What would falsify your paradigm?

[Galateasdream]

Regardless of what your paradigm is, whether theistic or atheistic, religious or irreligious, I think it's an interesting thought exercise to consider not just what you believe and why, but what evidence or argument could, theoretically, falsify your paradigm (if anything).

Here is a place for you to say what would convince you that you'd got it wrong - whatever your POV.

 

[Polymath257]

An unambiguous signature in the cosmic background radiation would be a good first step toward a belief in a deity.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Regardless of what your paradigm is, whether theistic or atheistic, religious or irreligious, I think it's an interesting thought exercise to consider not just what you believe and why, but what evidence or argument could, theoretically, falsify your paradigm (if anything).

Here is a place for you to say what would convince you that you'd got it wrong - whatever your POV.

Real evidence but not believing something isn't a paradigm it's just a lack of belief

 

[Galateasdream]

Real evidence but not believing something isn't a paradigm it's just a lack of belief

Yes, not believing something isn't a paradigm it is just an absence of a belief, not a paradigm. But why mention this?

 

[Galateasdream]

An unambiguous signature in the cosmic background radiation would be a good first step toward a belief in a deity.

Interesting that such would be a first step.

I take it you don't think that simply having enough counter-evidence to make your paradigm less than about 49% is enough to overturn your current worldview?

 

[Ayjaydee]

Yes, not believing something isn't a paradigm it is just an absence of a belief, not a paradigm. But why mention this?

Because atheism is an absence of belief

 

[Galateasdream]

Because atheism is an absence of belief

Yes, correct. What has that to do with my OP?

 

[Ayjaydee]

Yes, correct. What has that to do with my OP?

I understood it to read an atheistic paradigm.

 

[Native]

Ayjaydee said: ↑
Real evidence but not believing something isn't a paradigm it's just a lack of belief
------------------------

Yes, not believing something isn't a paradigm it is just an absence of a belief, not a paradigm. But why mention this?

Because he didn´t understand the topic context.

 

[Galateasdream]

I understood it to read an atheistic paradigm.

Yes: Atheistic (adj) not atheism (noun).

 

[Ayjaydee]

Yes: Atheistic (adj) not atheism (noun).

So what is the paradigm?

 

[Galateasdream]

So what is the paradigm?

Any paradigm that is atheistic???

Like, say, materialism, or atheistic Buddhism, or physicalist communism, or naturalistic anti-theism etc.

This is the weirdest and most pointless derail I've seen in a while ...

 

[Polymath257]

Interesting that such would be a first step.

Yes, a first step. At that point, alternative exp,anations would have to be considered, but I would consider it strong evidence for a creator of the universe.

I take it you don't think that simply having enough counter-evidence to make your paradigm less than about 49% is enough to overturn your current worldview?

No, I would have to consider ALL the alternative explanations before that.

 

[Galateasdream]

No, I would have to consider ALL the alternative explanations before that.

All is a big number ...
Interesting.
So, can you specify more clearly as what would falsify your paradigm? Maybe it requires a certain combination of evidences for you.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Any paradigm that is atheistic???

Like, say, materialism, or atheistic Buddhism, or physicalist communism, or naturalistic anti-theism etc.

This is the weirdest and most pointless derail I've seen in a while ...

Ahhhhhh, I see now, thank you. Certainly not wasted on me

 

[Polymath257]

All is a big number ...
Interesting.
So, can you specify more clearly as what would falsify your paradigm? Maybe it requires a certain combination of evidences for you.

Well, at least part of the problem is the notion of a paradigm.

But, for the existence of a creator: a signature in the background radiation.

At that point, it would be nice to have evidence of the social structure of said creators and the technology used for universe creation. Given that, I would be satisfied there is a creator for our universe.

 

[Galateasdream]

Ahhhhhh, I see now, thank you. Certainly not wasted on me

Cool.
Maybe, if something in the OP seems odd or confusing to you, the way to deal with it would be to ask a polite question, or request further explanation in a well-constructed post. Might have been quicker and nicer to sort it out that way.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Cool.
Maybe, if something in the OP seems odd or confusing to you, the way to deal with it would be to ask a polite question, or request further explanation in a well-constructed post. Might have been quicker and nicer to sort it out that way.

Perhaps

 

[Galateasdream]

nice to have evidence of the social structure of said creators and the technology used for universe creation.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by that.
Can you expand a little? Sorry.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure I get what you mean by that.
Can you expand a little? Sorry.

Well, the ability to create universes is a remarkable technology and I would love to see the details underlying that. In particular, the physics must be amazing.

Also, to support said technology, there is likely to be a social structure of beings, so I would like to know more about that social structure. How do they organize themselves? What is their history? Is universe making something common? Or did they just learn how to do it? Does anyone remember making our particular universe?

I would also like to know that the signature wasn't just someone taking credit for something they didn't do.