If you ring up Swinsons and say to the girl-‘the car in my imagination has broken down but I would like to make a claim because I am certain I insured it with you in my dreams’ she might possibly reply ‘but that’s an unfalsifiable claim’.
Or you ring up a house insurance company ‘I want to make a claim I have a house but I haven’t a clue whereabouts in the universe it is but I feel (I don’t know how) some slates have fallen off the roof and I am certain that I insured it with you on the borderland of my imagination’ quite possibly she would again say-‘but that’s an unfalsifiable claim’..
When used within the remit of science as a philosophical point it sounds perfectly ok. Just another way of saying you have to go out and find empirical evidence to prove a theory is true. But the phrase it seems to me is never used like that.
The problem is the word ‘claim’. If I say ‘I believe in God’ I’m not making a claim. I am just stating my belief. If I simply say ‘God exists’ that is of course an unfalsifiable claim. But you don’t hear religious people talk like that. We say The Creed every week at mass. ‘I believe…’ it starts.
There is tons of evidence I BELIEVE for the existence of God, the harmony of the universe, human love, heroic self -sacrifice but this evidence (in this context) can’t be used because harmony, love, sekf-sacrifice are abstract, intangible concepts.
But in that case you cannot say anything about anything at all. ‘Patience is a virtue’.
Patience is an abstract noun so is virtue. You cannot generalise about either of them with this carry on. You could maybe sit with a person for days and days to ascertain their patientness and then ask friends and relatives if they think he or she is virtuous. But that would be very laborious for every truism or proverb.
You know for a bit of fun I might simply post ‘God exists’ on here and the first person to reply with ‘that’s an unfalsifiable claim’ I will immediately reply-‘and I claim my £5:,00’.
Nominated by: Miles Plastic
Morning miles. A thought provoking cunting enjoyed reading it sir. Without abstract thought such as a belief in god which maybe real or maybe an invention to suppress the people??? Mankind would not have gone on to develop, invent and improve things.
One thing for certain is That no insurance girl on the other end of the phone would ever say is ‘but that’s an un falsifiable claim’. Never. Bless her little cotton socks. Thank you for the read.
5
Who? God isn’t he that bloke with a long white beard who shits on everybody from time to time 😂
9
Food for thought Miles. Nicely done.
cunt; noun, vulgar slang for a woman’s genitals
cunt; adjective, vulgar slang for someone who is stupid, useless, rude and/or a detriment to mankind.
The next time someone says “You’re a cunt,” I intend to respond with; “That’s an unfalsifiable claim.”
But if they say; “I think you’re a cunt.” I’ll just have to shrug and accept it.
Merry Christmas to all. 🎄
(Morning/Evening, General. Good to hear you again – DA)
8
Thank you DA.
I’ve made a few posts. But actually, with the Thanksgiving holiday here in the states, I’ve been busy eating waaaaaaaay too much turkey and pumpkin pie and giving thanks.
It’s also a tradition in the Cuntster household that the day after Thanksgiving is the official start of the Christmas Season. Given the Progressive Left’s war on our traditions…and the idiotic politicians trying to lock us down and deprive us of our celebrations …I’ve spent the last few days decorating the “The Villa” for the upcoming holiday.
And in full disclosure, I spent a bit of time in quiet reflection.
Merry Christmas to all. 🎄
5
I hope that I can be forgiven for changing the subject, but it appears ISAC’s favourite, Lewis Hamilcunt has the ‘rona.
I am sure Miles will be the first to pray for him.
(Yep, a nom has just this minute appeared for the egotistical omnipotent cunt. Gotta feel sorry for the virus tbh – DA)
9
Well Sir Lewis is a BAME as he never stops telling us. The Batshit Flu is racist you know. Invented by the yellow devils.
13
What a shame! He was wearing a mask when standing and only took it off when sitting in his car. But but but that’s what we’re told to do in restaurants, so how could he catch it?
