Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

shunyadragon · Sep 29, 2020

leroy said:
Yes but the term falsifiable is not restricted to “hypothesis”

Yes it is, even in the context you refer to it. If you believe this please cite your source. I asked this before and no response.

Still waiting . . .

So the statement (not hypothesis) all Aliens are Green is falsifiable, all you need to do is find a blue Alien……..any disagreement?

As worded no. First you have to discover a green alien.

The discovery of a blue Alien would falsify the claim that all Aliens are Green…………….agree?

No, first we must discovery of a green alien, which would be evidence for the existence green aliens. Than and only than can you propose a hypothesis for the existence of blue aliens. If no aliens are found there is no possible hypothesis.

leroy · Sep 29, 2020

joelr said:
Self assembling rotaxanes, self assembly and replication in peptide/nucleobase and amino acid stacks into a complex nucleobase, there are chemicals plus peptide chains that through exposure to atmospheric effects begin self replication.

I am defining life as any viable self-replicating organic thing, so a self-replicating peptide would be life under this definition……if you can provide a natural mechanism that can produce a self replicating peptide (without using preexisting life) my argument would fail

Yeah. Everything science already knows with the obvious exception that here is still a gap

Is there any potential evidence for ID that couldn’t be dismissed by “it´s just a Gap in our knowledge”?

Also evolution in reverse goes back to single celled organisms with no nuclei. So nature can go from that to complex life but it can't take self replicating chemicals, organic compounds and other chemicals/energy/entropy and create simple self replicating energy using blobs?

Sure if you have reproduction and natural selection you can go from simple to complex , but in a prebiotic world you can’t have reproduction + natural selection (using my definition of life)

We also know the universe is probabilistic. Any possible outcome can happen with enough time.

Well Aliens creating life in some planets is certainly a possibility right? So by your logic this has to happen everyonce in a while……….why not in our planet…………..and unless you argue that God is impossible then God creating life would also be a possibility.

So of all these possibilities why “nature” is the best?

Then, how do you know premise 1? The universe and all the laws could be SC which may have arose naturally. SO SC should pop up in the universe at times.

Because every single observation that has been made confirms that SC can only come from a mind + the fact that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise……..(I am just using inductive reasoning) why isent this good enough to consider premise 1 as probably* true ?

The whole thing seems pointless. What if the entire process is discovered? What happens is nothing. Religious folks just shrug and go "oh ok, so God created the universe and life arose eventually. God knew that would happen anyway. Wow, God is so great. This proves the glory of God!"

Then my argument would fail and I would have to find another argument for ID.............if I cant find an argument then i woudl simply drop it.

leroy · Sep 29, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Yes it is, even in the context you refer to it. If you believe this please cite your source. I asked this before and no response.

Still waiting . . .

I quoted your own source

In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence. For example, the statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable because one can observe that black swans exist.[A]

In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted

(reed the red letters)

So your own source is not restricting “falsifiable” to just hypothesis are you going to admit your mistake?

I agree you can’t have a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence because hypothesis by definition requires evidence, but you can make a falsifiable statement without evidence……………agree?

No, first we must discovery of a green alien, which would be evidence for the existence green aliens. Than and only than can you propose a hypothesis for the existence of blue aliens. If no aliens are found there is no possible hypothesis.

Again the discovery of a blue Alien would prove that not All aliens are green…..agree?

shunyadragon · Sep 29, 2020

leroy said:
I quoted your own source

(reed the red letters)

So your own source is not restricting “falsifiable” to just hypothesis are you going to admit your mistake?

I agree you can’t have a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence because hypothesis by definition requires evidence, but you can make a falsifiable statement without evidence……………agree?

Again the discovery of a blue Alien would prove that not All aliens are green…..agree?

Incomplete dishonest and unethical citation from my source. Please reference the complete citation, and no need to red letter it. Cite the whole definition reference and then we can move forward.

No, you cannot propose a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence as per the complete definition as cited.

gnostic · Sep 29, 2020

leroy said:
Not really, you can have lots of evidence for something but it could still be unfalsifiable, for example the claim “there is dark matter somewhere in the universe” is unfalsifiable (unless you look at every single particle in the universe)

You really got this backward. If you have one OR MANY MORE EVIDENCE than you have falsifiable evidence, regardless whether the evidence are FOR or AGAINST the model.

The first 2 scenarios indicate that a model is FALSIFIABLE and TESTABLE....and TESTED!!!

A FALSIFIABLE model doesn’t mean is true or false model, it just mean the model is “testable” and “refutable”.

But if you already have EVIDENCE FOR model or EVIDENCE AGAINST the model, then by definition the model that is both FALSIFIABLE and TESTED.

