The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Apologetics Forum > Apologetical Methods

Apologetical Methods Discussion of Various Apolgetics, including Presuppositionalism and Evidentialism.
This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum.

» Online Users: 51
6 members and 45 guests
Eoghan, PaulG, Pergamum, queenknitter, Tim
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2008, 11:02 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Question Falsifiability and Scientific Reasoning: Question

Question as to how you would answer the following question:

In your opinion, it it true that:
"belief in the supernatural = non-belief in the supernatural"
"falsifiable = non-falsifiable"
__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN


Last edited by caddy; 05-29-2008 at 11:08 PM. Reason: spelling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 07:59 AM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
^
Shameless bump
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 08:14 AM
christianyouth's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 701
Thanks: 548
Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
I don't understand the question, to be honest.
__________________
Andrew Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI)

"Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 09:17 AM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
This is helpful:

5 Things Everyone Should Know About Evolution : Rational Christianity
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 09:38 AM
TimV's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 1,231
Thanks: 153
Thanked 270 Times in 177 Posts
You may have phased it a bit awkwardly.

A beekeeping friend of mine, Dr. Adrian Wenner disproved the dance language theory that Karl von Frisch got the Nobel Prize for in 1973. In his book about it he pointed out that in science the only true test of an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. So you can set up a million experiments which all show physical laws not being broken, and come up with a respected theory that there is no supernatural.

So you could say that the belief in the supernatural is falsifiable. The problem with your wording is that non belief in the supernatural is non falsifiable is just saying the same thing.

Another things to keep in mind is the difficulty in proving a negative, so I would imagine that it would remain a theory instead of a law, but I'm no expert on scientific philosophy. And of course for me the belief in the supernatural is an act of faith, I don't feel the need to defend it scientifically, nor would any number of experiments change my belief.
__________________
Tim Vaughan, 48 years old, member PCA church but currently attending EV Free church. San Luis Obispo County, California.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TimV For This Useful Post:
caddy (05-30-2008)
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 10:18 AM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
You may have phased it a bit awkwardly.

A beekeeping friend of mine, Dr. Adrian Wenner disproved the dance language theory that Karl von Frisch got the Nobel Prize for in 1973. In his book about it he pointed out that in science the only true test of an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. So you can set up a million experiments which all show physical laws not being broken, and come up with a respected theory that there is no supernatural.

So you could say that the belief in the supernatural is falsifiable. The problem with your wording is that non belief in the supernatural is non falsifiable is just saying the same thing.

Another things to keep in mind is the difficulty in proving a negative, so I would imagine that it would remain a theory instead of a law, but I'm no expert on scientific philosophy. And of course for me the belief in the supernatural is an act of faith, I don't feel the need to defend it scientifically, nor would any number of experiments change my belief.
Actually Tim, I just printed it straight as the question came to me. Thanks for you input.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 01:31 PM
christianyouth's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 701
Thanks: 548
Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
People believe in the super natural because they see evidence in the natural world that points toward the super natural. These would be the existence of a finite, dependent universe subject to the law of causality; The existence of a moral standard that is ingrained in all human beings, that causes us to view things as 'evil' and 'righteous', and many other things that demand the super natural for their explanation. If these arguments can be refuted then in a way belief in the supernatural is falsifiable and thus potentially true.

I say it can be 'in a way' falsified, because some of us have encountered God. That cannot be falsified. Therefor even if scientists and philosophers could deal with arguments for the existence of the super natural, we would remain convinced 'super naturalists'.



Also I think that the falsification principle is applied wrong since it was only meant to deal with empirical questions and not metaphysical questions. There are many things that are meaningful that cannot be falsified, such as the statement, "Only statements that are falsifiable can be meaningful". Is that a falsifiable statement?

This type of argument stems from logical positivism, which says that only that which can be verified with the senses can be meaningful or true. But that statement itself cannot be verified with the senses, and therefor is false. So while they are claiming 'empiricism', the core tenets of this empiricism are not 'empirical', in other words, they have non falsifiable beliefs that lead them to the place that says non falsifiable beliefs are rubbish. A bit inconsistent.

