Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[ImmortalFlame]

Your answer is nonsensical. The question was: How can you falsify stone age tools?

That question makes no sense. It was very clear what Shunya meant when they mentioned the falsifiability of stone age tools - they were talking about their tangible, measurable existence and effects. You're dodging their answer by moving the goal posts.

 

[Zosimus]

Because they are equivalent. At least in terms of objective verifiability.

No, they are not. Unless by "Santa Claus" you mean Saint Nicholas, a man who is known to have existed, then you are speaking of a being that theoretically lives with elves at the North Pole and makes toys. It is a simple matter to go to the North Pole to determine whether such a being dwells there.

God, on the other hand, depending on your strain of belief is either a spirit that dwells in the galaxy and is undetectable by physical means or the first son of Mary, born just north of Jerusalem in a town called Bethlehem, who lived approximately 33 years before being publicly executed.

They are completely different from each other.

 

[Zosimus]

False. Atheism and physicalism are not the same thing, nor are they exclusively related.

Do you, therefore, agree that non-physical things exist?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You then say that Stone Age humans found that some stones made better and more functional tools than others. This is speculation. You were not there. The only thing you know is that the artifacts you have found are made of stone. It is entirely possible that other tools were used made of wood or other decomposable material that did not survive the passage of time. This is called survival bias.

Except it isn't, because they're not overlooking the possible existence of those tools, but using historical inference and modern testing to reach educated conclusions about the useage and preference of specific tools in the past. It would only be survivorship bias if Shunya asserted that said tools were the only tools that existed, or were the only ones that were effective. But this is not what they said.

Learn biases properly.

 

[Zosimus]

That question makes no sense. It was very clear what Shunya meant when they mentioned the falsifiability of stone age tools - they were talking about their tangible, measurable existence and effects. You're dodging their answer by moving the goal posts.

I am simply responding to the post as it is presented to me. I do not read minds. I doubt that Stone Age tools can be falsified.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, they are not. Unless by "Santa Claus" you mean Saint Nicholas, a man who is known to have existed, then you are speaking of a being that theoretically lives with elves at the North Pole and makes toys. It is a simple matter to go to the North Pole to determine whether such a being dwells there.

Not unless that being is a magical being, which Santa obviously is. His workshop is undetectable.

God, on the other hand, depending on your strain of belief is either a spirit that dwells in the galaxy and is undetectable by physical means or the first son of Mary, born just north of Jerusalem in a town called Bethlehem, who lived approximately 33 years before being publicly executed.

Or one of countless other possible incarnations, depending on various factors. Either way, you can easily render both undetectable simply by the acknowledgement that both have the common element of "magic" and do not strictly have to adhere to the common laws of the Universe as we understand them.

They are completely different from each other.

Not really.

 

[Zosimus]

That question makes no sense. It was very clear what Shunya meant when they mentioned the falsifiability of stone age tools - they were talking about their tangible, measurable existence and effects. You're dodging their answer by moving the goal posts.

P.S. Shunya is not a they.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am simply responding to the post as it is presented to me. I do not read minds. I doubt that Stone Age tools can be falsified.

It was explained to you how they could be. You dismissed the explanation by asking a more obscure (I would say "nonsensical") question when it was quite clear what was indicated in the original post.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

P.S. Shunya is not a they.

"They" is a singular pronoun that can refer to any single or number of individuals of any or unspecified gender.

 

[Zosimus]

Except it isn't, because they're not overlooking the possible existence of those tools, but using historical inference and modern testing to reach educated conclusions about the useage and preference of specific tools in the past. It would only be survivorship bias if Shunya asserted that said tools were the only tools that existed, or were the only ones that were effective. But this is not what they said.

Learn biases properly.

Again, you have made a bad post. Who are "they"? The only "they" mentioned in my posts were Stone Age humans and Stone Age tools. Which of these two do you think are overlooking the existence of the tools? I doubt that stone age humans overlooked the existence of their own tools. Similarly, I doubt that stone age tools are capable of overlooking or not overlooking anything. Exactly how do Stone Age humans use historical inference and modern testing to reach educated conclusions?

