there is a God and God was made known to me, but I still made up my own God, that is also falsifiable.

What is falsifiable, and how is it falsifiable? You do understand that imagining something as falsified and it being falsifiable are not the same thing right?

If there is a God and God is made known to me via a Messenger, who is a Man born into this world, then the evidence of God is that man born into this world.

That's a pretty obvious circular reasoning fallacy, starting it with if should be a clue.

That Messenger will produce the proofs of God for me to consider. It will not be possible for me to prove them false.

I'm not really looking for a sermon of your beliefs and platitudes, is the belief unfalsifiable?

If a Man who is not a Messenger claims the station of a Messenger, then that also will be Falsifiable.

The thread is not asking you what you believe is false or true, only whether what you believe is falsifiable.

 

[robocop (actually)]

He was found guilty only once and fined $1000.

Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

By falsify, you mean 'prove it wrong.'

The thread is examining beliefs that are unfalsifiable, this means the belief cannot be falsified, even were it false. I don't know how else to elaborate this? A belief that is true can't be falsified, but it need not be unfalsifiable.

 

[Sheldon]

Very true

Actually it's not very true at all, it completely misunderstands unfalsifiable and unbelief.

 

[Sheldon]

He was found guilty only once and fined $1000.

Wikipedia

Jimmy Saville was never convicted, do you imagine this means he was not a predatory paedophile who preyed on young children? It's only an educated guess, but I'd bet bet my house the criminal justice system in the UK in the 1970's was better equipped to catch and prosecute paedophiles than the US legal system in the states Smith lived and operated with impunity.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe for an alien this is possible

I do know that there is "life after death"
Sai Baba told us all about it in discourses

So how is the belief in after life falsifiable?

 

[robocop (actually)]

You think what you want.
I doubt he was a pedophile and why would he go to such lengths to make up the Book of Mormon? I have seen tons of evidence for it, but it doesn't matter you probably think I'm dumb.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Lol did you hear the Mona Lisa got smeared with a pie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This claim will be very hard to prove for you


Now you phrase it completely different and now it is correct; I agree with this

I did not change anything. I only explained what the phrase meant.