How can your belief be falsified?

[rational experiences]

When men try to justify that flying machines existed before life. In science of human men ...he says that type of flying machine existed before my human life.

Information is exact. Not a belief.

By fact of its owned material evidence and it not being his life. Human.

In my human natural life I believe in my human equal life equal rights. Yet it's not a belief it's my ownership. So I don't have to argue belief. As I own my life. Naturally. Yet now I'm told I have to apply proof I'm not an alien.

To another human who believes I am. I should be the very angry human theists.

Status therefore depicts what's real and what's not by ownership in natural presence.

A man knows his man biology isn't living when the machine is flying by itself. Unless the human is inside of the flying machine that he personally built when living now as a man human.

Yet he says. I can put artificial human designed controls into a machine and fly it. As I built it.

Hence he does now build UFOs as my sister's professor had.

He didn't however build the alien UFO.

Claiming secondary ownership is by his human ownership his human life. In full awareness he's lying. Also not a belief as he is.

Hence he said I wasn't flying that type of flying machine as a human man. I didn't build it myself. Nor am I the alien controlling it flying.

So get angry at your belief lying by fact.... now I want it myself the UFO and I want to also control it myself.

Claiming as I believe I was controlling it before.

When he wasn't. He said the alien was.

So now you have to ask him do you scientist believe aliens built the ship and fly them. Or do you think you designed caused the effect yourself.

By magic terms. Magic in old man's science terms father says was cause and effect conditions. Science terminology of old man's theism. Conjured in terms.

Status I owned the machines by my human control of machine. As I know I can intercept flying machines myself. Kind of real answers.

Proving it was conjured direct by machines man controlled on ground by control itself. Yet first it hadn't owned controls itself is known. It was just mass.

Seeing you adamanty believe you can control it by your earth machines!!!?

Belief can claim I was caused to believe also.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This thread is based on the spurious premise that falsifiability is a universal standard for determining the value of a theory or belief. It isn't; when Karl Popper developed his principle of falsification, he was concerned with demarcation between the natural sciences and other disciplines, in particular social sciences and psychoanalysis. In order for a theory to be considered a good scientific theory, Popper said, it should be simple, falsifiable, and should make predictions that may be tested by observation. Religious convictions, or indeed spiritual experiences, are not scientific theories.

 

[rational experiences]

This thread is based on the spurious premise that falsifiability is a universal standard for determining the value of a theory or belief. It isn't; when Karl Popper developed his principle of falsification, he was concerned with demarcation between the natural sciences and other disciplines, in particular social sciences and psychoanalysis. In order for a theory to be considered a good scientific theory, Popper said, it should be simple, falsifiable, and should make predictions that may be tested by observation. Religious convictions, or indeed spiritual experiences, are not scientific theories.

Natural human sciences.

I want....to change....the earth's planet mass.

Natural human science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Natural human sciences.

I want....to change....the earth's planet mass.

Natural human science.

Good luck with that. Beyond the limits of the human will, I’d have thought.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly lack of belief is quite obviously not a belief, thus it does not need to be falsifiable. How many people have falsified the existence of invisible mermaids?

"Worldview" is a better term than "belief". If we use belief then some atheists say that a lack of belief is different to a belief and excuse themselves of the same demands that they place on others who hold beliefs. Yes I know, silly but true.
Your worldview can be falsified by showing that a God exists.

 

[Brian2]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

My beliefs can be falsified by showing that the Bible is not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My beliefs can be falsified by showing that the Bible is not true.

Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Exactly lack of belief is quite obviously not a belief, thus it does not need to be falsifiable. How many people have falsified the existence of invisible mermaids?

Everybody

Wow, it must have taken a long time for you to poll everybody? However I have not falsified this notion, clearly because it is unfalsifiable. That doesn't mean of course I believe it has any credence.

 

[Sheldon]

I haven't claimed you to be personally cold or violent, but humanity is both. Your personal experience living in a brief bubble of freedom and wealth does not generalize to the overall experience of the human race. Your beliefs began with reason and were never based on anything else? I have a difficult time imagining how you skipped childhood.

You don't think children use reason? Also when did we switch from evidence to reason? I can't claim my experience typifies the experience of all humans of course, in fact I quite pointedly didn't claim this, just offered my own experience as a contradicting example to this notion:

Brickjectivity said: ↑
If everything we believe were based upon evidence alone then it would be a cold and violent world

I also don't see how basing beliefs on sufficient objective evidence, excludes human emotion and makes one cold let alone violent, if that is what you're suggesting? I do see how emotions unchecked by reason can result in violence.

