What is the falsification for Atheism? What is the falsification for your religion?

[harmonica]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

You have no evidence of 1, 2, nor 3. Are you going senile?

hahhahahaha
how do you falsify something that has never been proven--is not real/etc?????!!!!!!!!

It's not to falsify the claim, but one has to provide falsification for their scientific claim or else nothing can be presented to show that it is wrong. Popper said then that it isn't a valid theory or scientific claim. I'm just expanding that to religion as religion is so much like science and the philosophy of science.

For example, if it took a billion years for something to happen, then how can someone falsify that? No one can do an experiment that takes a billion years.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

 

[harmonica]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

1. Christianity emerged from eye witness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There is no physical evidence of this, so science cannot look or investigate it because it now lies outside the jurisdiction of science.

2. Once we are outside the rule of science, we look at belief and find in the world today there are 2.3 billion who believe in Christian teaching as handed down. We can also look at their lives, listen to their stories.

3. Christians believe there were Twelve Apostles, and one of those twelve betrayed Jesus which led to his death. This means 1/12 of those closest to Jesus chose not to follow his teachings. No Christian would claim to do better than Jesus did with his group. Therefore, 1/12 of 2.3 billion Christians means that in fact you should not listen to about 195 million of them--which leaves just over 2 billion who work to be faithful followers of Jesus, and we have our own faults, just as the other eleven apostles had theirs.

No organization has reached perfection, Harmonica, and the events you mention involve more organizations than Christianity. Keep in mind science does teach us that for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or we could say, more than one side to every story. This does not change the fact that sometimes it was Christianity--or a portion of--that was in the wrong, but most do strive to do better.

....so all of that means you have no evidence of resurrection/etc
...you ADMIT you have no scientific evidence !!!!!!!!
...there are more people who are non-christians than christians--so if we are going by numbers--YOUR reasoning---resurrection/jesus/etc is false = you are wrong

 

[BlackSand]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

The Falsification for Atheism is when God speaks to your heart ... However you will listen ... And faith is born.
At that point it doesn't matter the religion or process ... And it really doesn't matter if you prove it to someone else.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the religion is what is paramount with or without a benefactor such that individual spirits present within the confines of their physiology may be set free by its adherence and would then be confronted by the benefactor were there one or simply to have succeed in the final goal to freely prosper in the Everlasting.

what is important is not a written document but the religion the document is expressing and the belief of a messiah can not be a religion as a text would be required for its explanation that is not a natural knowledge given at birth.

 

[zaangalewa]

I guess the greatest problem of atheism is the question "Why is anything here at all?" and "Why follows this, what is here, rules?", "Why and how are we able to quantify things?", "Are we also able to qualify - or existed qualities since ever?", "But why has the universe a beginning and what means "since ever" or "forever"?" or "Why do questions never end, although nothing is endless here?" or ...

 

[Meriweather]

....so all of that means you have no evidence of resurrection/etc
...you ADMIT you have no scientific evidence !!!!!!!!
...there are more people who are non-christians than christians--so if we are going by numbers--YOUR reasoning---resurrection/jesus/etc is false = you are wrong

Catch a clue, Harmonica! I've been on this Board for six years now insisting that religion is not science, it is philosophy. Science requires physical material that can be measured by at least one of the five senses. Philosophy lacks that physical material. Religion and philosophy are outside the jurisdiction of science. This is not rocket science, it is simple information everyone can absorb.

My reasoning is not false. This is not a vote where majority rules any more than it is science. It means about one-third of the world's population have explored Christianity while others have chosen to explore another set of beliefs. Look at it this way: Did Lewis and Clark explore Antarctica, the South Pacific, or outer space? Just because Lewis and Clark neither spoke nor wrote one word about either of these places does not mean their accounts of the American West and Northwest are invalid.

The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles have shaped my life for the better. Every teaching I have been in a place to test has proven true. Just like Lewis and Clark explored one small part of the planet, I have explored one small part of all religious philosophy. I can report the truths about the part I have explored. And, I listen with interest to parts others have explored.

