Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
who the hell does God think He is?
#51

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 10:54 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 10:37 PM)Cavebear Wrote: And if keeps his postings high
Surely he will find the Promised Land.
By virtue of his work and toil
To be an influence and not a troll.

And he's trying to post him a stairway to heaven..."


Did I do good?  

Yes.

Trolls for Christ!   hobo

10 Q
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#52

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 09:23 PM)Drich Wrote:
Quote:If we abandon the concept of testability of claims, We have empty mystery mongering, argument by empty assertion, or the problem of revelation.  How do you demonstrate revelation is even possible, much less which revelation to take seriously?
He stupid that is not what falsifiability is used for!!! Falsifiability is used to determine if something is considered to be a scientific theory or not whether something qualifies as being able to run through the scientific method. WE DO NOT NEED FALSFIABLITY TO TELL US THIS!!! God is not observable in a controlled way, therfore is disqualified as being a scientific theory. 


Even so there is a intellectual discipline what allows for the RULES GOD has put into place to VETT/VERIFY Himself and His word.

Do you understand?!?! How you use the word falsifiability is being accomplished in theology through it's disciplines of hermeneutics and exegesis!! So what you are calling for is being done!!! But that is not to say you are using the word wrong. the way the word falsification is supposed to be used is to not identify fallibility, but to determine if a promise is scientifically sound/compatible with the scientific theory.

you are using the word the wrong way.

Falsifiability actually has nothing to do with science.  It was something that came out of the analytical philosophy movement in regards to metaphysics.  It was popularized in the scientific sense by Karl Popper.  But it is in fact held as not really what science is about by many working scientists.  Working scientists actually generally have a low opinion of metaphysics trying to explain science to them.  Popper for example, denied evolution was a true science until hordes of evolutionary scientists set his straight and he back tracked on that.  So much for metaphysical airy-fairy nonsense.  Falsifiabilty as such remains a somewhat curious relic born in logical positivism.

And in statistics.  If a given statistical analysis of a set of facts or observations fails to establish beyond a certain well defined threshold, it has essentially been established as false.  AKA the null hypothesis.  Falsification in statistics.

In science, a hypothesis needs to be tested.  A hypothesis that can neither be falsified, or demonstrated true, proven, is not considered usually to be as good as a hypothesis that can be tested and demonstrated to be true or false.  Or been tested and proven true so many times in so many ways, not competent scientist would deny that theory. While gravity remains a problem when considering squaring relativity and quantum physics, it is demonstrable despite that problem.  The nature of fairy dust and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are beyond proof.  String theory is derived from scientific foundations even if it is not considered yet a fruitful hypothesis, but that failure to establish string theory as proven and fruitful does not give as the right to demand we can rightfully invoke a God of the gaps here.

There is no reason to set God and God's nature apart as not needing evidence for claims made about God, sound foundations for belief in God that can be tested.  or being tested by logically taking these claims to their logical conclusions, see how badly such claims cohere into a meaningful whole.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#53

who the hell does God think He is?
@Drich: My diagnosis: An unhealthy preoccupation with Jesus. 

Best cure: 

Repeat : "Who gives a flying fuck?" until the urge to shitpost these idiotic videos on an atheist forum goes away. 

The cure will be evident when you realize these are best posted on a Christian forum where people give a shit about your interdenominational trifles.

You can pay me in coin, fresh eggs, homemade jelly or a few pints at the pub!
Trump is so convinced that everything is about him he has convinced his followers that everything is about him.
The following 1 user Likes Chimp3's post:
  • Finite Monkeys
Reply
#54

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 11:30 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:23 PM)Drich Wrote:
Quote:If we abandon the concept of testability of claims, We have empty mystery mongering, argument by empty assertion, or the problem of revelation.  How do you demonstrate revelation is even possible, much less which revelation to take seriously?
He stupid that is not what falsifiability is used for!!! Falsifiability is used to determine if something is considered to be a scientific theory or not whether something qualifies as being able to run through the scientific method. WE DO NOT NEED FALSFIABLITY TO TELL US THIS!!! God is not observable in a controlled way, therfore is disqualified as being a scientific theory. 


Even so there is a intellectual discipline what allows for the RULES GOD has put into place to VETT/VERIFY Himself and His word.