Please don’t tell me mask-wearing is ineffective…
9
According to reports our BAME population is going to get the Chinky Flu’ vaccine ahead of whitey.
Another example of the one way waycism we tolerate.
6
Let them have it first GG.
They usually have their filthy paws out looking for freebies and on this occassion I’m happy for them to shove their way to the front of the queue.
What could be better than 13% of the population willingly being used as human Guinea pigs before the rest of use step up.
If it all goes tits up, they can blame Doreen Lawrence. It was her insistance that the BAME get it first because whitey beez all raysiss n’ sheeiiit.
7
If he dies will that be proof that black lives don’t matter?
9
Shame that he’s already won the world championship.
Hope he’s got room on his mantelpiece for the cunt of the year award that he’s inevitably going to win.
10
Good stuff MP.
Does something have to have corporeal mass ie be an object, to be said to exist? If not, then ideas are like teapots or pillar boxes. If so, what are ideas? Fucked if I know. John Locke had good stuff to say about all this but I forget what it was exactly.
People say Covid 19 exists. Has anyone ever seen it? Maybe its just an idea.
5
I would imagine there are quite a few scientists who have seen Covid19 when looking through a microscope.
5
(Electron microscope – viruses are generally too small for optical pics) Picture here:
https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/bodyeditor/202002/hkumed_coronavirus_photo-x811.png?yc4wD24j0Ubh3tfye9z9KBWCXg1aCbwp
0.5 micrometre is about 1 wavelength of blue-green light.
3
Interesting. That looks just like Trump’s friend Coroni from Spitting Image!
2
I do believe this to be an excellent posting Miles. And truly very interesting.
5
Interesting bit of jesuitical sophistry there, Miles! But it resolves to this:
You might say “I BELIEVE God exists”. That’s fine. Perhaps one day a brain scan may be able to confirm your assertion: the relevant neural pathways will exist. It will then become falsifiable. Until then it is just an assertion, and I will defend to the death your right to make it because I believe in free speech. (And you may indeed believe you believe in God…see the infinite regression coming down the track? )
“God exists” is unfalsifiable because you cannot prove the universe would be any different from one in which no God existed. You might say that this makes “God does not exist” equally unfalsifiable, but a counter-sophist would return you to Russell’s teapot argument: stripped of humour this says there are no more logical grounds for supposing a God in the first place than positing a teapot in space. Granted, Russell failed to envisage the ISS, but I don’t think even that has a teapot…
I would prefer to say that all opposites are ultimately unified in Buddha-consciousness…ommm.
5
I prefer to say ‘God is’.
It does not open up potential philosophical word games by using ‘exists’ – opposite being ‘does not exist’ – or saying I ‘believe’ it to be so.
The very fact of my subjective awareness is all the proof needed – God is the seer, seeing, and seen.
2
However you say it, that expands to to “There’s a something. That something is God”. Logical notation requires the existential quantifier “∃” . Using ‘is’ as an intransitive verb doesn’t get you out of that.
3
Only when you hold the belief in dualism, between object and subject. I don’t hold that belief. God is not a thing.
God is everything, and nothing. Non-dual.
You can’t reason your way to it through language, Komodo. Philosophy, real philosophy, comes from direct experience, not language games.
1
Bugger, Must have triggered WordPress. Maybe it will reappear. Meanwhile If God is ‘everything and nothing’ that’s a meaningless statement. You can’t separate God from existence and nonexistence? It’s like, y’know,everything? Then you don’t need a descriptor, far less to assign to the entity powers that you cannot cause it to reproduce (ie feed 5000, water into wine, eg) Just call it the universe. “I believe in the Universe” sounds less daft, too.
In fact, I know where you’re going, and I sympathise. You’re moving via Gnosticism to Buddhism – which I hinted at above (ommmm!). I think the Zen boys get it right, and, rather eerily, converge on modern physics.And no, I know you don’t. Save yourself the trouble.
