(September 27, 2020 at 9:13 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Given our discussion of faith, it appears the redefining stuff as you go comes from the other side of the aisle.

Hardly, but you keep telling yourself that, buddy.

Faith generally can mean a few things

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

As I understand John, he uses the word in the first meaning clearly though when taking about religious faith you are also talking about the second one.

(September 27, 2020 at 9:22 am)possibletarian Wrote: Faith generally can mean a few things

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

As I understand John, he uses the word in the first meaning clearly though when taking about religious faith you are also talking about the second one.

It's referred to as secular faith versus religious faith.

(September 27, 2020 at 9:22 am)possibletarian Wrote: As I understand John, he uses the word in the first meaning clearly though when taking about religious faith you are also talking about the second one.

Correct; although to be more precise, I used the Greek definition of πίστις. Since that's the word translated as faith. That word aligns with the first definition.

As far as our discussion on souls. We disagree on what makes things unfalsifiable. That's why the waters are muddy even though we agree souls don't exist. I say things are unfalsifiable, not because you don't know how to test them, but because even if you did, every outcome is predicted. The world made 5 minutes ago to look as it is, is unfalsifiable no matter what test you run, because every outcome can be predicted by the phrase "made to look as it is."

Whereas you seem to say something is unfalsifiable if you can't test it period. But I disagree with that, mainly because "not being able to test something," and "not knowing how to test it," are very difficult to distinguish.

If you're interested we can continue the conversation in PM. It becomes overwhelming keeping track of who said what to me. And I already confused you with Simon Moon by thinking you asked how to falsify my beliefs.

(September 27, 2020 at 9:51 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The world made 5 minutes ago to look as it is, is unfalsifiable because

No.

Because it is not a matter in question regarding how old the earth is. Scientifically, it has been proven.

(September 27, 2020 at 9:51 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: no matter what test you run, every outcome can be predicted by it the phrase "made to look as it is."

So you distrust science. Good to know.

(September 27, 2020 at 9:51 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Whereas you seem to say something is unfalsifiable if you can't test it period. But I disagree with that, mainly because "not being able to test something," and "not knowing how to test it," are very difficult to distinguish.

To have something to test, you would have to have something more substantial than mere words.

It's not a case of not being able to test the supernatural  (as in something we know exists but is not available for inspection)  or not knowing how to test something (we know exists) , it's simply that it's not described in any way that we could get to a point to  know what it is or whether it actually exists.

If we know souls are immaterial, that alone begins to give information about what they are not (material) and what they are (immaterial).

If they are said to be a component of human beings, then we know they are inconsistent with chairs and rocks, and consistent with people. We can ask what happens to people in the absence or presence of a soul (death/resurrection) and whether or not it plays out.

I'm sure religions vary with their definitions. Some are better than others. But even if they're abstract, scientists can define concepts operationally for the sake of experimentation. Operational definitions transform abstract concept into testable form. Depression, for example, can be operationally defined as a specific score on a mood test.

Descartes proposed the pineal gland as the seat of the soul, and souls were a mechanism that moved nerves in hydraulic fashion. And yet the Otto experiment I mentioned falsified that by the discovery of neurotransmitters. And pineal glands can be removed without causing death.

(September 26, 2020 at 5:40 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 26, 2020 at 5:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Provide a method to falsify your god.

My denomination claims that God created man as mortal, having no soul or spirit independent from the body. At death the person merely decomposes.

If you falsify this proposition, by showing man does indeed have a soul, it would refute the existence of my particular God. I would have to join Hinduism or Islam, or any other religion with a soul-predicting God. Or at the very least reinterpret my churches beliefs to account for the information.

Oh yeah...

Use the unfalsifiability of another claim, to falsify yours.

There's a reliable method [end sarcasm].

And I'll bet you think you have a good epistemology, right?

---

(September 27, 2020 at 12:29 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: If we know souls are immaterial, that alone begins to give information about what they are not (material) and what they are (immaterial).

Since when do we [i]know[/know] that?

Please provide one example, that is demonstrable, of soul.

Quote:If they are said to be a component of human beings, then we know they are inconsistent with chairs and rocks, and consistent with people. We can ask what happens to people in the absence or presence of a soul (death/resurrection) and whether or not it plays out.

There isn't anything demonstrable, that can be pointed to in a definition of a soul, that can not be explained by the mind. And since there are no demonstrable examples of minds existing sans physical brains... You got nothing.

(September 27, 2020 at 2:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Since when do we [i]know[/know] that?

Please provide one example, that is demonstrable, of soul.

We know that because of it's proposition. That is what souls are conjectured to be: immaterial and associated with, and even responsible for, living things.

(September 27, 2020 at 2:30 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Use the unfalsifiability of another claim, to falsify yours.

Things aren't unfalsifiable simply because you want them to be or you feel they are too vague. They are unfalsifiable because they predict every outcome of an experiment. Vagueness is measured by this fact alone. If you want to claim souls are unfalsifiable, you have to show how they predict every outcome (which they don't).

If souls are claimed to be responsible for giving life to things, for example, and they're supposed to go to heaven or hell after death, that is sufficient to falsify souls. An experiment which can medically resurrect someone after a day or two, shows that either souls can be pulled out of heaven and hell against God's will (which religion doesn't teach) or else a body can be alive without a soul, falsifying this definition of souls.

Souls would be unfalsifiable if, despite our experiment, they predicted that a person can be alive with and without a soul (which they don't)