Do you understand?!?! How you use the word falsifiability is being accomplished in theology through it's disciplines of hermeneutics and exegesis!! So what you are calling for is being done!!! But that is not to say you are using the word wrong. the way the word falsification is supposed to be used is to not identify fallibility, but to determine if a promise is scientifically sound/compatible with the scientific theory.

you are using the word the wrong way.

Falsifiability actually has nothing to do with science.  It was something that came out of the analytical philosophy movement in regards to metaphysics.  It was popularized in the scientific sense by Karl Popper.  But it is in fact held as not really what science is about by many working scientists.  Working scientists actually generally have a low opinion of metaphysics trying to explain science to them.  Popper for example, denied evolution was a true science until hordes of evolutionary scientists set his straight and he back tracked on that.  So much for metaphysical airy-fairy nonsense.  Falsifiabilty as such remains a somewhat curious relic born in logical positivism.

Falsifiability is the basis of science. I don't use the word "stupid" often, but I will here.
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply
#55

who the hell does God think He is?
For science, the better term is verifyability. Testability. Falsifiability is only half the process. Einstein once said "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong". But when a theory has been tested over many years and stood up to all tests, it is essentially proven. There comes a point that thinking that a single experiment is coming is probably not a really correct idea, when said theory has not only withstood testing, but has been successfully used in real world situations and proven vital and useful.

And as far as theology goes, the self contradictory and incoherent claims of theology create demonstrations that much of what passes today as theology has in fact been falsified, if you want to use that as a demarcation.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V, Dancefortwo, Astreja
Reply
#56

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 08:40 PM)Drich Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 07:53 PM)brewerb Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 05:49 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: If you are going to post these links here, it is only polite to give readers, (If any) an outline as to what it is all about, and the point your little video is supposed to make.  Just plopping down a link like this is considered a bit rude, or even as spamming.  Just a suggestion.

Needs more cowbell and cute kittens.

He's doing it to bump up his view counts. Does this count a christian manipulation?
Smile Big Grin ROFL2 Big_Grin Chuckle Lol2 LaughAt Rofl2 WHAT VIEW COUNTS?!?!?!?
Maybe you don't see them but maybe 80 people on a HOT topic might see one. more like 50 on average watches a video. If you guys watch my videos 1000 times EACH it would mean nothing to you tube or monetization of any kind!
 you still have to have a min of 1000 subscribers. i have 6 AND 4000+ hours of viewed content every year. ive got 1500 view over 6 years with the average video of 5 mins. Which means I have about 9000 mins total which is 150 hours over 6 years and that averages to 25 hours per year. in truth one video is only 2.5 mins long and it is work related it has almost 1000 views it self which bring my average way way down more like 3 hours per year if you take out this video.

Again 1000 subscribers I have 4
4000 hours of content = 1000 people watching my 6 videos 2500 times before i am qualified to make my first dollar with youtube.

Clearly This is not about youtube points.

it's about effective communicating a message/point in a way that is somewhat pleasing/entertaining without taking away from subject matter. You b-holes bitch about spelling and grammar. this is what happens when I take that away. now the inferiority complexes come out. Which is why I still leave mistakes in the audio and video.

which is why a critique of the video and production value is also apart of each thread. To allow you to find genuine fault in something. not to mention the fact I actually listen and put your suggestions to work. the intro the outtro the music this new format all suggestions by people on this web site.

My sponsor is my wife... she does my job and hers so I can do this most of the day. I have like one or two major responsibilities. cuss out customers when they blow through all of the other 'customer service people' and buy and sell at the auction which i do on my phone every 3 or 4 hours day night weekends etc.

I do that and still collect a full paycheck. that is the only way i gets paid.

Youtube is just the hosting site for information i have compiled and want to share. that's it. i do not benefit from that.

My comment was not about money you stupid dolt. It was about the view count and and feeding your batshit christian ego.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#57

who the hell does God think He is?
All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.

A waste of all of our time.
god, ugh
The following 2 users Like julep's post:
  • Dancefortwo, Astreja
Reply
#58

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 11:30 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: ... There is no reason to set God and God's nature apart as not needing evidence ...
There's every need.  Keeping god safe from scientific scrutiny is absolutely vital.  The moment science is able to prove anything definite about a god is the moment that god is chained, no longer available to solve any of a believer's problems without limit, and therefore useless.  A god beyond the reach of science makes no believer's hope too extravagant, no dream too far-fetched, no problem too gnarly.  Nor any demand for aid too trifling, either, like setting cam timing for a jackass too dimwitted and too lazy to do that task guided by the documentation while throughout the whole world entire nations are in deadly turmoil.