3
I don’t have much love for Buddhism. It’s exotic for western minds, but still has far too much verbiage and protocol for my liking. Again it’s just another case of chinky whispers where the original spark has been lost and a monument built to the memory of it.
Advaita Vedanta is the closest thing I believe in as such, as far as philosophy goes, but the method I subscribe to is outlined by Ramana Maharshi.
1
Another sweeping generalisation. There certainly isn’t much verbiage in Zen and it’s 100% alive – that being its point. You should like it; it doesnt reason with words (it doesn’t reason at all). Sure, some Buddhist sects are over-wordy and ornate, but then you can say the same about Catholicism or Greek Orthodox practice. And practically all Hindu practice…
I suppose I need to duck if I equate Vedantism with Hindu idol-worship in order to match your generalities. If you are in blue elephant country there is no hope for you!
2
Have you read Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, K?
Pretty fucking groovy last time I looked (circa 1985), time for a re-read, methinks.
3
Yes, read ZATAOMM, Ruff, and was greatly impressed by the first half. less by the second. I don’t dare read it again because the concepts are no longer new to me and I am much, much older now! I did explore the field – and science – in more depth after that, and I guess my resting point (like Adams) is that the universe is quite supernatural enough without believing in fairies. ‘My miracle is that I exist’ as one of the Chinese Zen people said. There are even hints in the synoptic Gospels that this may have been where Jesus was really coming from…except ye become as little children…etc
4
Ground Control to Major Tom. There you are up in Thunderbird 5 (floating on a tin can as it were).
‘The sky is blue and there’s nothing I can do…’
If reality is only ‘neural pathways’ how can you know if there is anything outside your brain at all?
Floating in a vacuum….
4
I suppose if someone walked up to you and punched you in the stomach it might give you a pretty good clue.
4
Wondered when you’d reappear (in a lower orbit). Good question:
Simple answer: I don’t know. However I can infer it from the mere fact that I can access and generate information. Am I a king dreaming I am a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming I am a king? Can’t find anything about that in my Concordance, so I refer the Hon. religious enthusiast to M. Rene Descartes.
Or to the Hindu sources, incidentally:
tat tvam asi
2
‘Wondered when you’d reappear (in a lower orbit)’
No I’m down here on Tracey Island my feet firmly on the ground..
2
If He invented cider then I’ll vote for him.
9
Only if it is Aspalls Premier Cru or Westons Vintage.
4
Well that about wraps it up for God.
4
Well I know that “Cuntishness” exists…I’m the living embodiment and there’s certainly nothing abstract about me…in fact I’m horrifyingly tangible and more than happy to prove that a concept can exist in reality…a claim that,I suspect, a rather shocking number of people will be only too happy to verify.
9
A very thought provoking nom. Sure, there must be some creator or some entity responsible for creation of the universe and beyond. My problem with religion is how it’s whole creation is around the anthropomorphising of that creator, i.e. God, who loves all his flock.
My view is that religion was a means to controlling the masses all those thousands of years ago before science offered an explanation for plagues, war, pestillence, death, thunder and lighting, Ant & Dec, etc. Much of what we know now is explained by scientific theorem, which is demonstrated empirically here on earth. There is still much we do not know outside our plant, which has been studied by eminent professors who offer views but these are exmaples of those pesky unfalsifiable claims.
Even Stephen Hawkhing believed in a ‘creator’, but not necessarily a giant, white bearded man or some kiddly fiddling goat-fucker.
6
But why “MUST” there be a creator or some entity responsible for the creation of the universe and beyond?
You say that much of what we know can be explained by scientific theorem. I would go further and say that science proves beyond doubt that our planet and all life on it are nothing but a fluke, a freak of nature, an accident, a by-product of weird and wonderful events of which we have little understanding.
You refer to Stephen Hawking, I would refer to Brian Cox and David Attenborough, both very respected men of science and both avowed atheists.