 

[Sheldon]

Fight ignorance merely with knowledge? This needs a bit more dismal reality. There is so much knowledge and reason available, yet knowledgeable people turn away and do nothing or participate in violence. Some fatten themselves with knowledge that they starve others of. Many with the ability to gain knowledge prefer entertainments and treats. More thinking costs more energy, so by default people don't think more. You have to believe first that evidence is something worth straining for, so evidence based belief is useless without choice based belief first. You choose to believe that evidence is required, but you could choose not to. You could choose to sit upon your duff and to learn nothing, too.

Well it seems the choice as you put it, to believe that evidence is a necessary remedy to ignorance, can itself be reasoned, and of course need not be an unevidenced belief either. Your examples only suggest to me humans are fallible, not that knowledge isn't a remedy to ignorance, but rather that we fallible humans can and do fail to achieve this for a variety of reasons, some contrived by us, and others just a consequence of circumstance.

 

[Erebus]

So firstly, there is no belief I won't discard if the evidence demands it. So what I am asking is for people who preach or hold beliefs, how can those beliefs be falsified? If of course they can't then how can you rationally justify disbelieving other unfalsifiable beliefs. Which I assume need only be a rhetorical question?

It's impossible to hold only falsifiable beliefs. At least some of your beliefs are going to come down to personal values rather than any kind of testable hypothesis. For example, do you believe that torture is immoral? Do you believe that science is useful? Do you believe that skepticism is sensible?

None of those beliefs are falsifiable. They all come down to personal values and/or cultural background.

The question then becomes, "Are all unfalsifiable beliefs equally unjustifiable?" I would argue that they aren't. I'm much more inclined to accept some unfalsifiable beliefs over others.

To some extent, my dismissal of particular unfalsifiable beliefs isn't really a question of rationality so much as gut feeling. For example, I believe that torture is immoral but I may use some degree of reasoning ability if you tell me that torture is morally acceptable. I might not be able to logically prove you wrong but I can at least weigh up the pros and cons of your argument before I dismiss it.
On the other hand, If you told me you have an invisible, intangible unicorn in your house, I would just dismiss it automatically. I strongly suspect you would do the same if somebody told you about that unicorn.

 

[Colt]

IMOP God can be known through the inexplicable subjective experience with God by those who truly desire to know him. One has to find God on their own and in spirit.


"The certainties of science proceed entirely from the intellect; the certitudes of religion spring from the very foundations of the entire personality. Science appeals to the understanding of the mind; religion appeals to the loyalty and devotion of the body, mind, and spirit, even to the whole personality.

God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB 1955

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We start by choosing to believe in things without evidence.

Who's "we" here, and why would one do that?

If everything we believe were based upon evidence alone then it would be a cold and violent world

How did you conclude that?
And also, it seems to me that religiosity is by no means a "cure" to a "cold and violent" world.
In fact, it even seems that the lesser societies care about evidence and the higher the religiosity is, the more cold and violent they become.........


So I would suggest the exact opposite of what you are saying - and I would be basing that on real world statistics rather then wishful thinking, which is what you seem to be doing.

Therefore evidence based belief is of limited use without belief that is merely a choice.

That makes zero sense to me.
You seem to be saying that "caring" is synonymous to "merely choosing to believe things arbitrarily without evidence". That is quite ludicrous.

You must begin with the superstitious creature called a human, and you must do this every time another one is born. These silly creatures barely care about rationality at all, so long as they get their treats.

So now, we're just going to pretend that the psychology and social awareness of adults is the same as that of toddlers and babies?

They have to believe in personally applying moral principles, but these are not things you can prove using evidence

We can, actually. At least, if you operate from a proper moral compass.
If your idea of "moral principles" is more akin to "divine command theory" type things, were "moral = whatever the perceived authority says is moral" and where morality in fact is thus no more or less then being obedient to an authority.... well yeah, those moral principles can't be "proven".

But I'ld argue that those aren't moral principles to begin with.

So there is a choice to believe in things like good and evil, first.

This again makes no sense to me.
What does it mean to "believe in" good and evil?

To say such a thing is another hint for me that what YOU mean by "good and evil" is quite different from what I mean by it.