That’s what falsifiable mean in science - any or many evidence - the proposed models are falsifiable.

leroy said:
for example the claim “there is dark matter somewhere in the universe” is unfalsifiable (unless you look at every single particle in the universe)

This is wrong too. And this last part is a horrible example.

You don’t need to find “every single particle in the universe”. Where you get this absurd ideas from?

Look, leroy. If you remember the white swans example that shunyadragon provided.

If you see a number of swans that are white in a park, then claimed all swans are white. But then find some more white swans plus some black swans in another park on the other side of town.

Then the statement is definitely wrong because black swans do exist too, but you would only need one swan, regardless of the color, to confirm that claim is falsifiable and yet the rationality to be wrong.

AND I don’t need to count every single swans on Earth to determine whether the claim is falsifiable or not. That wouldn’t be practical to find every single swan on Earth.

The problem isn’t about the falsifiability of the claim, but the making of SWEEPING RATIONALITY that “all swans are white” that’s wrong.

It is only when you claim that there are “no swans exist”, when there are swans that you can actually see, then the rationality of the claim is not only wrong, it is also unfalsifiable.

leroy said:
The claim all aliens are green has zero evidence but it is still falsifiable, (just find a blue alien)

Wow!

You really are incapable of learning and incapable of learning from your mistakes.

Since to date, no aliens have been actually observed, then making any positive statement about aliens’ colors (eg green, blue) is unfalsifiable, and the rationality is speculative at best.

Until you can confirm that aliens exist, any statement made are considered purely speculative and unfalsifiable.

It is the same with Designer and gods. All of them ID, YEC and OEC are all unfalsifiable concepts, until you can observe, measure and test gods or Designer.

You really are confusing what is falsifiable and what unfalsifiable. You are incapable of learning what falsifiability, and you are refusing to admit that you have made some mistakes. You just making of the same errors, over and over again, accumulating and compounding your errors. It is just painfully staggering to watch this happen.

I really don’t know how to help you, when you are letting your ego and ignorance prevent you from understanding where you have made serious errors with your claims.

I really don’t know what else to do.

leroy · Sep 29, 2020

shunyadragon said:
No, you cannot propose a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence as per the complete definition as cited.

Which is a strawman...... I never said that you csn propose a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence

Are you going to admit your mistake and apologize?

leroy · Sep 29, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Incomplete dishonest and unethical citation from my source. Please reference the complete citation, and no need to red letter it. Cite the whole definition reference and then we can move forward.

d.

Ok i "corrected" my previous comment, i quoted the whole citation

Then what? Are you going to admit that "falsifiable "according toyour source is not restricted to just hypothesis?

shunyadragon · Sep 29, 2020

leroy said:
Ok i "corrected" my previous comment, i quoted the whole citation

Then what? Are you going to admit that "falsifiable "according to your source is not restricted to just hypothesis?

No

shunyadragon · Sep 29, 2020

leroy said:
Which is a strawman...... I never said that you csn propose a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence

Are you going to admit your mistake and apologize?

No.

leroy said:
A claim can have ZERO evidence and be falsifiable…………or you can have lots of evidence for an unfalsifiable claim or you can have both (evidence and falsifiable) or you can have none……
Having evidence and being falsifiable are both important but they are not the same thing as you seem to believe…

leroy said:
I agree you can’t have a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence because hypothesis by definition requires evidence, but you can make a falsifiable statement without evidence……………agree?

. . . and many more. Are you going to retract and apologize.

leroy said:
Yes but the term falsifiable is not restricted to “hypothesis”

Still waiting for reference that uses falsification in a different way than Methodological Naturalism uses in terms of falsification of hypothesis and theories.

joelr · Sep 30, 2020

leroy said:
I am defining life as any viable self-replicating organic thing, so a self-replicating peptide would be life under this definition……if you can provide a natural mechanism that can produce a self replicating peptide (without using preexisting life) my argument would fail

peptide with amino and nucleobase with amino undergoes oxidation and forms replicating nucleobase stack
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

replicating molecules
Rotaxane raises the bar for self-replicating chemical systems

leroy said:
Is there any potential evidence for ID that couldn’t be dismissed by “it´s just a Gap in our knowledge”?

There was potential evidence for ID in the bronze age because the gap was ridiculous and too much to fathom. Now the gap is small enough that there is no reason to posit a God outside of theological reasons.

leroy said:
Sure if you have reproduction and natural selection you can go from simple to complex , but in a prebiotic world you can’t have reproduction + natural selection (using my definition of life)

You can have replication. There is an article here that discusses how prebiotic RNA could have formed:

Making RNA in the prebiotic world

leroy said:
Well Aliens creating life in some planets is certainly a possibility right? So by your logic this has to happen everyonce in a while……….why not in our planet…………..and unless you argue that God is impossible then God creating life would also be a possibility.