 

[FA_Q2]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

Dark energy is god is a rather nonsensical statement and defines god in a way as to be meaningless. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is garbage as well - it is just a bunch of assertions with no real logic behind it. The idea that a mind is required to create the universe is an assertion - not an argument. I have heard one of its most prolific supports (William Lane Craig) construct that argument a hundred times and every time is falls short IMHO.

Finally, god did it is not an explanation. It is a god of the gaps tactic that has been abandoned by every apologetic out there.

 

[james bond]

Religion is not science, it is a set of beliefs. You can not falsify it, e.g., you can't prove there is no God any more than you can prove there is one. Atheism likewise can neither be proven or disproven. I have examined the evidence for the supernatural and find it, in my estimation, lacking. I realize I can't prove it to anyone.

I didn't say it was, but we discuss religion, especially Christianity and creation science vs. Evolution and atheist science. Popper may have been referring to philosophy of science, but we can apply it just as well to the philosophy of religion. If one can't falsify atheism, then it is a bogus set of beliefs. Science is a set of beliefs. Why do you think creation scientists were eliminated from scientific peer reviews? The truth is they were able to falsify their theories and religion while the evolutionists could not.

Why don't you admit that there is no falsification for atheism? It means there is no truth that would make it false. Thus, it can't be demonstrated to be true. We haven't really narrowed down what would falsify ToE or abiogenesis either? I would go with Karl Popper and toss atheism out as a false belief from what you claim.

 

[james bond]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Genesis fable is an accurate rendition of the universe's beginning. The Biblical timeline for that is an absurdity.

There is no evidence that your gods created the electromagnetic spectrum. To suggest that the Genesis fable ''explains in detail'' anything about the universe is an absurdity.

You're just avoiding the topic. Again, I just provided the evidence and the falsification of Christianity. Also, I pointed out one can falsify creation science by showing a contradiction in the Book of Genesis.

Thus, there is no falsification for atheist science or ToE according to you and that would make it bogus under Philosophy of Science.

Yes, there is. It is in the Book of Genesis as well as the graph on the 7 days of creation I have posted many times.

It's pointless arguing with you because you don't have a valid science if you can't point out what would falsify it? You don't have a valid religion either. You just don't understand the topic, so you should not participate. Good bye.

 

[james bond]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

Dark energy is god is a rather nonsensical statement and defines god in a way as to be meaningless. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is garbage as well - it is just a bunch of assertions with no real logic behind it. The idea that a mind is required to create the universe is an assertion - not an argument. I have heard one of its most prolific supports (William Lane Craig) construct that argument a hundred times and every time is falls short IMHO.

Finally, god did it is not an explanation. It is a god of the gaps tactic that has been abandoned by every apologetic out there.

Dark energy does not exist. Where is its falsification? How can your opponent find something to show your theory is wrong? There isn't a falsification for it. OTOH, I can falsify the Christian God by someone finding a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. It states God stretches out the heavens like a tent. Why don't you just admit that the creation scientists have a valid theory while the atheist scientists do not?

 

[james bond]

1. but jesus is not god and was not resurrected
2. again--no need to falsify anything--no one has to --YOU have to prove he was resurrected/etc --and you have not and cannot
3. ''''christianity says''' hahahhahahahahah
they TORTURED people per their policy
said the Earth is the center of the universe
rape children
started wars/pillaged christian cities for $$$$
etc
--and we should listen to christianity ?????!!!!!!

You have no evidence of 1, 2, nor 3. Are you going senile?

hahhahahaha
how do you falsify something that has never been proven--is not real/etc?????!!!!!!!!

It's not to falsify the claim, but one has to provide falsification for their scientific claim or else nothing can be presented to show that it is wrong. Popper said then that it isn't a valid theory or scientific claim. I'm just expanding that to religion as religion is so much like science and the philosophy of science.

For example, if it took a billion years for something to happen, then how can someone falsify that? No one can do an experiment that takes a billion years.