 

[Colt]

I believe this quote addresses the issue of expressing the subjective spiritual experience to the carping critiques of faith that demand believers prove their subjective experiences.


"The confusion about the experience of the certainty of God arises out of the dissimilar interpretations and relations of that experience by separate individuals and by different races of men. The experiencing of God may be wholly valid, but the discourse about God, being intellectual and philosophical, is divergent and oftentimes confusingly fallacious.

A good and noble man may be consummately in love with his wife but utterly unable to pass a satisfactory written examination on the psychology of marital love. Another man, having little or no love for his spouse, might pass such an examination most acceptably. The imperfection of the lover’s insight into the true nature of the beloved does not in the least invalidate either the reality or sincerity of his love.

If you truly believe in God—by faith know him and love him—do not permit the reality of such an experience to be in any way lessened or detracted from by the doubting insinuations of science, the caviling of logic, the postulates of philosophy, or the clever suggestions of well-meaning souls who would create a religion without God.

The certainty of the God-knowing religionist should not be disturbed by the uncertainty of the doubting materialist; rather should the uncertainty of the unbeliever be mightily challenged by the profound faith and unshakable certainty of the experiential believer.

Philosophy, to be of the greatest service to both science and religion, should avoid the extremes of both materialism and pantheism. Only a philosophy which recognizes the reality of personality—permanence in the presence of change—can be of moral value to man, can serve as a liaison between the theories of material science and spiritual religion. Revelation is a compensation for the frailties of evolving philosophy." UB 1955

 

[rational experiences]

If a theist says no man is God.

Then humans can't be good. By his thesis...God is good...no man is God.

So in...stead he says man began from sin and is evil trying to be good.

As only god was good.

A spiritual human says the entity you theist said was good was God earths Rock support of life.

You made sin K holes. You then became evilly minded. As not a good man by your bad thoughts.

I don't believe in God. As I say earth is A rock planet. Rock doesn't speak. When the sun made first sin K holes it left dust as gods saved Inheritor body that arose out of suns sin. Remained fused. It was resurrected dusts.

Therefore your belief says man came from evil beginnings just because you want to believe the term you're not God.

Truly isn't a viable review of why you claim only God is good.

Now if you are a real satanist science theist. You want gods Satan's history.

Body of melts. As it's your want inventive Alchemy.

So you say God was once Satan. Satan is hence now holy. Became God.

God is rock.
Satan was volcanic melt never god

Just another one of your lies.

Whilst you consciously live you said I am living saved by heavens past.

First cloud mass before new science was practiced by man had only Satan's angels images in it.

So you said and quote the holy Satan keeps life holy. Conscious thoughts. Not any thesis.

So when we do a review of how you think your belief is muddled.

You changed your minds when cloud mass burnt fell in strands. So you witnessed it and named it angel hair. Which also melts disappears nothing like metal melt.

So it's quite easy to distinguish whose just reading words out of a book interpreting meaning for self organised purposes.

Hierarchical and self gain. A community of hurt human's seeking healing. Give self hierarchy.

Or those who argue to state it's not scientific wisdom actually.

As humans are not defined as separated each one feeling. We're whole natural beings who feel like we do based on interactive human relations and partnerships

As civilisation was never holy. It introduced behaviours family would never have needed to assert.

Ignored as civilisation status is ignorance personified.

Status man's theme woman you're a whore.

Okay brother. Your thought only about a woman who has sex with lots of men.

In life how many sex acts own why your man life lives to day. As first human to self today?

1000s more than likely. A big thinking liar in reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Far above my paygrade as well...
But as far as I understood it from listening to physicists talking about it.... at present it is an unfalsifiable framework. It could perhaps be tested by principle, but as said in that earlier post, it would require a set up that is not really feasible at this point.

The thing about string theory, again - as I understand it, is that when it is worked out mathematically with the assumption of 11 dimensions (if memory serves me right), then Einstein's equations pop out. And it is such things that attract physicists to it. It's "eerie".

But as Lawrence Krauss once said in some panel discussion: At present it remains untestable. And until it is actually testable, or clear how it could be tested, string theory in all honesty is no more or less then intellectual masturbation.

Or as Dr Leanord Hofstadder (from the sitcom big bang theory) once said about the subject:
- Yey! My idea has an internal consistency! Whoe hoe!

or

- Hey, at least I didn't have to invent 7 additional dimensions to make the math work!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I also don't see how basing beliefs on sufficient objective evidence, excludes human emotion and makes one cold let alone violent, if that is what you're suggesting?