A god with so much as a single supernatural molecule observable by genuine science would be less useful than a squashed turd to a believer.
Reply
#59

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 08:32 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 04:16 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
Quote:This video is about the separation of how we tend to think of God and how God defines himself.

We??  Did you forget that this is an atheist forum?

You haven't even provided any falsifiable evidence your god exists.  There is no "We".

What do you mean there's no 'we?' There's drippy and all the voices in drippy's head. That certainly adds up to 'we.' Big Grin

Doh!  Silly me  Facepalm  I totally forgot about that part of his problem.

Meanwhile I'm going to be posting yummy photos of cheese and stuff.   

Imagine if you will,  a crab and cheese cake sandwich.   You don't even have to imagine it because here it is. Ta-daaaa! 


[Image: af8682f4844d368ae12bf696fc7a5806.jpg]
                                                         T4618
Reply
#60

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

EXACTLY!  That's why it's better to look at cheese sandwiches  ^^^^  


Big Grin
                                                         T4618
Reply
#61

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

I doubt that he is getting much bang for his buck.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#62

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 01:46 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

I doubt that he is getting much bang for his buck.

Or maybe he's banging a buck.  


Sorry Min, I just couldn't let that joke go by.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#63

who the hell does God think He is?
[Image: icon_quote.jpg]Finite Monkeys:
You said you were leaving.


drick is like a bad case of Herpes.
Reply
#64

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 10:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: We need to go back to our old routine with spammers like this. 
Stir-fry recipes.

Anyone have any good new stir-fry ?

Alas, my stir-fries tend to be uniformly boring, with egregious quantities of bean sprouts.

Keeping with the cheese theme, though, I made broccoli and cheese soup tonight.
The following 1 user Likes Astreja's post:
  • Bucky Ball
Reply
#65

who the hell does God think He is?
Critique of Drich's latest video droppings:

Audio 1/5: While the technical sound quality has improved over some of his earlier attempts it can do nothing to help Drich's somnambulant monotone mumble and slur its way through the presentation. It's as if one was listening to a drunk CPA recite their grocery list while being anesthetized. @Drich discover the amazing world of inflection and lay off the sauce.

Video 1/5: Nothing to see here folks. The only reason it gets a single point is for being an improvement over the sticky notes. The video has nothing to do with anything that Drich is trying to get across and fails to hold the attention in any way. If the tranq dart that is his voice didn't take you down then watching a radio sit there doing bugger all for five minutes is clearly designed to finish you off.

Content 0/5: The same apologetics nonsense that we've come to expect with the usual non sequiturs and contradictions. Drich doesn't seem to understand that conditional love is, by definition, bounded. Thus "unbounded conditional love" is just painful word salad. I have no idea why he's so impressed wit the whole "Alpha and Omega" schtick but am amused that he thinks that the bronze-age bumpkins who cobbled together the Bible used the Greek alphabet.

Overall: 0/5: Would not abuse myself this way again. Clearly his audience, a whopping 20 views as of this writing, feel the same. This leaves us wondering who Drich is trying to convince. One can only hope that his sponsors feel that they're getting their money's worth.
The following 4 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • brunumb, julep, Unsapien, Astreja
Reply
#66

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 06:22 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: ... One can only hope that his sponsors feel that they're getting their money's worth.

Drich said his wife is his sponsor. So if he's spending all his time posting this nonsense and leaving her alone I suspect she feels she is getting tremendous value for money.
The following 3 users Like Finite Monkeys's post:
  • Dancefortwo, TheGentlemanBastard, Paleophyte
Reply
#67

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 03:03 PM)Finite Monkeys Wrote:
(03-06-2020, 06:22 AM)Paleophyte Wrote: ... One can only hope that his sponsors feel that they're getting their money's worth.

Drich said his wife is his sponsor. So if he's spending all his time posting this nonsense and leaving her alone I suspect she feels she is getting tremendous value for money.

Ta hell with Ditch.  I'm sick to death of his stupid threads. What's more important is your cute avatar cat.  Is this your kitty and if it is what's his/her name?   Cheese is also important.  A cat with cheese is even better. 

[Image: shutterstock_611448422.jpg]
                                                         T4618
The following 4 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Alan V, Astreja, Finite Monkeys, Paleophyte
Reply
#68

who the hell does God think He is?
Any YouTube clips from Drich should be considered proselytising.    The bloke is an arsewipe.    End of story.