We have some philosophy buffs lurking here on the board(hem hem Christian Trader) who would be able to refute logical positivism and answer this question much better then I did, but I hope this helps some.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to christianyouth For This Useful Post:
caddy (05-30-2008)
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 02:13 PM
Davidius's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,203
Thanks: 688
Thanked 547 Times in 361 Posts
Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Davidius For This Useful Post:
caddy (05-30-2008), christianyouth (05-30-2008)
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 08:46 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."
Not finding this anywhere. What bookstore sells it?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 08:47 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."
DO yo mean
Language and Theology (ISBN 0-940931-90-7) ??
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2008, 10:34 PM
Vytautas's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 191
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Check out the Trinity Foundation for all things Gordon Clark.

Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.
__________________
Richard Kairelis
Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCNA (Prarie View, IL)
Chicago, IL
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Vytautas For This Useful Post:
caddy (06-01-2008)
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2008, 09:03 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Thanks Richard
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2008, 09:27 PM
knowntoGod's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Frostproof, FL
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
what?

I still don't get the question.
__________________
Dr. Bruce Sabin
Biology Teacher, Haines City IB World School
Member, FBC Frostproof, FL
http://knowntoGod.blogspot.com
http://www.brucesabin.com
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-01-2008, 11:05 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowntoGod View Post
I still don't get the question.
Hey Bruce

Check your PM. I see that you are a Biology teacher.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2008, 10:38 AM
JohnV's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dunnville, ONT., Canada
Posts: 4,330
Thanks: 2
Thanked 54 Times in 43 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowntoGod View Post
I still don't get the question.
Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?
__________________
JohnV

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2008, 11:04 AM
Davidius's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,203
Thanks: 688
Thanked 547 Times in 361 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Gordon Clark wrote an entire book defending the validity of language and refuting ungodly philosophical systems such as Logical Positivism. It's called "Language and Truth."
DO yo mean
Language and Theology (ISBN 0-940931-90-7) ??
Sorry, that's the one!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2008, 01:14 PM
caddy's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ringgold, Georgia
Posts: 1,935
Thanks: 155
Thanked 63 Times in 41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowntoGod View Post
I still don't get the question.
Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?
Hey JohnV

Here's the definition.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have had long discussions over a long period of time with an individual. This was simply one of his questions. I'm sure it would help if you had context. Here's the thread:

AcuraZine Community

Not even sure if you can see it. On Page 2 or 3 of the 3 pages, I think he asks the question.

Edit: You have to be a member of the Acura forum to even see this thread JohnV

Last edited by caddy; 06-02-2008 at 01:20 PM. Reason: test to see what non-members can see...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2008, 10:40 PM
JohnV's Avatar
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dunnville, ONT., Canada
Posts: 4,330
Thanks: 2
Thanked 54 Times in 43 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by caddy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowntoGod View Post
I still don't get the question.
Well, I don't also. It seems to me to all hang on what is meant by "falsifiable". Anybody have a precise meaning for it?
Hey JohnV

Here's the definition.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have had long discussions over a long period of time with an individual. This was simply one of his questions. I'm sure it would help if you had context. Here's the thread:

AcuraZine Community

Not even sure if you can see it. On Page 2 or 3 of the 3 pages, I think he asks the question.

Edit: You have to be a member of the Acura forum to even see this thread JohnV
Thanks, Caddy. That helps a bit. It put into words what I suspected to be the case. I would suppose, then, that non-falsifiable would be the direct opposite, as in non-testable.

If we take that one term used in the definition, namely "testability", and exchange that with "falsifiable", as used in your first post, then you get:

"testability = non-testability"

See what I mean?

I see the same kind of thing going on with the meaning of "faithfulness". Is it proper to say that faithfulness to, say for example, the Roman Catholic system is faithfulness to God and to His Word? In the same way, as faithfulness is often equated with unfaithfulness, and, as in this case and too often is the case in our own speach, that unfaithfulness becomes the positive "testability" factor for faithfulness, is it not possible to also apply this same sort of approach to "falsifiability"? Thus, falsifiable becomes equal to non-falsifiable.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnV For This Useful Post:
caddy (06-02-2008)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 AM.