I don't need evidence for something YOU claim

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

 

[james bond]

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid. For example, one can't present dark energy as something that could exist when one cannot have something that would falsify it. Karl Popper is a righteous man.

 

[FA_Q2]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

Dark energy is god is a rather nonsensical statement and defines god in a way as to be meaningless. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is garbage as well - it is just a bunch of assertions with no real logic behind it. The idea that a mind is required to create the universe is an assertion - not an argument. I have heard one of its most prolific supports (William Lane Craig) construct that argument a hundred times and every time is falls short IMHO.

Finally, god did it is not an explanation. It is a god of the gaps tactic that has been abandoned by every apologetic out there.

Dark energy does not exist. Where is its falsification? How can your opponent find something to show your theory is wrong? One can't even falsify it. OTOH, I can falsify the Christian God by someone finding a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. It states God stretches out the heavens like a tent. Why don't you just admit that the creation scientists have a valid theory while the atheist scientists do not?

Dark energy does not exist?

It may or may not exist. We know literally nothing about dark energy whatsoever. It is a placeholder because the current understanding of cosmology does not know what is causing the universe expansion to accelerate considering gravity should be slowing it down.

That is why it is called 'dark.' We do not have a good theory to explain it yet though there are many hypotheses out there.

There are also a TON of contradictions in Genesis:

Genesis : Contradictions

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Not to mention Genesis itself contradicts with what we now know in science such as the order of creation.

And there are a ton of apologists that have come up with clever ways to explain these away. Then you would also have to clarify which bible we are even talking about - Greek? Hebrew? KJV? There are a ton of them.

For the faithful, genesis contradictions are not relevant, there will ALWAYS be a way to turn a phrase to match whatever you need it to because the bible was not written as a technical manual. In the same manner that you can reject virtually everything in Leviticus, accept the differences in the apostle accounts and make revelations seem like it is coming soon you will be able to fit the bible in your version of faith.

If such were not the case there would not be over a thousand denominations that have different interpretations of the bible and all certain their interpretation is correct.

 

[james bond]

Christianity says that if anyone can falsify Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, was buried, and resurrected on the third day, then Christianity would go away. To falsify what the Bible says, one would have to find a contradiction since it's supposed to the word of God and infallible. What is the falsification for Atheism?

If there isn't a way to falsify one's hypothesis or theory in science, then there isn't a way to show that it is valid. It is based on the idea of falsifiabilty in the Philosophy of Science by Karl Popper. Religion is the flip side of science, so I thought it would follow that.

"Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?
Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.
Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!
One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc." This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid."

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

explorable.com

The Falsification for Atheism is when God speaks to your heart ... However you will listen ... And faith is born.
At that point it doesn't matter the religion or process ... And it really doesn't matter if you prove it to someone else.

.

Hm... interesting idea. Let's go through the steps. So, if I show someone who was a former atheist or an atheist confesses that they changed their mind about atheism due to having a religious experience , then that is atheism's falsification.

It seems like a part of a whole or a small subset. It would not invalidate all of atheism, but just for that person or persons.

I'm beginning to think that there is no falsification for atheism short of the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. Atheism isn't a valid belief or religion according to Karl Popper's ideas and philosophy being applied to religion.

 

[james bond]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

Dark energy is god is a rather nonsensical statement and defines god in a way as to be meaningless. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is garbage as well - it is just a bunch of assertions with no real logic behind it. The idea that a mind is required to create the universe is an assertion - not an argument. I have heard one of its most prolific supports (William Lane Craig) construct that argument a hundred times and every time is falls short IMHO.

Finally, god did it is not an explanation. It is a god of the gaps tactic that has been abandoned by every apologetic out there.

Dark energy does not exist. Where is its falsification? How can your opponent find something to show your theory is wrong? One can't even falsify it. OTOH, I can falsify the Christian God by someone finding a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. It states God stretches out the heavens like a tent. Why don't you just admit that the creation scientists have a valid theory while the atheist scientists do not?

Dark energy does not exist?