So of all these possibilities why “nature” is the best?

First aliens creating life is a possibility but I didn't say the universe was automatically old enough for all probabilities to have been realized.
Some God creating life might be part of this probability but the probability would likely be far higher.

Nature is by far the best probability because it's already here. The conditions were excellent and the science is closing in on issues of replication. This leaves little room for the theory of aliens.
The theory of God is very low because we have no such thing. It would be more likely that another universe had life which evolved, merged with AI and became god-like and seeded other universes.
Still very unlikely because there is no evidence. A creator that creates life then is absent forever?

leroy said:
Because every single observation that has been made confirms that SC can only come from a mind + the fact that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise……..(I am just using inductive reasoning) why isent this good enough to consider premise 1 as probably* true ?

Nature can be the designer as stated in the constructal law.

Rule 4 of DC - 4 there is not a tendency in the laws of nature for creating such a pattern,
is not proven because life could be in many places. We do not have data yet.

But patterns in life are highly mathematical, recursion, fractal geometry, phi/golden ratio, and these are equally common in nature.

The other rules of SC are things found in many places including the emergent laws of nature.

Then we have the growing science of organic and inorganic chemistry which provides new insights every year which means saying "probably" a God created life is very unrealistic.
Do you really think secular scientists and non-religious people would actually reasonably say "I don't believe in any religion but probably God started life"?
Do you think proper inductive reasoning has escaped ALL scientists and philosophers except those who support ID? No science field backs SC by reason of no one can get the hang of inductive reasoning? Except that these scientists and philosophers are often brilliant in other matters but fail on this one topic?

leroy · Sep 30, 2020

gnostic said:
You really got this backward. If you have one OR MANY MORE EVIDENCE than you have falsifiable evidence, regardless whether the evidence are FOR or AGAINST the model.

The first 2 scenarios indicate that a model is FALSIFIABLE and TESTABLE....and TESTED!!!

A FALSIFIABLE model doesn’t mean is true or false model, it just mean the model is “testable” and “refutable”.

But if you already have EVIDENCE FOR model or EVIDENCE AGAINST the model, then by definition the model that is both FALSIFIABLE and TESTED.

That’s what falsifiable mean in science - any or many evidence - the proposed models are falsifiable.

This is wrong too. And this last part is a horrible example.

You don’t need to find “every single particle in the universe”. Where you get this absurd ideas from?

Look, leroy. If you remember the white swans example that shunyadragon provided.

If you see a number of swans that are white in a park, then claimed all swans are white. But then find some more white swans plus some black swans in another park on the other side of town.

Then the statement is definitely wrong because black swans do exist too, but you would only need one swan, regardless of the color, to confirm that claim is falsifiable and yet the rationality to be wrong.

AND I don’t need to count every single swans on Earth to determine whether the claim is falsifiable or not. That wouldn’t be practical to find every single swan on Earth.

The problem isn’t about the falsifiability of the claim, but the making of SWEEPING RATIONALITY that “all swans are white” that’s wrong.

It is only when you claim that there are “no swans exist”, when there are swans that you can actually see, then the rationality of the claim is not only wrong, it is also unfalsifiable.

Wow!

You really are incapable of learning and incapable of learning from your mistakes.

Since to date, no aliens have been actually observed, then making any positive statement about aliens’ colors (eg green, blue) is unfalsifiable, and the rationality is speculative at best.

Until you can confirm that aliens exist, any statement made are considered purely speculative and unfalsifiable.

It is the same with Designer and gods. All of them ID, YEC and OEC are all unfalsifiable concepts, until you can observe, measure and test gods or Designer.

You really are confusing what is falsifiable and what unfalsifiable. You are incapable of learning what falsifiability, and you are refusing to admit that you have made some mistakes. You just making of the same errors, over and over again, accumulating and compounding your errors. It is just painfully staggering to watch this happen.

I really don’t know how to help you, when you are letting your ego and ignorance prevent you from understanding where you have made serious errors with your claims.

I really don’t know what else to do.

Again the observation of a blue alien would falsify the claim "all aliens are green"..... if this is not what falsifiable means then you most have a unique definition of falsifiable

The claim there is dark matter somewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable

A claim can be speculative and falsifiable, these terms are not mutually exclusive
.....

But all that semantics is irrelevant.

