How far reaching are God's powers?

[HappySkeptic]

Blah blah ... "The deaths of children may be a terrible and tragic thing, but they're necessary" ... blah blah blah

And I say that your theology is repulsive.

[Sal]

I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, but without discounting them, just being aware of them is enough.

I know full well this is practically impossible, because you have to go through a single day with a lot of assumptions of other people's behavior.

As a common instance in my day-to-day interaction with people in my ... stuff, I always start out with a working assumption that when another person speaks to me, I assume they're telling the truth regardless what they say. This comes with three massive assumptions about myself, as well, from the get go:

1) My senses are accurately conveying an outside reality, as per the provisional configuration of the senses (not just the 5 main senses). As an instance of this provisional configuration for the EM field (light, duh), are the photoreceptor cells in my eyeballs are able, in unison, to accurately display what I'm seeing around the 700 nm ("red") - 350 nm ("blue") wavelengths. Yes, I am that weird. Although a lot of people take this for granted.

2) My Consciousness is able to, accounting for the known "software bugs"/disabilities/physical restrictions in my cognitive abilities, such as optical/auditory/Somatosensory system (i.e. "touch")/ ... basically the entire sensory nervous system do work as intended from 1).

- and most importantly -

3) Given 1) and 2) that I am able to apply my Experience (through the senses) and reasoning abilities present in my Consciousness to make an provisional model of this Reality, to the best of my ability. And it is checked, re-checked and "improved" upon (hopefully without regressions, although re-checks might do that to any assumption, so I am (well, no one is, AFAIK) never 100% right about anything. Although, like any good model, it has to have that main caveat, how can I disprove ... whatever? Which is the essence of falsifiability. Thanks, Karl Popper, you were the Champ.

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

[source]

---

I know this sounds wishy-washy to a lot of people (a lot of individuals have told me as-much to that effect), and that it is a way of thinking and conceiving of the world too many people have a hard time understanding and, sorry to say, accepting. My main focus in life, ever since year 2008, has been mental health awareness and the propagation of cognitive tools to that effect.

Too much shit is going on in people's lives that constantly disrupt this ... stuff, and one of the main one's is undeniable the function of faith™.

---

Blah blah ... "The deaths of children may be a terrible and tragic thing, but they're necessary" ... blah blah blah

And I say that your theology is repulsive.

I put him on ignore after reading 2 of his outbursts. CBA, TBH.

[arewethereyet]

Miles thinks he is doing god's work here. Preaching to the heathens and sharing with us his deep understanding of the head sky fairy.

Seems he should be a little calmer and more at peace with his delusions.

His purpose here is to hear himself talk.

We've heard the whole song and dance before. YAWN

[The Architect Of Fate]

I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, but without discounting them, just being aware of them is enough.

I know full well this is practically impossible, because you have to go through a single day with a lot of assumptions of other people's behavior.

As a common instance in my day-to-day interaction with people in my ... stuff, I always start out with a working assumption that when another person speaks to me, I assume they're telling the truth regardless what they say. This comes with three massive assumptions about myself, as well, from the get go:

1) My senses are accurately conveying an outside reality, as per the provisional configuration of the senses (not just the 5 main senses). As an instance of this provisional configuration for the EM field (light, duh), are the photoreceptor cells in my eyeballs are able, in unison, to accurately display what I'm seeing around the 700 nm ("red") - 350 nm ("blue") wavelengths. Yes, I am that weird. Although a lot of people take this for granted.

2) My Consciousness is able to, accounting for the known "software bugs"/disabilities/physical restrictions in my cognitive abilities, such as optical/auditory/Somatosensory system (i.e. "touch")/ ... basically the entire sensory nervous system do work as intended from 1).

- and most importantly -

3) Given 1) and 2) that I am able to apply my Experience (through the senses) and reasoning abilities present in my Consciousness to make an provisional model of this Reality, to the best of my ability. And it is checked, re-checked and "improved" upon (hopefully without regressions, although re-checks might do that to any assumption, so I am (well, no one is, AFAIK) never 100% right about anything. Although, like any good model, it has to have that main caveat, how can I disprove ... whatever? Which is the essence of falsifiability. Thanks, Karl Popper, you were the Champ.

These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

[source]

---

I know this sounds wishy-washy to a lot of people (a lot of individuals have told me as-much to that effect), and that it is a way of thinking and conceiving of the world too many people have a hard time understanding and, sorry to say, accepting. My main focus in life, ever since year 2008, has been mental health awareness and the propagation of cognitive tools to that effect.

Too much shit is going on in people's lives that constantly disrupt this ... stuff, and one of the main one's is undeniable the function of faith™.

---

And I say that your theology is repulsive.

I put him on ignore after reading 2 of his outbursts. CBA, TBH.

Also gotta love how he thinks just asserting "it's necessary " is a point. In the face of something so horrific 

[R00tKiT]

I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, 

I am curious then, is the assertion "All beliefs should be falsifiable" falsifiable or not? If so, can you prove that falsifiability is a necessary condition for the truth of a particular belief. Can't we have, for instance, a true but unfalsifiable belief ?

[Sal]

---

I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, but without discounting them, just being aware of them is enough.

I know full well this is practically impossible, because you have to go through a single day with a lot of assumptions of other people's behavior.