Just because something exists, doesn’t mean that something had to have created it. Sometimes, things just happen.
2
“Science proves beyond doubt that our planet and all life on it are nothing but a fluke, a freak of nature, an accident”
and
“Sometimes things just happen” – another two unfalsifiable claims, eh old bean? One thing we can agree on is that this is something we are unlikely to ever know.
3
Very true, I concur 100%.
It also casts doubt on your claim that “some creator” is responsible for the creation of the universe and beyond.
Eh, old bean?
2
Indeed it does, just my belief but by no means proof.
3
That would explain the peacefuls then.
4
All the truely great scientific minds inevitably couldn’t escape the conclusion of some creative force beyond mere pointless chance. The more you think you know, the more you don’t.
1
Alternative definition:
Unfalsifiable: a word made up by religious types to justify their belief in mythical beings, even when they know that such things don’t really exist.
5
The Universe exists therefore God exists?
Pfft…
As Christopher Hitchens said: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.”
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
None of this, however, prevents one from enjoying great stories of the paranormal. Like many people I relish the spur to the imagination such stories provoke. But they are just stories, and the fact that there is much we do not understand on a scientific basis does not mean that such things will not be understood at some point in the future.
Until then, to treat something as self-evidently paranormal is to curtail curiosity and the willingness to learn. And by applying easy labels and simple meanings that are satisfying to those who don’t like to think, and patronising to those who do, such treatment strips us, our minds, our world and our universe of their staggering complexity and richness.
To quote Douglas Adams: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
10
Excellent post RTC👍
Great reference to Christopher Hitchens – I have enjoyed many hours watching him on Youtube videos. He always made religious types look like the fools they were. It took a very brave (or foolish) person to try to argue against him. Sadly missed.
4
My thoughts exactly.
2
Chris Hitchens, like all staunch atheists, doesn’t really grasp philosophy or try to. Politics was his game, and language. Attacking religion without offering anything worthwhile to replace it is cheap profiteering.
Athiests don’t care to open their minds because they’re afraid they may lose justification for their gravy train of unrepentant selfish behaviour. That they may actually have to do some more thinking and investigation instead of resting on their arrogance.
Athiests expect and demand objective proofs. Yet how much subjective investigation have they done?
Athiesm is temporary destination, unless one is intellectually cowardly and lazy. It is the resort of the childish mind that refuses to mature.
3
Not true. It is the believers who have the “childish mind that refuses to mature”. Why else would they believe in mythical beings and miracles, which are all disprovable by scientific evidence?
It is odd to accuse atheists of a “gravy train of unrepentant selfish behaviour”. Surely this is a perfect accusation to level at Christians and people of faith. How else do you explain the Crusades, and all the kiddy-fiddlers within the Christian churches?
Look back through history and you will see the amount of truly horrific things done by people in the name of their god.
Sure, non believers are not blameless when it comes to violence, but it seems that more horrific atrocities have been carried out in the name of god.
And, atheists have clearly shown they have opened their minds as they have examined the facts and seen the truth. Why does anything need to replace religion? Why not the simple act of looking around you and accepting that this is all there is?
No, needing to cling to something because they are afraid of the possibility that, beyond death, there really is nothing there, shows that it is the religious folk who have the childish minds, not the atheists.
5
Disgarding religion and all it entails based on the crimes of the political elite is no different than doing the same with democracy today. You lump everyone under the crimes ordered by the few, and completely ignore the humble and moral men whos names history didn’t record? The quality of that argument is fit for a young secondary school aged boy who knows only surface facts.
The Vatican are barbarous scum, but there are plenty of followers who would be appalled if they knew the truth. More over, they all know nothing of the esoteric wisdom on which the church is built, and neither do you because you automatically discount it as even a possibility.
I have no time for athiests. Even with their precious science they refuse to continue investigating there. They just rely on Brian Cox and other priests to sing soothing lullabies about how man has got it pretty much all figured out. If they were really interested in science they would know this is evidently not true at all!