Please let me know what problems you have with premise 1

1 SC can only be caused by a designer

.* the evidence inductive reasoning, all observations indicate that this is true, zero exceptions have been observed abd there is no good reason to propose that there are some exceptions.

The premise is falsifiable, all you have to do is provide an example of SC that was not caused by a designer.

So what else do you whant? What else do you need to accept premise 1?

gnostic · Sep 30, 2020

leroy said:
Again the observation of a blue alien would falsify the claim "all aliens are green"..... if this is not what falsifiable means then you most have a unique definition of falsifiable

The claim there is dark matter somewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable

A claim can be speculative and falsifiable, these terms are not mutually exclusive
.....

But all that semantics is irrelevant.

Please let me know what problems you have with premise 1

1 SC can only be caused by a designer

.* the evidence inductive reasoning, all observations indicate that this is true, zero exceptions have been observed abd there is no good reason to propose that there are some exceptions.

The premise is falsifiable, all you have to do is provide an example of SC that was not caused by a designer.

So what else do you whant? What else do you need to accept premise 1?

Everything you said is wrong and wishful fantasies, and worse laughable because of the ignorance of every statements you have made.

You don’t even know how to reason logically.

You don’t understand the word falsifiable, and you are making up senseless definition and making up even more senseless examples/scenarios.

You reminds me of the UFO cults making up stories about encounters with aliens. Or the Pentecostal cult where believers believe that they are speaking in tongues, but only making senseless noises, while pretending they are experiencing raptures.

leroy · Sep 30, 2020

gnostic said:
Everything you said is wrong and wishful fantasies, and worse laughable because of the ignorance of every statements you have made.

You don’t even know how to reason logically.

You don’t understand the word falsifiable, and you are making up senseless definition and making up even more senseless examples/scenarios.

You reminds me of the UFO cults making up stories about encounters with aliens. Or the Pentecostal cult where believers believe that they are speaking in tongues, but only making senseless noises, while pretending they are experiencing raptures.

Your creativity to avoid interacting with the actual arguments is impressive…………….for sake of this thread I will accept your baseless definition of falsifiable “no evidence means not falsifiable”

I already provided my evidence for premise 1, so using your definition, you can no longer argue that the statement is unfalsifiable, unless you show that the evidence is wrong.

Premise 1 SC can only be caused by a designer

The evidence:

Inductive reasoning, all observations show that SC can only come from a designer, no exceptions have been reported, and there are no good reasons to think that there are some exceptions………..any problems with premise 1?

leroy · Sep 30, 2020

gnostic said:
Everything you said is wrong and wishful fantasies, and worse laughable because of the ignorance of every statements you have made.

You don’t even know how to reason logically.

You don’t understand the word falsifiable, and you are making up senseless definition and making up even more senseless examples/scenarios.

You reminds me of the UFO cults making up stories about encounters with aliens. Or the Pentecostal cult where believers believe that they are speaking in tongues, but only making senseless noises, while pretending they are experiencing raptures.

Its almost like a miracle, I typed in google “examples of falsifiable statements” and this was the first example that I found………(a very similar exampels as my green alien example)

Examples of Falsifiable Statements

No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico.

Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it
PHYS103: Module 006.
.

Note that the author of the source is not saying something as stupid as “nooooooooo first you have to show evidence for spaceships and only then the claim can be falsifiable”………….the statement is falsifiable despite the fact that there is no evidence for Alien spaceships.

I wonder if you and @shunyadragon will admit your mistake

leroy · Sep 30, 2020

gnostic said:
You don’t understand the word falsifiable, and you are making up senseless definition and making up even more senseless examples/scenarios.
.

Well support your assertion, I know that as an atheist you are not used to support your assertions………….but perhaps you can make one exception.

Quote any of my comments and then provide a source that claims the opposite of what I said. That way you will prove that I am wrong and that I dont understand the term falsifiable.

shunyadragon · Sep 30, 2020

leroy said:
Its almost like a miracle, I typed in google “examples of falsifiable statements” and this was the first example that I found………(a very similar exampels as my green alien example)

Note that the author of the source is not saying something as stupid as “nooooooooo first you have to show evidence for spaceships and only then the claim can be falsifiable”………….the statement is falsifiable despite the fact that there is no evidence for Alien spaceships.

I wonder if you and @shunyadragon will admit your mistake

No falsifiable hypothesis proposed in your example, just a statement that if you find aan alien spaceship it can prove space ships exist.

You have to find one alien spaceship first as in you have to find one alien first to make a falsifiable hypothesis. Your examples are bogus. falsification of hypothesis is not based on proof.

You need to apologize, because you have not present a SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION falsifiable that does not require EVIDENCE.

