Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
The text of Genesis (written well over 2000 years ago) has not changed, nor needs changing, can you say the same about, "Origin of Species?" And how about including in your answer the answer to the following:
Would you have to make textual changes in Genesis, (or any other book of the Bible for that matter) to meet our understanding of God?
Would you have to make textual changes in Darwin's “Origin of Species” to meet our understanding of the TOE?
Then we can discuss the other points.
Yeppers...
Interesting post... thanks.
That is my point. It can't be tested, therefore my 'truth' is meaningless and should be treated as such.
Only 'truth' that can be falsified (tested) can have any meaning.
Are you saying that ‘Truth’ cannot be known?
No, just that it has to be falsifiable.
If Obummer says that he lives in the White House, that is a 'truth' that is falsifiable and hopefully will be falsified in three years.
No, just that it has to be falsifiable.
You are asserting the mid-twentieth century philosophy of logical positivism which champion the verification principle, meaning according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. The verification principleunderwent a number of changes including its permutation into the falsification principle which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
However, in general, verificationists analysis of meaning ran into two insuperable problems: (1)the verification/falsification principle was too restrictive. It was quickly realized that on such theories of meaning vast tracts of obviously meaningful discourse would have to be declared meaningless, including scientific statements, which the principle had aimed to preserve. (2)The principle was self-defeating philosophically. The statement, "In order to be meaningful and informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified is itself incapable of being verified or falsified, and therefore by its own lights a meaningless statement-or at best, an arbitrary definition which we are free to reject. The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapes of logical positivism during the second half of the twentiety century, and thus helped spark a revival of interest not only in metaphysics but in philosophy of religion as well.
Another philosophical relic is the much-vaunted presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is sort of a default position, and the theist bears a special burdon of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. But one must remember that the statement "God does not exist" is just as much a claim as that of the theist and therefore justification and warrant is required to support both positions.
Therefore when you make a statement, "....that it has to be falsifiable" you make an assertion which is narrow and demands what it, itself, cannot provide...that being verifiability. That is why logical positivism which championed the verification/falsification principles have long since fossilized into meaninglessness.
You are asserting the mid-twentieth century philosophy of logical positivism which champion the verification principle, meaning according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.
No, you assume wrong, I didn't say verification. Verification isn't equivalent to falsification. Look up Karl Popper.
As I stated in the body of my remarks, “....Under criticism, the verification principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutations into the falsification principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.” See Anthony Flew’s remarks from the Oxford University symposium on “Theology and Falsification” held in 1948. Flew admits his theory was mistaken and that the theory of falsification is not meaningful in and of itself. It is self-refuting and defeats itself. Read what you wrote. “....it has to be falsifiable.” Is that statement true and falsifiable? Clearly the answer is ‘NO’...it is circular reasoning as therefore meaningless.
Actually falsification is the cure for circular reasoning, that is the point.
lg, you are the only one who thinks that anything you say makes any sense.
Everyone else can see the flaws in your *logic* a mile away.
Coming from a creationist and someone who didn't recognize E=MC^2, I take that as a compliment.
Moreover, the Bible doesn’t contain any truth or information that’s “new”, rather pretty much was settled centuries ago.
And yet it’s truth stands the test of time and is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
No, science is too small to gain full understanding of truth.
But God isn’t.
Science can’t for instance test or falsify love.
Re-read my tagline.
Obviously you haven't kept up on the science. Love is chemicals in the brain.
Re-read my tagline.
Your nonexistent tagline?
Sources? Links?
Then that makes your thoughts and attempts at logic just a meaningless batch of chemicals spouting off a bunch of preordained nothingness. Why should we consider your opinion relevant to anything?
Just because you say something or thing it's so, doesn't mean it is. You have no corner in the fact or truth market. In order to be able to claim that, you'd have to know everything, everywhere for all time and eternity, and I'm pretty sure you're not God, nor will you be becoming one.
Wrong again. You know saying it over and over still doesn't make it right.
LOL....chemicals in the brain?
Yeah, metmom is right...virtually everyone but you can see the flaws in your logic 50 million light years away.
My tagline is non-existant?
All-righty-then.
tpanther: Wrong again. You know saying it over and over still doesn't make it right.
Now wait a minute. If lg claims that what he has to say is meaningless, who are we to argue?
I knew I was right in that last post.....
You are correct. If I can't back up what I say with evidence it is meaningless. Much like your belief in God.
Just because you say something or thing it's so, doesn't mean it is. You have no corner in the fact or truth market. In order to be able to claim that, you'd have to know everything, everywhere for all time and eternity, and I'm pretty sure you're not God, nor will you be becoming one.
What makes you think that what you say has any meaning? I can provide falsifiable evidence for most of what I say. Can you do the same for what you say about God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.