I'm struggling to get across to you what I mean to say, so I'm sorry if it is jumbled. You've said there is no belief you won't discard if evidence demands it. I'm not trying to suggest this makes you violent or cold. You've asked how people who hold unfalsifiable beliefs can rationally justify disbelieving other unjustifiable beliefs. We are always going to have beliefs that are not based upon evidence. We have to start with choosing to exert the energy to make evidence based choices. I'm calling this 'Reason'. How to get people to pursue reason? How to get children interested in learning? How can we make them sit still to listen and then get them to think? There are different ways people try to do this.

Humanity is easily set back 1000 years or 10,000. Reason may not be enough to encourage more reason. Instead, reason alone without 'Unjustifiable belief' may simply result in tragic waste. We have to believe things such as theories of government, make choices about whether people are valuable, decide if life is worthwhile. There are crucial matters upon which evidence is ambiguous.

Well it seems the choice as you put it, to believe that evidence is a necessary remedy to ignorance, can itself be reasoned, and of course need not be an unevidenced belief either. Your examples only suggest to me humans are fallible, not that knowledge isn't a remedy to ignorance, but rather that we fallible humans can and do fail to achieve this for a variety of reasons, some contrived by us, and others just a consequence of circumstance.

I focus on one reason: energy saving. We are discouraged from thinking and are only driven to it in necessity. Everything about us is geared towards storing and conserving energy. Our muscles atrophy, and our minds grow slack. Our bodies crave energy and easily become weak and fat. We aren't usually driven to exercise, and our muscles don't keep themselves toned, nor our minds. Similarly its easy to avoid thinking, to let others do your thinking for you. Some individuals are driven to do more, but most aren't. Evidence based thinking requires energy, and we won't expend that energy unless we feel a need to do so. It is not the bedrock of human thought. It is a frail thing, easily lost.

You don't think children use reason? Also when did we switch from evidence to reason? I can't claim my experience typifies the experience of all humans of course, in fact I quite pointedly didn't claim this, just offered my own experience as a contradicting example to this notion:

Children avoid reason, but they can use reason to get something they want. Reason requires energy. In particular creative thought requires more energy then reactive thinking. Some rare people have an inner drive pushing them to expend more energy upon thought, but most are pushed in the other direction: to conserve calories.

 

[rational experiences]

Father just a human man is d e a d.

He isn't any energy resource.

So you can't make life a machines thesis. As energy reactions begin in energy bodies first.

We own bio chemistry that if we don't eat food. Our body dies. Same with water owning natural minerals when you drink from healthy natural waterways.

Even though you do eat ...do breathe... do drink water. You age. You die.

We disappear back to a stone like hardened bone. You claim that body type an energy. Yet it too breaks down eventually.

If you do an assessment on bio human life. We are human owning cells blood bone bio chemistry that isn't a formula.

A formula you quote is written for a reaction.

Our bones set. Blood set etc. Just give up claiming a human is God or has God energy within.

As any fool of a man knows as you quote within is a God living as bone not yet set stone...then you knew what you were medically discussing as like an energy body.

As far as a thesis you lie. Humans aren't anothers human thesis as you see me first whole human. Same as you.

If I treated your science life as you have my natural life you'd be arguing against the scientist yourself ....walk a mile in my shoes the saying.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Theoretically yes...practically its a little trickier. What you have, basically, is a set of theories with varying degrees of effort required to falsify.

My guess is that even with folks like @Suave it would be a conditional belief. As in, they find the research to this point compelling, they see no major issues with the overall framework, and they suspect the theories will develop as evidence is gathered rather than be discarded.

At one, this makes it a great example of belief in a non-religious setting, and a way to draw the line between a belief which embraces research and one that doesn't.

Strikes me I might be speaking for @Suave inaccurately though, so...
*zips lips*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not sure if it is. When I read about it it is said to be a "theoretical framework" and other phases but their does not seem to be a way to test it yet. That does not mean that it will not be testable in the future. By today's standards it does not appear to be a proper scientific theory or hypothesis. It is an idea that is still in the development stage. The idea has contributed to understanding some other concepts but it is far from "proven".

Yep...there are plenty of examples over time. Dark matter is somewhat along these lines.