As a common instance in my day-to-day interaction with people in my ... stuff, I always start out with a working assumption that when another person speaks to me, I assume they're telling the truth regardless what they say. This comes with three massive assumptions about myself, as well, from the get go:

1) My senses are accurately conveying an outside reality, as per the provisional configuration of the senses (not just the 5 main senses). As an instance of this provisional configuration for the EM field (light, duh), are the photoreceptor cells in my eyeballs are able, in unison, to accurately display what I'm seeing around the 700 nm ("red") - 350 nm ("blue") wavelengths. Yes, I am that weird. Although a lot of people take this for granted.

2) My Consciousness is able to, accounting for the known "software bugs"/disabilities/physical restrictions in my cognitive abilities, such as optical/auditory/Somatosensory system (i.e. "touch")/ ... basically the entire sensory nervous system do work as intended from 1).

- and most importantly -

3) Given 1) and 2) that I am able to apply my Experience (through the senses) and reasoning abilities present in my Consciousness to make an provisional model of this Reality, to the best of my ability. And it is checked, re-checked and "improved" upon (hopefully without regressions, although re-checks might do that to any assumption, so I am (well, no one is, AFAIK) never 100% right about anything. Although, like any good model, it has to have that main caveat, how can I disprove ... whatever? Which is the essence of falsifiability. Thanks, Karl Popper, you were the Champ.

[source]

---

I know this sounds wishy-washy to a lot of people (a lot of individuals have told me as-much to that effect), and that it is a way of thinking and conceiving of the world too many people have a hard time understanding and, sorry to say, accepting. My main focus in life, ever since year 2008, has been mental health awareness and the propagation of cognitive tools to that effect.

Too much shit is going on in people's lives that constantly disrupt this ... stuff, and one of the main one's is undeniable the function of faith™.

---

I put him on ignore after reading 2 of his outbursts. CBA, TBH.

Also gotta love how he thinks just asserting "it's necessary " is a point. In the face of something so horrific 

---

'necessary' is one of those words, used like a fox hole, when being confronted with any form of critique, if you really examine the etymology of the word.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/necessary

Although not always, it is used as a weasel word a lot of the times by theists, most of the apologists use 'necessary' in their semantic arguments for their god image. But it's so bloody effective, quite frankly IMO, exactly because it isn't strictly speaking a weasel word.

Only place I see 'necessary' used accurately is with concise logical language. Apologists, unsurprisingly, hijack it in their semantic bullshit arguments.

---

I try, implicit bias/beliefs notwithstanding, to have exactly zero (0) unfalsifiable beliefs, 

I am curious then, is the assertion "All beliefs should be falsifiable" falsifiable or not?

(bold mine)

Yes, of course. It has to be internally consistent for it to be true. That also applies to stupid & annoying fucking deflections and philosophical masturbations of like: "Next week there will be a surprise test." Which gets any, even serious philosophers, a run for their money. Your contention is of that exact flavor, sorry.

If so, can you prove that falsifiability is a necessary condition for the truth of a particular belief. Can't we have, for instance, a true but unfalsifiable belief ?

Easy. How would you prove that 'falsifiability' itself is true or false? Test it of course ...

That's your homework ... *coughBurdenOfProofcough*

I get that cough, sometimes, you see.

[The Grand Nudger]

People asking you, to explain yourself..Miles, are not seeking signs. You really need to let it sink in that most of us talking to you don't believe in gods to seek signs from.

It's just you, you say things, we see the things you say.

[The Architect Of Fate]

---

Also gotta love how he thinks just asserting "it's necessary " is a point. In the face of something so horrific 

---

'necessary' is one of those words, used like a fox hole, when being confronted with any form of critique, if you really examine the etymology of the word.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/necessary

Although not always, it is used as a weasel word a lot of the times by theists, most of the apologists use 'necessary' in their semantic arguments for their god image. But it's so bloody effective, quite frankly IMO, exactly because it isn't strictly speaking a weasel word.

Only place I see 'necessary' used accurately is with concise logical language. Apologists, unsurprisingly, hijack it in their semantic bullshit arguments.

---

I am curious then, is the assertion "All beliefs should be falsifiable" falsifiable or not?

(bold mine)

Yes, of course. It has to be internally consistent for it to be true. That also applies to stupid & annoying fucking deflections and philosophical masturbations of like: "Next week there will be a surprise test." Which gets any, even serious philosophers, a run for their money. Your contention is of that exact flavor, sorry.

If so, can you prove that falsifiability is a necessary condition for the truth of a particular belief. Can't we have, for instance, a true but unfalsifiable belief ?

Easy. How would you prove that 'falsifiability' itself is true or false? Test it of course ...

That's your homework ... *coughBurdenOfProofcough*

I get that cough, sometimes, you see.

Theists would love to simply assert baseless things. After all, it's the only way they can remain, theists.

[HappySkeptic]

People asking you, to explain yourself..Miles, are not seeking signs.  You really need to let it sink in that most of us talking to you don't believe in gods to seek signs from.

It's just you, you say things, we see the things you say.

True, I don't believe in any gods.  But if you claim that a god exists, and that it does things for its followers, how is that not claiming that it performs verifiable signs?  I just don't get how the bible-god keeps hiding.

Miles says that miracles don't happen much these days, implying that they used to.  As the ability to scientifically understand natural phenomena has increased, the miracles decrease.  Huh, that's very interesting.

[The Grand Nudger]

How would Miles know the comparative rarity of miracles then and now? Maybe they happen more today, and his off-hand supposition that they are rare comes down to a god not moving in his life or the lives of people around him.