2
Bollocks.
Science is more than ready to investigate if you have evidence, that’s the whole point of science.
Bottom line: It is the role of the believer to provide evidence of his claims, not the role of the non-believer to prove that the believer is incorrect.
For example, esteemed cunter Cunt’s Mate Cunt claims that “there is an invisible pink unicorn called Gerald who lives in my shoe.”
I cannot prove conclusively that there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn called Gerald living in CMC’s shoe, but I shouldn’t have to simply because he says it is so.
If that is his belief and wants me to believe it too, it’s up to him to show me.
And I’ll require better evidence than “I believe it because I just KNOW in my heart that he lives in there”.
If you think I’m being unreasonable, try proving any negative and you’ll soon see you get stuck.
Imagine I want you to believe there is a green transsexual mouse in your house. If you don’t believe it exists are you being narrow-minded? Surely it is my job to find it and show it to you because you would never be able to prove there was no green transsexual mouse in your house, would you?
You could search for it and take everything out of the house, but it could always be hiding somewhere you weren’t looking. You can’t prove it doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative.
And not believing it exists without unequivocal evidence is not being closed minded. It’s healthy scepticism.
As long as you’re willing to believe the green transsexual mouse is there when you finally have unequivocal evidence that it IS there, as opposed to me just telling you it is, then you’re not being remotely narrow-minded to presume it isn’t or to ask for that evidence.
That’s healthy scepticism.
Show me real-world evidence for your extraordinary claims, and I’ll believe you.
7
Well said RTC. One of the best posts I have read on this subject.
Bravo sir👍
3
I think Chris Hitchens is a godless heathen and a blasphemer,
He should be nailed to a cross till he sobers up.
Only way he’ll learn im afraid…
1
Too late MNC. The cancer got him first☹️
0
Ahhhh….
Gods punishment!!😀
1
Yes their immaturity BCC. What did he call his book on Mother Theresa? ‘The Missionary Position’. How cheeky, how daring. I remember him once in a TV debate with some cardinal. After all his comments a cheeky little grin.l to the camera.
Similiar to Stephen Fry ‘walking out’ of a debate with Anne Widdecombe. Supposedly because what she was saying was so ‘outrageous’. He couldn’t take it anymore.
He walked out because he was losiing the debate.
Immature as you say, not grown up.
2
He just couldn’t stand her grating voice, is my guess.
Now if it had been Dawkins vs Welby rather than a hack broadcaster and a failed politician….
3
More likely she made a move to inject him with her patent Cure-a-Qüeer® concoction. 😂
3
Interesting but:
‘ human love, heroic self -sacrifice’
This doesnt seem to fit in the context of religion as it actually is.
Look at the CoE and Vatican with their shocking child abuse now, and violence in the past.. Islam with it’s creed of hatred. Even the Hindus and Buddhists are involved in murder and bigotry.
Whether god exists or not is irrelevant. It is man’s belief that is and always has been the problem.
6
Very true. Well said sir.
Being virtuous and loving are as much human traits as being evil and violent. They are nothing to do with mysterious beings floating around the ether.
5
I believe and I think are matters of opinion.
Science doesn’t give a shit what we think, even if our guess is a correct one
4
I recall a quote from Woody Allen in one of his films (Sleeper, I think):-
“I am what you may call a teleological existential atheist”
Which has some resonance with me.
However, now he is just a cunt.
2
Repent, sinners. Repent!
Joking aside, I think the piss talking out of Christianity has left a vacuum where people have become more individualistic (which according to the Bible is what the devil wanted). ‘Do what you want and to fuck with your tribe’ has led us to where we are now.
I’m not overly religious, but perhaps it’s something to ponder instead of the snidey comments.
