Things don't have to be testable to be true

[FreethinkingSceptic]

I've heard atheists insist that things be scientifically testable to be true or believed, but this is silly and dishonest.

There are many things which people believe, such as the existence of historical figures such as Julius Caesar, which aren't scientifically testable, but would be absurd not to believe. And it's not like testability guarantees that something is true either. It's merely a method of reducing the possibility of falsehood, similarly to how court trials don't guarantee that people are rightfully or wrongfully convicted to begin with.

To me, this just seems like a cop-out by atheists who don't want to believe in the existence of a God. Atheists will demand a specific standard of evidence for things they don't want to believe in, such as the existence of God, while not demanding that same standard of evidence for other things. Such as not demanding that the same standard of evidence of the existence of God be applied to believing in the existence of historical figures like Julius Caesar.

And some atheists would likely refuse to believe in God no matter what evidence was presented to them, just because they don't want to. If I didn't want to believe in the existence of Julius Caesar, I could simply demand that a video recording of Julius Caesar's life from birth until death be provided, and of course it would be impossible to provide such evidence. Therefore, there would be no reason to believe in Julius Caesar.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Caesar's existence is in fact testable. The fact that you haven't examined the evidence is not a sign of his nonexistence, but your ignorance.

Also interesting is that by your logic you cannot prove the existence of your own "God".

Finally, anyone who thinks that science is not tentative really doesn't understand science and should probably get through high-school at the very least before opining.

[FreethinkingSceptic]

No, one cannot perform a lab experiment replicating the life of Julius Caesar from birth to death. Therefore, it is untestible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, one cannot perform a lab experiment replicating the life of Julius Caesar from birth to death. Therefore, it is untestible.

Says some asshole online, in a bald claim that is also a strawman. I take it you're also ignorant of the science of historiography.

Go on ahead and look that word up. I'll wait.

Or better yet, get back to your pre-algebra homework before Mom discovers you fucking around online again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty comfortable assigning greater confidence to truth claims that are testable in principle, even greater to those that are testable in practice, and have been tested. I can't think of any reason I'd assign equivalent or greater confidence to whatever truth claims a person might have in mind that are untestable in principle and in practice.

I think you might be confusing belief and worship. I don't really choose what I do or don't believe. You probably don't either. I do choose what I'm willing to worship. Apologists often fall down here, wasting their time with the first thing when what they really want is the second - even though all of their work would still be ahead of them if they ever managed to establish that first thing. If it were me, I'd go about it the other way.

OFC, I don't think a thing has to be real for people to decide it's worthy, often enough the things we would deem most worthy are the things that have yet to escape into the real world.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've heard atheists insist that things be scientifically testable to be true or believed, but this is silly and dishonest.

There are many things which people believe, such as the existence of historical figures such as Julius Caesar, which aren't scientifically testable, but would be absurd not to believe. And it's not like testability guarantees that something is true either. It's merely a method of reducing the possibility of falsehood, similarly to how court trials don't guarantee that people are rightfully or wrongfully convicted to begin with.

To me, this just seems like a cop-out by atheists who don't want to believe in the existence of a God. Atheists will demand a specific standard of evidence for things they don't want to believe in, such as the existence of God, while not demanding that same standard of evidence for other things. Such as not demanding that the same standard of evidence of the existence of God be applied to believing in the existence of historical figures like Julius Caesar.

And some atheists would likely refuse to believe in God no matter what evidence was presented to them, just because they don't want to. If I didn't want to believe in the existence of Julius Caesar, I could simply demand that a video recording of Julius Caesar's life from birth until death be provided, and of course it would be impossible to provide such evidence. Therefore, there would be no reason to believe in Julius Caesar.

I'm an historian (by training, not by profession) and I assure you that the existence of Julius Caesar has been tested to the point where denying it is intellectually perverse. I once saw one of your online compatriots claiming that the evidence for Jesus was stronger than the evidence for Abraham Lincoln. You're being equally stupid.

So far, you've taken poorly informed shots at two sciences - evolutionary biology and historiography. I'm curious as to what other sciences make your balls ache. Physics? Chemistry? Geology? Agronomy?

Boru

[HappySkeptic]

You can't know if something is true or not without it being testable.

Your statement that something can be true without being testable, is itself untestable.

I can imagine that truths exist which are inherently untestable, but that's all it is - imagination. I will never know them and neither will you.

[Paleophyte]

I've heard atheists insist that things be scientifically testable to be true or believed, but this is silly and dishonest.

It's a basic logical requirement. Anything that can't be shown to be false can't be shown to be true. They're opposite sides of the same coin. Show me a god that can't be disproven and I'll show you a baseless opinion.

[Paleophyte]

No, one cannot perform a lab experiment replicating the life of Julius Caesar from birth to death. Therefore, it is untestible.

You have some very curious misunderstandings about what constitutes falsifiability. It would be trivially simple to demonstrate that Caesar never lived. Controlled lab experiment =/= falsifiability.

[Fake Messiah]

Science is hard.

You have to prove it, test it, and reproduce the results.

Pseudoscience is easy.

Make it up. Add fear.
Watch it spread.