Still waiting . . .

gnostic · Sep 30, 2020

leroy said:
Your creativity to avoid interacting with the actual arguments is impressive…………….for sake of this thread I will accept your baseless definition of falsifiable “no evidence means not falsifiable”

I already provided my evidence for premise 1, so using your definition, you can no longer argue that the statement is unfalsifiable, unless you show that the evidence is wrong.

Premise 1 SC can only be caused by a designer

The evidence:

Inductive reasoning, all observations show that SC can only come from a designer, no exceptions have been reported, and there are no good reasons to think that there are some exceptions………..any problems with premise 1?

You have penchant for making things up.

You have never presented any evidence for SC premise 1, nor any evidence for the Designer.

All you have done is make claim after claim after claim.

Repeating your claims of “premise 1 can only be caused by designer” is just that, unfalsifiable assertion, which have nothing to do with any inductive reasoning of any evidence or observation. It is just more of the same circular reasoning and wishful fantasies that we get from you.

You make claim that you have evidence, but not once you presented any evidence.

leroy said:
Again the observation of a blue alien would falsify the claim "all aliens are green"..... if this is not what falsifiable means then you most have a unique definition of falsifiable

There have been no evidence of aliens...not blue, green, grey, etc.

And no evidence of alien spacecraft.

The whole idea of ufo and aliens visiting earth and being sighted are all conspiracy theories.

If you know anything of the Roswell incident, the original newspaper clipping (Roswell Daily Record) did not report any (alien) body and nothing to suggest that there any machine for space flight.

The witness interviewed William Brazel, did not see anything flying in the air, that he just found debris in the crash on the farm that he worked for. All Brazel told the press that he found were -

“Roswell Daily Record - Harassed Rancher who Located 'Saucer' Sorry He Told About it - July 7 1947” said:
"...large area of bright wreckage made up of rubber strips, tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks."

Nothing in his account brought up about finding bodies of green or blue aliens, and nothing about any flying machine with engine capable of space flight.

Seriously, Leroy, what spaceship would be made of tin foil or rubber?

The US Army have been testing some radars attached to the end of weather balloons, and one of them crashed at the farm that Brazel worked for. Whether the device was a weather radar or secret testing of radar to detect Soviet nuclear testings, we don’t know.

What is clear that UFO conspiracy theory started around 1978, and then novelists and screenwriters got involved inventing sci-fi stories about aliens and alien ships surrounding the Roswell, including the X-Files series during the 1990s and early 2000s.

There are nothing in Brazel’s original account about finding any dead alien body at the crash site. The Roswell alien only began after 1970s.

Why you bring up alien conspiracy theories? Are you really that desperate that you must bring up Sci-Fi stories?

Is that your idea of being falsifiable?

shunyadragon · Sep 30, 2020

leroy said:
Its almost like a miracle, I typed in google “examples of falsifiable statements” and this was the first example that I found………(a very similar exampels as my green alien example)

Note that the author of the source is not saying something as stupid as “nooooooooo first you have to show evidence for spaceships and only then the claim can be falsifiable”………….the statement is falsifiable despite the fact that there is no evidence for Alien spaceships.

I wonder if you and @shunyadragon will admit your mistake

@gnostic is right you like to make things up.

Remember this . . .

leroy said:
Which is a strawman...... I never said that you can propose a falsifiable hypothesis without evidence.

IAMinyou · Oct 1, 2020

questfortruth said:
Living visible matter - animals, plants.
Nonliving visible matter - stones.

Living invisible matter - soul, angels.
Nonliving invisible matter - Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

Objection: "Dark Matter is visible via Gravitational Interaction"

Dark matter is invisible because it does not emit or absorb light. Light passes through the Dark Matter cloud without any difficulty, without losses, without heating the cloud. Mathematical theory: Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

Objection: "stones are alive."

Didn't they explain to us in the preschool class that there is a living matter and non-living matter?

If you can't understand what the illusions are that make up matter, then it makes no difference if you believe in the living or the non-living which all came from the same exact source.

leroy · Oct 1, 2020

gnostic said:
Why you bring up alien conspiracy theories? Are you really that desperate that you must bring up Sci-Fi stories?

Is that your idea of being falsifiable?

I didn't bring any conspiracy theory...... All i said is that the claim..... "there is no spaceship in roswell" is falsifiable

Is that your idea of being falsifiable?

Yes that is what falsifiable means

Just to let you know that in this website you can solve a quiz on the topic from a prestigious university. Questions

I personally got all the answers correct, so atleast acording to the standards of the virginia Commonwealth University i understand the concept of falsifiability.

Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

The Lost One

shunyadragon

Active Member

Well-Known Member