Actually, I believe the answer is yes. As I understand falsification is to provide proof that from some perspective the hypothesis fails. Can you prove that from every perspective God is a necessary aspect of the physical reality of the universe and there would be no universe without God?
Falsification means that there is at least a theoretical case in which the argument can be proven false. If an argument isn't falsifiable, that means that there is no case in which it can be shown to be false, which means it's a meaningless argument.
So far, I have not seen a hypoyhesis that can beat a *mathematical function*. A pseudo-intelligence, with all the powers of a God.
Yes. That's what I said in shorthand. I like to use the word *perspective* instead "theoretical case" IOW, theoretical case = perspective. It's a term used by Roger Antonsen to illustrate that all equations are a form of actual or imaginary perspectives. jufa calls this "seeing"/
If you actually listen to what I say, rather than letting your strawman keep whispering in your ear, you would know that my agnosticism is clear throughout my responses. But instead you want to play victim again, cast yourself as somehow being the target of of attacks by anyone and everyone who self-identifies as an atheist. If ever you do want a serious and respectful discussion, let me know. But while you carry on with your usual tactics you will continue to be your own worst enemy on this site.
A respectful discussion being one that necessarily accepts your fluctuating, bewildering position, as the the default. No thanks. When you know who you are, or at least have some idea of what you actually stand for, then we can have a respectful discussion. Right now you're simply defending an idea of yourself, that cannot be sustained under proper scrutiny. All that is left, is for you to win, by any means necessary, and when you can't, your true colours become prominent. Jan.
Oh, my. I haven't had such a good laugh in a while. Seriously, where do you dig up this twaddle? You think projecting your own shortcomings is going to solve matters? The worst case would be that you genuinely believe what you're saying here, 'cos then you're into the realms of delusion. And I trust you're not that far gone. Can you please highlight where my position fluctuates? That you find it bewildering is fair enough, but you have only to ask and I will endeavour to clarify. As for the need to accept my position as the default to be able to have discussion... where have I ever said or implied that? I know who I am, Jan, and what I stand for. You don't know me. You simply claim to know all atheists, to assert things about them, irrespective of what they actually say. But tell me, what idea am I supposed to be defending about myself? Do you even know which thread this is? Or are you perhaps just waging one long anti-atheist war across the entire religion sub-forum? And as for winning: winning, to me, is when I further my understanding of another's position and my own through the discourse. It's not about tearing down the other's position, or promoting mine above theirs. Discussion, Jan. That's where the victories lie. You should try it some day. But if you insist on being the troll you turn into whenever you feel threatened, don't blame others for whatever befalls.
A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, thedefinition can be expanded. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Do you accept these basic definitions? Jan.
Do you believe that the concept of the *existence* of a god is not subject to scientific scrutiny and falsification? If not, then how does one prove OR disprove the existence of a god. By word-of-mouth? IMO, as religion claims to have answers as to divine creation and guidance in the evolution of the universe, why should it be exempt from scientific inquiry and methods of proving the hypothesis of the existence of a such a god?
Jan's not really talking to you, Sarkus. Jan's addressing 'the atheists'. You merely serve as an example of an atheist. By responding over and over (and over and over) you merely give Jan an occasion to play his/her game. Isn't this 'comparative religion' forum supposed to host more scholarly discussions of religion and topics associated with religion? The O.P., addressing the nature of faith, certainly seems to qualify. I can easily imagine that kind of question being asked in a university classroom to stimulate class discussion. (Even though James seemed to me to bias the discussion right out of the gate by imposing his own definitions on it and by trying to exclude important lines of inquiry he personally didn't like. Of course university professors often do that too.) Unfortunately the thread is once again being driven into the ditch, like all religion threads seemingly are here on Stupidforums. In a university classroom it would be the job of the professor to prevent religious evangelists and atheist ranters from dominating every discussion. On Stupidforums, it's the job of the moderators. (That's you, JamesR. You're the only moderator with the necessary philosophical sophistication.) Sarkus, you could contribute to improving the intellectual climate on this board by not keeping the shit going. Don't respond to every post that quotes you. Just respond to posts that you think contain ideas worthy of a response. The goal here shouldn't be to convert our opponents (never gonna happen) or to have the last word (ditto), it should be to say something of value and then let it stand on its own merits.
Wise advice. It has been obvious to all of us for a very long time that Sarkus easily has the measure of this tiresome troll. There is nothing to be proved or gained by feeding him. The troll, that is. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Point taken. Feel free to cuff the back of my head whenever I slip, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!