[Image: tenor.gif?itemid=15460696]
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 6 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Finite Monkeys, Dancefortwo, Gawdzilla Sama, Deesse23, Gwaithmir, Paleophyte
Reply
#69

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 03:29 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Ta hell with Ditch.  I'm sick to death of his stupid threads. What's more important is your cute avatar cat.  Is this your kitty and if it is what's his/her name?   Cheese is also important.  A cat with cheese is even better. 

That's Algernon aka Algy. He's eleven years old now and 6.5kg of "pure muscle". Not sure if he likes cheese but he's a big fan of meaty treats and tummy rubs. His purr seems to be getting louder as he gets older.

We're 100% with you re Drich and his BS threads.
The following 2 users Like Finite Monkeys's post:
  • Dancefortwo, Gwaithmir
Reply
#70

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

I had a fiendish idea last night -- to do a video on watching paint dry to see if it would get more hits than Drich's video.

(Of course, I'd have all kind of campy side effects in there, along with dramatic orchestra hits and a Gary-Owens-soundalike intoning "Action!  AdVENture!")
The following 2 users Like Astreja's post:
  • julep, Dancefortwo
Reply
#71

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 04:13 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

I had a fiendish idea last night -- to do a video on watching paint dry to see if it would get more hits than Drich's video.

(Of course, I'd have all kind of campy side effects in there, along with dramatic orchestra hits and a Gary-Owens-soundalike intoning "Action!  AdVENture!")

Norway has something called "slow TV".  I shows people knitting or an 8 hour train ride or other boring stuff. It's amazingly popular.  The bordom of it calms people down.  I like it.    The Scottish put together a similar idea and filmed cows in a field on a misty morning just doing cow stuff.   It's much more interesting than Ditches video.

                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Finite Monkeys, Bucky Ball, Astreja, brunumb, Paleophyte
Reply
#72

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-06-2020, 04:34 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(03-06-2020, 04:13 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(03-06-2020, 12:58 AM)julep Wrote: All protests to the contrary, this is just trying to get views for his YouTube channel.  

Pathetic.  

A waste of all of our time.

I had a fiendish idea last night -- to do a video on watching paint dry to see if it would get more hits than Drich's video.

(Of course, I'd have all kind of campy side effects in there, along with dramatic orchestra hits and a Gary-Owens-soundalike intoning "Action!  AdVENture!")

Norway has something called "slow TV".  I shows people knitting or an 8 hour train ride or other boring stuff. It's amazingly popular.  The bordom of it calms people down.  I like it.    The Scottish put together a similar idea and filmed cows in a field on a misty morning just doing cow stuff.   It's much more interesting than Ditches video.


There are actually a number of real time cameras streaming video from trains around the world that I watch now and again, I love watching when they pass through small towns and things.
_____________________________________________________

A friend in the hole

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard

The following 1 user Likes Unsapien's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#73

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 09:56 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:46 PM)Drich Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:08 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Watch your videos?  Dream on.  I would have to bound to a chair.  And even THEN, I would be laughing my ass off.  You think a lot more highly of yourself than ANYONE else in your universe does.

You aren't a demon to me.  You aren't a problem to me.  You aren't even a nebish.  You are the ant I crush on the floor; an amusement.
Boohoo

Can you play 'Stairway To Heaven' on that emoji?  Just curious...

Sun
Reply
#74

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 10:26 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: Sighhhhhhh.....  A Gish gallup supreme.  Yeah, science is not necessarily a good way to look at music, art, poetry et al.  Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has lasted for centuries and will last centuries more.  The song "Oogy Boogy Boogy" is best forgotten as soon as possible.

But when it comes to the existence and nature of God, that is not like art, music or poetry.  It is about the factual existence and nature or lack there of of a being that is all too often the excuse for existence of bad religions and anti-intellectualism.
By the very definition of God it is not. God is the exact opposite of any observable part of creation which is my point exactly! Why take a intellectual discipline designed to only catalog what can be physically observed and tactically experimented with, and try and force it to apply to something that can not be observed nor held.

Especially when There are disciplines centered around God and his verification.

Science is a head in the sand way of looking for something that will never be found in the sand. it is intentional failure. Because if God can be experimented on by science, then science proves it not to be God.