I think you are coming in on a thread that you have little understanding of. The post clearly said that stone aged tools could be falsified. Later, the poster veered into verification. Verifying something doesn't falsify it. Failure to verify something similarly does not falsify it. I doubt that stone age tools can be falsified.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, you have made a bad post. Who are "they"? The only "they" mentioned in my posts were Stone Age humans and Stone Age tools.

Now you're being obtuse. I clearly meant Shunya - the person you referred to as having demonstrated survivorship bias.

Which of these two do you think are overlooking the existence of the tools? I doubt that stone age humans overlooked the existence of their own tools. Similarly, I doubt that stone age tools are capable of overlooking or not overlooking anything. Exactly how do Stone Age humans use historical inference and modern testing to reach educated conclusions?

Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. It's obvious I was referring to Shunya, as that's exactly the person you were referring to, and I was talking about the use of survivorship bias, which you accuse THEM of.

I think you are coming in on a thread that you have little understanding of. The post clearly said that stone aged tools could be falsified. Later, the poster veered into verification. Verifying something doesn't falsify it. Failure to verify something similarly does not falsify it. I doubt that stone age tools can be falsified.

Falsification means the ability to demonstrate that a given proposition is false. Propositions about the effectiveness of specific forms of equipment can be falsified. Ergo, claims of the effectiveness of stone age tools are falsifiable.

Is being obtuse your only weapon in this debate?

 

[Zosimus]

It was explained to you how they could be. You dismissed the explanation by asking a more obscure (I would say "nonsensical") question when it was quite clear what was indicated in the original post.

I disagree. Let's revisit the original post, shall we? It indicated:

>>The effects of a magic talisman cannot be falsified by predictable results over time. Making stone tools by Stone Age humans can.

Why don't you explain to me what you got out of that post as a starting point for our discussion?

 

[Zosimus]

"They" is a singular pronoun that can refer to any single or number of individuals of any or unspecified gender.

1) They is not a single pronoun. It refers to 2+ people or items.
2) The English language does not have gender. Perhaps you meant to say sex?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1) They is not a single pronoun. It refers to 2+ people or items.

False.

they | Definition of they in English by Oxford Dictionaries

2. singular, third person, plural, Used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.

2) The English language does not have gender. Perhaps you meant to say sex?

Nope, gender is correct.

 

[blü 2]

I believe that logic and human reason are superior to appeals to holy books (such as the Bible) or appeals to sensory input (such as scientific experiments).

So you see no need to argue from evidence, then ─ the armchair and a bottle or two of brandy and a humidor of cigars after dinner are all you need.

In that sense, I am a lonely voice here in this wilderness of logical fallacies.

If so, a voice not much given to expressing itself with clarity, and far too fond of evasion.

Should you wish to read my book, as you might refer to it, I recommend reading In Defense of Pure Reason.

The Amazon note says, "This book is concerned with the alleged capacity of the human mind to arrive at beliefs and knowledge about the world on the basis of pure reason without any dependence on sensory experience." Indeed, without sensory input, how can you make any statement about objective reality at all, since you have no knowledge of it? And the book must have been the last thing you read before you put a stop to all that sensory nonsense.

Indeed. The facts speak for themselves. What's the problem?

That you make stuff up.

"God" is the name attributed to the Abrahamic God, a being worshiped by Jews and Christians. For the Christian definition, you need look no further than the Nicene Creed, as I already pointed out.

That doesn't answer my question. What real thing did you intend to denote when you used the word 'God'? Or did you intend only to refer to an imaginary thing?

All right, let's begin with Hempel's Paradox.

No, let's have your answer to my question instead. More particularly the pair of related questions I've just mentioned above.

The Big Bang theory claims that the universe began in a colossal explosion some 14 billion years ago.

You got that information out of a book or otherwise by sensory experience, so you can't use it to reason, otherwise like Peter you deny your nominated savior, in your case Mr Bonjour.

I don't verify things.

Ah, that's right ─ it would require you to have regard to sensory inputs.

The premises you present refute your claim. If we claim that 2+2 = 4 and then put together two apples and two apples and find that there are 4, then we find that math has made a true statement about reality.

You'd better top your brandy balloon up. You're not thinking clearly. Abstractions exist only in brains. The fact that you can use them in reality by extrapolation to concrete examples only means that they cease to be abstractions, so it's not the maths that works in reality.