It may or may not exist. We know literally nothing about dark energy whatsoever. It is a placeholder because the current understanding of cosmology does not know what is causing the universe expansion to accelerate considering gravity should be slowing it down.

That is why it is called 'dark.' We do not have a good theory to explain it yet though there are many hypotheses out there.

There are also a TON of contradictions in Genesis:

Genesis : Contradictions

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Not to mention Genesis itself contradicts with what we now know in science such as the order of creation.

And there are a ton of apologists that have come up with clever ways to explain these away. Then you would also have to clarify which bible we are even talking about - Greek? Hebrew? KJV? There are a ton of them.

For the faithful, genesis contradictions are not relevant, there will ALWAYS be a way to turn a phrase to match whatever you need it to because the bible was not written as a technical manual. In the same manner that you can reject virtually everything in Leviticus, accept the differences in the apostle accounts and make revelations seem like it is coming soon you will be able to fit the bible in your version of faith.

If such were not the case there would not be over a thousand denominations that have different interpretations of the bible and all certain their interpretation is correct.

Last point first. If the contradictions are not really contradictions, i.e. the creationists can present an argument against them, then it was not falsified. Yet, there is still a way for their opponents to falsify their theory.

However, we just found that dark energy does not exist since there isn't anything to show that it is false. I said that it is God stretching the heavens and presented the evidence in the Book of Genesis. Now, that isn't a falsification because there is no falsification for dark energy. Presenting a falsification would eliminate the may or may not exist types of hypothesis which we can avoid wasting time on. Thus, I just showed that we can eliminate dark energy.

 

[BreezeWood]

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid. For example, one can't present dark energy as something that could exist when one cannot have something that would falsify it. Karl Popper is a righteous man.

.

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid.

.
are you lost.

something in your equilibrium has come unglued ... you read to many stories.

 

[BlackSand]

Hm... interesting idea. Let's go through the steps. So, if I show someone who was a former atheist or an atheist confesses that they changed their mind about atheism due to having a religious experience , then that is atheism's falsification.

It seems like a part of a whole or a small subset. It would not invalidate all of atheism, but just for that person or persons.

I'm beginning to think that there is no falsification for atheism short of the second coming of Jesus and the end of the world. Atheism isn't a valid belief or religion according to Karl Popper's ideas and philosophy being applied to religion.

Hey, thanks for hitting on that, and I am not as good at explaining things as you can be.
I'm talking about something in a broader context, that is harder to describe, but you came really close.

Don't think of it as a religious experience, because I didn't specify any religion, and only God.
I didn't define God, because I would be foolish to attempt to.

God can mean many things to many different people,
but He (for the lack of a better expression and with respect for others) can speak to anyone, in whatever manner they will listen.

It doesn't take a burning bush, a second coming, or whatever qualifiers anyone may want to add.
Those things are added by man and not God, however, they may assist the process just through exposure.

He speaks (figuratively) ... If you hear, Faith is born ... And from that point, you know and the question no longer exists.

The difficulty (I believe) is that one person has the misconception that anyone else has to have the exact same experience.
It is an internal process, and not measured on a scale of anything except that person's relationship with God.

It works as a Falsification, because at that point the person knows ... And Faith doesn't have anything to do with proof.

.

 

[Hollie]

To falsify atheism you would have to prove there is a god - any god.

Atheism is simply the non belief in god. it is not a declaration. Rather it is the null hypothesis. You do not falsify the lack of an assertion.

For those that turn it into an assertion, there is no god rather than there is not enough evidence for god, that would be an assertion you could falsify but atheism in itself does not mean an assertion has been made.

We can't show God because he is spirit, but he has done things such that no other physical force could do. We have the accelerated expansion of the universe explained by secular science as dark energy. Dark energy is God. Moreover, what existed before the Big Bang is explained by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Third, there is the Book of Genesis which explains step-by-step in detail what God did. We find that science fills in the blanks and backs up what happened quite well. For example, I asked where all the energy in our universe came from at the time of the Big Bang? It's explained in Genesis that God created light or the electromagnetic spectrum which provides all the energy in the universe. No other explanation has been presented to explain in detail the above.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Genesis fable is an accurate rendition of the universe's beginning. The Biblical timeline for that is an absurdity.

