RE: Beauty, Morality, God, and a Table
August 22, 2023 at 8:16 am
(This post was last modified: August 22, 2023 at 8:36 am by FrustratedFool.)
I agree there's a huge epistemological difference between an unverifiable/unfalsifiable statement and a verifiable/falsifiable statement. But is there are difference in them being truth claims? I can't see that there is.
I think you may have got tangled between the statement, 'I feel the presence of God' and the statement 'God is here.' One is making a claim about someone's subjective sense perceptions, one making a claim about the existence of a person and their locality (as well as an implied claim about their sense perceptions).
The statement 'This table is 1m long' is a truth claim and verifiable. It can be answered true or false.
The statement 'A bear is here' is also a truth claim and verifiable. It is answerable true or false. And I can't see much difference between the two.
And the statement 'An ethereal bear is here' also seems a truth claim, the same as the two above, though now it doesn't seem verifiable in the same way. It is going to be either true or false, but we can't decide which using the same method. It may be we can never know for sure.
The difference, it seems to me, is whether or not it can be ascertained to be veridical, not whether it's a true or false statement.
Edit: Someone smarter may be able to tease these apart in terms of ontology and epistemology. Each is a T/F claim about the existence and properties of X (ontology), but our ability to access the reality of the situation and see if the statement or its reverse best maps onto that reality is different in each case (epistemology). We could even discuss whether making an unfalsifiable claim is reasonable. But I still can't see how a statement about the existence and properties of an externally existing being can be both correct and incorrect (true and false) at the same time.
I think you may have got tangled between the statement, 'I feel the presence of God' and the statement 'God is here.' One is making a claim about someone's subjective sense perceptions, one making a claim about the existence of a person and their locality (as well as an implied claim about their sense perceptions).
The statement 'This table is 1m long' is a truth claim and verifiable. It can be answered true or false.
The statement 'A bear is here' is also a truth claim and verifiable. It is answerable true or false. And I can't see much difference between the two.
And the statement 'An ethereal bear is here' also seems a truth claim, the same as the two above, though now it doesn't seem verifiable in the same way. It is going to be either true or false, but we can't decide which using the same method. It may be we can never know for sure.
The difference, it seems to me, is whether or not it can be ascertained to be veridical, not whether it's a true or false statement.
Edit: Someone smarter may be able to tease these apart in terms of ontology and epistemology. Each is a T/F claim about the existence and properties of X (ontology), but our ability to access the reality of the situation and see if the statement or its reverse best maps onto that reality is different in each case (epistemology). We could even discuss whether making an unfalsifiable claim is reasonable. But I still can't see how a statement about the existence and properties of an externally existing being can be both correct and incorrect (true and false) at the same time.
