Dr. Craig contradiction.

[Jehanne]

I used the word "certain" for a reason.  If Jesus would appear to me now, corporeally, then, maybe, I would change my mind.  What would it take for you to change your mind, to believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

You said that it is both a fact and that you are certain that it is false.  Would you agree that this is a falsifiable claim then? 
(note: This isn't about the establishing the truth or falseness of Jesus's resurrection.  It is about your logic and reasoning and false premises.)

I think it is a "beyond a reasonable doubt"-type fact, but, still, I do admit that I could be wrong.  To be more precise, it is "very, very improbable" that Jesus rose from the dead just as it is "very, very improbable" that humans were planted in volcanoes 50 million years ago by space aliens.  And, so, it is still a falsifiable claim either way.  I admit that I am not 100% convinced either way, just 99.99% convinced in the negative ("did not happen") sense.

[RoadRunner79]

You said that it is both a fact and that you are certain that it is false.  Would you agree that this is a falsifiable claim then? 
(note: This isn't about the establishing the truth or falseness of Jesus's resurrection.  It is about your logic and reasoning and false premises.)

I think it is a "beyond a reasonable doubt"-type fact, but, still, I do admit that I could be wrong.  To be more precise, it is "very, very improbable" that Jesus rose from the dead just as it is "very, very improbable" that humans were planted in volcanoes 50 million years ago by space aliens.  And, so, it is still a falsifiable claim either way.  I admit that I am not 100% convinced either way, just 99.99% convinced in the negative ("did not happen") sense.

So, do you now think now that you  where a bit hasty to say that religions do not make  falsifiable claims?  

Also as I said, unless they are making a specific point of making a difference between saying 99.9% and 100% I would generally give most people the benefit of the doubt in that they mean the same thing.  I don't think that you have shown that Craig was contradictory in this way.  However hopefully you have retracted your previously contradictory statement that Religion does not make falsifiable claims.

[Jehanne]

I think it is a "beyond a reasonable doubt"-type fact, but, still, I do admit that I could be wrong.  To be more precise, it is "very, very improbable" that Jesus rose from the dead just as it is "very, very improbable" that humans were planted in volcanoes 50 million years ago by space aliens.  And, so, it is still a falsifiable claim either way.  I admit that I am not 100% convinced either way, just 99.99% convinced in the negative ("did not happen") sense.

So, do you now think now that you  where a bit hasty to say that religions do not make  falsifiable claims?  

Also as I said, unless they are making a specific point of making a difference between saying 99.9% and 100% I would generally give most people the benefit of the doubt in that they mean the same thing.  I don't think that you have shown that Craig was contradictory in this way.  However hopefully you have retracted your previously contradictory statement that Religion does not make falsifiable claims.

In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be testable, and, so, no, religions do not make falsifiable claims that we can test, if naturalistic materialism is, in fact, true.  On the other hand, if supernaturalism is, indeed, true, then, yes, falsifiability could be extended to that realm, also, but since I see no reason to believe in supernaturalism, I would assert that religious claims are not falsifiable, but, I do admit that I could be wrong!

But, my OP was with respect WLC's claim that "god" could be falsified, and if WLC truly believes that, then he must admit that he is not 100% certain of God's existence.  As an atheist, I am not 100% certain of God's non-existence!

[Abaddon_ire]

God be praised and loved, the witness who sees things as they are defining them through his absolute true judgment and the reckoner by which we are accounted.

I am off for the day....will be back later tonight.

Odd, given that the topic at hand is WLC, a man who would happily see you burn.

---

Jesus was not raised from the dead; of that fact, we can be at least certain.

On one hand, you say that religion does not make falsifiable claims, yet say that this one is false.   How is this not contradictory?
What do you base your claim here?


According to your previous arguments would your certainty here make this an unfalsifiable claim.  Because especially for those at the time, and even now, it would seem that this is falsifiable.   Keep in mind with your arguments here, that if it is not falsifiable, it's not really able to be shown to be true either.  I think you need to think through your arguments a bit more, and make them more consistent.