There is no evidence that your gods created the electromagnetic spectrum. To suggest that the Genesis fable ''explains in detail'' anything about the universe is an absurdity.

You're just avoiding the topic. Again, I just provided the evidence and the falsification of Christianity. Also, I pointed out one can falsify creation science by showing a contradiction in the Book of Genesis.

Thus, there is no falsification for atheist science or ToE according to you and that would make it bogus under Philosophy of Science.

Yes, there is. It is in the Book of Genesis as well as the graph on the 7 days of creation I have posted many times.

It's pointless arguing with you because you don't have a valid science if you can't point out what would falsify it? You don't have a valid religion either. You just don't understand the topic, so you should not participate. Good bye.

I see part of the problem you’re having. Not enabled by a science vocabulary, you don’t understand the term “ falsification”.

Karl Popper: Falsification Theory

Karl Popper's theory of falsification contends that scientific inquiry should aim not to verify hypotheses but to rigorously test and identify conditions under which they are false.

www.simplypsychology.org

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and proven false.

ID’iot creationists do not base their arguments on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution as untrue, let’s pose two questions for ID’iot creationists, the answers to which will determine if what they are involved in is science.
1) What would falsify creationisms hypotheses?
The answer, of course is nothing. A way to falsify ID’iot creationism would be to disprove one or more gods. How does anyone disprove supernatural gods.

2) Is there any chance that you could be wrong, and that Genesis is false?
And here the answer is a resounding NO.

How does anyone disprove ancient tales and fables that appeal to magic and supernaturalism?

Until the the ID’iot creationers admit the potential of falsification (and list the circumstances which would falsify creationism), and admit the possibility of error and incorrectness in creationism, it can not be considered science.

On the other hand, one way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago should be a simple matter for the creationers to perform, but cannot.

iD’iot creationers lead their claims to magic and supernaturalism with the bible, not observations and supporting data. They offer no testable theories, make no predictions, and have no evidence for any of their claims. They state quite plainly that no observations, no scientific facts, could ever contradict the bible. Having no data, theories or evidence to furnish, they instead set about attacking evolutionary biology at every opportunity, using erroneous data, errors, heresay, out of context “quotes’’, misdirection, out of date information, and Bible stories in place of facts.

 

[BlackSand]

I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer and that your rear end will be on fire in the Lake of Fire after you are gone. Why should I care? You could not present a falsification for atheism. Thus, it is a bogus religion and claim.

The biggest victory is you could not falsify creation science nor Christianity when there are falsifications for it.

Would you be surprised when you arrived at wherever God wants you ... If you found out Christianity, and all the other religions, were just tools adapted by God in order to try and speak to everyone in whatever way they would listen?

If so ... Tell me why you think the Christian God couldn't do it if he wanted to ...

.

 

[james bond]

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid. For example, one can't present dark energy as something that could exist when one cannot have something that would falsify it. Karl Popper is a righteous man.

.

I think one presenting a falsification for their ideas, hypotheses, and claims makes it that much more valid.

.
are you lost.

something in your equilibrium has come unglued ... you read to many stories.

Karl Popper explained in under Philosophy of Science. I didn't really get a falsification for ToE except from JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins with their Precambrian Rabbit and Precambrian Hippo. Even if I accept that, there isn't one for abiogenesis so it's not a valid theory. Not finding a microbe in our solar system should have been a falsification, but you want to claim long time. Can we say long time cannot be falsified? ToE, at least gives a time frame or a way to expand the falsification.

As for atheism and this thread, there isn't one. Someone has to show a God exists which I have with KCA and the Book of Genesis in the Bible. If that cannot falsify atheism, then atheism isn't a valid statement that I do not believe God or gods exist applying Karl Popper's ideas to the Philosophy of Religion.