I do not rely on the Bible. You rely on the Bible.

You're the one who's kept quoting the bible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. Let's revisit the original post, shall we? It indicated:

>>The effects of a magic talisman cannot be falsified by predictable results over time. Making stone tools by Stone Age humans can.

Why don't you explain to me what you got out of that post as a starting point for our discussion?

That the effectiveness, use and existence of stone age tools can be falsified based on predictable results over time.

 

[Zosimus]

Now you're being obtuse. I clearly meant Shunya - the person you referred to as having demonstrated survivorship bias.

Had you meant Shunya, you would have used the correct pronoun "he." I would have even accepted the pronoun "ze." But they cannot refer to one person or item.

Once again, you're being deliberately obtuse. It's obvious I was referring to Shunya, as that's exactly the person you were referring to, and I was talking about the use of survivorship bias, which you accuse THEM of.

You have used the pronoun them without an antecedent. You should learn to post without ambiguity. As I said before, I am not a mind reader. I can only respond to the words in front of me.

Falsification means the ability to demonstrate that a given proposition is false. Propositions about the effectiveness of specific forms of equipment can be falsified. Ergo, claims of the effectiveness of stone age tools are falsifiable.

His post did not say that. He said that making stone tools could be falsified. Making tools is not the same as the effectiveness of tools.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Had you meant Shunya, you would have used the correct pronoun "he." I would have even accepted the pronoun "ze." But they cannot refer to one person or item.

"They" can be used as a singular pronoun.

Are you seriously misunderstanding the English language deliberately in order to avoid actually defending your own statements?

You have used the pronoun them without an antecedent. You should learn to post without ambiguity. As I said before, I am not a mind reader. I can only respond to the words in front of me.

Uh huh. Sure.

His post did not say that. He said that making stone tools could be falsified. Making tools is not the same as the effectiveness of tools.

Once again, I assume you are an adult of reading age. Despite your lack of knowledge of the multiple useages and definitions of the word "they", I assume you are capable of understanding English and context, correct?

 

[Zosimus]

So you see no need to argue from evidence, then ─ the armchair and a bottle or two of brandy and a humidor of cigars after dinner are all you need.

As I have already amply demonstrated, it would require an infinite amount of evidence to prove a proposition true. You have not even disputed this claim. Why, then, do you rely on evidence?

If so, a voice not much given to expressing itself with clarity, and far too fond of evasion.

Personal attacks are not logical arguments.

The Amazon note says, "This book is concerned with the alleged capacity of the human mind to arrive at beliefs and knowledge about the world on the basis of pure reason without any dependence on sensory experience." Indeed, without sensory input, how can you make any statement about objective reality at all, since you have no knowledge of it.

Amazon customers are your source of knowledge? Tsk tsk. Try reading a real review of the work. Laurence's main contention is that empirical knowledge requires rationalist a priori justification. I agree.

That doesn't answer my question. What real thing did you intend to denote when you used the word 'God'? Or did you intend only to refer to an imaginary thing?

I never claimed that God was real or imaginary. Surely you must be aware of who or what God is. Would you object as strenuously if I said "Superman is only vulnerable to kryptonite?" I do not pass judgement on whether God or Superman exists. I do not, however, feign to not understand simple words that are in every day use.

You got that information out of a book or otherwise by sensory experience, so you can't use it to reason, otherwise like Peter you deny your nominated savior, in your case Mr Bonjour.

Incorrect. I simply happen to have arrived at the same conclusions as did Mr. Bonjour, and I found his examples useful in expressing what I have already concluded. Should you wish to read something by Mr. Bonjour, I recommend this refutation of physicalism. Otherwise, buy his book.

You're the one who's kept quoting the bible.

Well, you falsely claimed that the Bible said that the world was flat. It did not say that. It said that the Earth was flat after specifically defining what it meant by Earth. You seem to be fond of straw man arguments. They are the only type that you are able to overcome.

 

[Zosimus]

That the effectiveness, use and existence of stone age tools can be falsified based on predictable results over time.

If the effectiveness of tools can be falsified, then the effectiveness of the magic talisman can also be falsified.