Because it isn't. Unless you subscribe to the biblical zombie apocalypse in jerusalem that nobody actually noticed. 

Is the bible right? or that is a metaphor for what?

[RoadRunner79]

So, do you now think now that you  where a bit hasty to say that religions do not make  falsifiable claims?  

Also as I said, unless they are making a specific point of making a difference between saying 99.9% and 100% I would generally give most people the benefit of the doubt in that they mean the same thing.  I don't think that you have shown that Craig was contradictory in this way.  However hopefully you have retracted your previously contradictory statement that Religion does not make falsifiable claims.

In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be testable, and, so, no, religions do not make falsifiable claims that we can test, if naturalistic materialism is, in fact, true.  On the other hand, if supernaturalism is, indeed, true, then, yes, falsifiability could be extended to that realm, also, but since I see no reason to believe in supernaturalism, I would assert that religious claims are not falsifiable, but, I do admit that I could be wrong!

But, my OP was with respect WLC's claim that "god" could be falsified, and if WLC truly believes that, then he must admit that he is not 100% certain of God's existence.  As an atheist, I am not 100% certain of God's non-existence!

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.

[Abaddon_ire]

In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be testable, and, so, no, religions do not make falsifiable claims that we can test, if naturalistic materialism is, in fact, true.  On the other hand, if supernaturalism is, indeed, true, then, yes, falsifiability could be extended to that realm, also, but since I see no reason to believe in supernaturalism, I would assert that religious claims are not falsifiable, but, I do admit that I could be wrong!

But, my OP was with respect WLC's claim that "god" could be falsified, and if WLC truly believes that, then he must admit that he is not 100% certain of God's existence.  As an atheist, I am not 100% certain of God's non-existence!

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.

Craig has been falsified 100% of the time.

Why you would defend such abject horror is beyond reckoning.

[Jehanne]

In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be testable, and, so, no, religions do not make falsifiable claims that we can test, if naturalistic materialism is, in fact, true.  On the other hand, if supernaturalism is, indeed, true, then, yes, falsifiability could be extended to that realm, also, but since I see no reason to believe in supernaturalism, I would assert that religious claims are not falsifiable, but, I do admit that I could be wrong!

But, my OP was with respect WLC's claim that "god" could be falsified, and if WLC truly believes that, then he must admit that he is not 100% certain of God's existence.  As an atheist, I am not 100% certain of God's non-existence!

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.

I understand falsifiability in terms of the definition that I provided you from the text from by Drs. Laura Kay,‎ Stacy Palen,‎ Bradford Smith and‎ George Blumenthal, which, as far as I can tell, is universal within modern science.  If you or WLC is 100% sure of god's existence, then, no, you are contradicting yourselves if you claim that the existence of god could be falsified, that is, disproven.

In short, atheism is falsifiable, theism (or, deism) is not.

[RoadRunner79]

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.

Craig has been falsified 100% of the time.

Why you would defend such abject horror is beyond reckoning.

I think that this is clearly an emotional issue for you.

---

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.

I understand falsifiability in terms of the definition that I provided you from the text from by Drs. Laura Kay,‎ Stacy Palen,‎ Bradford Smith and‎ George Blumenthal, which, as far as I can tell, is universal within modern science.  If you or WLC is 100% sure of god's existence, then, no, you are contradicting yourselves if you claim that the existence of god could be falsified, that is, disproven.

In short, atheism is falsifiable, theism (or, deism) is not.

Ok... Now I question if you know what a contradiction is.   But it seems I would just be repeating myself at this point, so I'll leave you to it.

[Jehanne]

Ok... Now I question if you know what a contradiction is.   But it seems I would just be repeating myself at this point, so I'll leave you to it.

Fine, then we just have to disagree!

I see absolutely no reason to believe in god, let alone in Jesus.  As for Craig, he is, I think, a money-making showman.

[Abaddon_ire]

Craig has been falsified 100% of the time.

Why you would defend such abject horror is beyond reckoning.

I think that this is clearly an emotional issue for you.

No. As an atheist, it is a matter of morals.
That you have none is not my concern.