Quote:It is not about mere exegesis of old books, and the intricacies of Koine Greek, or ancient Hebrew.  It is about basic claims of theology, and rational thinking about such claims.  Which in the end, basically fail.
only for 4% of the world's total population. all of which again prefer to look for God where He said He will never be found.
Quote:  Perfect being theology simply is false.
how can you possibly say that when you do not even know the principles involved? you don't even know enough about theology to properly dismiss it.

Quote:  All that can be done here when the atheist critiques these claims using simple logic is to abandon logic, appeal to special pleading or refusal to deal with the atheist criticisms.
speaking in typical stereotypes attached to not one example of any of the charges... this is just a list atheist charge believers with., I'm asking for proof Im asking for a citation of special pleading Show me your simple logic and where it fails... you can't. because again just baseless accusations that are typically brought up when even one of you trys to shoe horn theological matters into the discipline of science.

how stupid is it to try and use grammar to sort out evolutionary theory? What ever you have to say will no doubt be well said, but factually wrong.. So again why use science to sort out a theological matter why use a disipline of observation on something that can not be observed?
Reply
#75

who the hell does God think He is?
(03-05-2020, 11:30 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:
(03-05-2020, 09:23 PM)Drich Wrote:
Quote:If we abandon the concept of testability of claims, We have empty mystery mongering, argument by empty assertion, or the problem of revelation.  How do you demonstrate revelation is even possible, much less which revelation to take seriously?
He stupid that is not what falsifiability is used for!!! Falsifiability is used to determine if something is considered to be a scientific theory or not whether something qualifies as being able to run through the scientific method. WE DO NOT NEED FALSFIABLITY TO TELL US THIS!!! God is not observable in a controlled way, therfore is disqualified as being a scientific theory. 


Even so there is a intellectual discipline what allows for the RULES GOD has put into place to VETT/VERIFY Himself and His word.

Do you understand?!?! How you use the word falsifiability is being accomplished in theology through it's disciplines of hermeneutics and exegesis!! So what you are calling for is being done!!! But that is not to say you are using the word wrong. the way the word falsification is supposed to be used is to not identify fallibility, but to determine if a promise is scientifically sound/compatible with the scientific theory.

you are using the word the wrong way.

Falsifiability actually has nothing to do with science.  It was something that came out of the analytical philosophy movement in regards to metaphysics.  It was popularized in the scientific sense by Karl Popper.  But it is in fact held as not really what science is about by many working scientists.  Working scientists actually generally have a low opinion of metaphysics trying to explain science to them.  Popper for example, denied evolution was a true science until hordes of evolutionary scientists set his straight and he back tracked on that.  So much for metaphysical airy-fairy nonsense.  Falsifiabilty as such remains a somewhat curious relic born in logical positivism.

And in statistics.  If a given statistical analysis of a set of facts or observations fails to establish beyond a certain well defined threshold, it has essentially been established as false.  AKA the null hypothesis.  Falsification in statistics.

In science, a hypothesis needs to be tested.  A hypothesis that can neither be falsified, or demonstrated true, proven, is not considered usually to be as good as a hypothesis that can be tested and demonstrated to be true or false.  Or been tested and proven true so many times in so many ways, not competent scientist would deny that theory. While gravity remains a problem when considering squaring relativity and quantum physics, it is demonstrable despite that problem.  The nature of fairy dust and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are beyond proof.  String theory is derived from scientific foundations even if it is not considered yet a fruitful hypothesis, but that failure to establish string theory as proven and fruitful does not give as the right to demand we can rightfully invoke a God of the gaps here.

There is no reason to set God and God's nature apart as not needing evidence for claims made about God, sound foundations for belief in God that can be tested.  or being tested by logically taking these claims to their logical conclusions, see how badly such claims cohere into a meaningful whole.

how does it feel to argue cited quoted facts from actual reference material that contradict you on a given subject?
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.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

It was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), as an answer to both the Problem of Induction and the Demarcation Problem. He saw falsifiability as the cornerstone of critical rationalism, his theory of science.[1]

As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science, it has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability is the ability of a theory — a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena — to have its falsity demonstrated by overwhelming evidence through experiments or observations.[2] The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific. Put simply, if a theory cannot be falsified, there is no point in even examining the evidence.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Wow.. I got three verifiable points of reference all quoted in saying falsifiability is a key component in vetting a theory's scientific validity! IE falsifiability is the key test to check to see if a theory is scientific or not. which is the opposite of what you said... but again I have backed up my work with three points of reference actual quotes.. wonder who is right..
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)