Bottom line, taking the piss out out of and neglecting Christianity has brought the west to where it is today. You could lose your job for calling a bloke ‘he’ instead of ‘they’. You then go home to find your kids have been raped by the local ‘taxi drivers’ and the police don’t care. You go to the offy to drown your sorrows and get stabbed by an architect for your iPhone. Then, a bunch of dark keys protest outside your house demanding reparations. You flee to the airport with your family, hoping to get the hell out of dodge. Only a few destinations are untouched by such globalism (anti-honky/anti-Christianity), but you find a destination where you may be safe from this madness.
A few minutes into the flight some peacefuls stand up and shout something about a snackbar…
Well played! Keep the snidey comments about religion coming, because it’s working out so fucking well for us all, isn’t it?
Repent!! Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh! (Full Alex Jones mode activated)
5
Cannot keep up with all this philosophy. My turn to set fire to the bins at the back of the deli. Get into the festive spirit again.
4
Religion?
An interesting nom MP, but religion is not for me – Mans fear of death exploited for an opportunity to make money and get power.
Some of the richest organisations in the world but simultaneously mean, greedy and callous.
The good principles of faith and kindness to our fellow members of humankind p*rverted by the greedy and opportunistic.
If it gives comfort and meaning then by all means crack on, but with the greatest possible respect, when I see the harm religion does I wonder how much faith is involved.
Right, off to whip some money changers in a temple..
5
Well said Vernon👍
We may disagree on certain subjects, but I agree 100% with everything you said there. A very accurate description of religion.
3
‘Man’s fear of death’
‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’.
2
Fear. The rock on which religion is invariably built. It promises to realise your worst fears if you don’t subscribe. It takes the credit for all the natural events you fear (but cannot mitigate them). There we have it out of your own keyboard, Miles.
3
Why would I want to worship, bow down to, pray to, adore and generally devote my life to something that wants me to fear it?
Anything that either wants or expects us to fear it should be despised, laughed at, and expelled from our lives.
How about a loving, compassionate god? One that makes the world a better place? Where has that one been hiding?
3
Ththththat would be an ecumenical matter. FECK OFF…..
2
Falsifiable claim, unfalsifiable claim yada yada yada…
‘It means nothing to me in my life’.
Yeah Woodbine Willie in the trenches. ‘You soldier your end is near prepare to meet your Make even if it an unfalsifiable claim….
Or ‘You soldier your end is near have you given any thought to the ‘god hypothesis’ ‘Now is the time’.
3
What a load of old wank. I don’t even like being labelled an atheist, as it means you had to waste valuable time having to take this preposterous nonsense on board to properly dismiss it.
Instead, I wish there was a different label you could attach to people who don’t have time for any supernatural crap, ghosts, mermaids and all the other tripe that humans feel the need to believe.
Oh yes, there already is a word. Sane.
4
That evil murdering cunt Ian Brady claimed to be an ‘Existentialist’.
Fuck that and fuck him and his Hindley bitch.
3
That would be an ecumenical matter. DRINK!!! ARSE! GIRLS! FECK OFF….
4
Sorry to necro this nomination but I haven’t been on the forum in over a week.
“If I simply say ‘God exists’ that is of course an unfalsifiable claim. But you don’t hear religious people talk like that”
If you think that, then there’s a good chance you’ve never watched an episode of the public access call-in show in Austin, Texas called the Atheist Experience then.
“Just another way of saying you have to go out and find empirical evidence to prove a theory is true.”
The purpose of the scientific method regarding scientific theories is not to prove them true but to attempt to FALSIFY them. An hypothesis doesn’t count as science if it can’t be falsified hence the phrase “you’re not not wrong”. You literally got that arse-backwards.
“But the phrase it seems to me is never used like that.”
Presuppositional Christian Apologists are constantly using sophistry and misusing philosophy in order to “prove” the existence of God.
– Fine-tuning Argument
– The Kalam Cosmological Argument
– Teleological Argument
– Ontological Argument
– Moral Argument
– Transcendental Argument
– Presuppositional Argument
– Alvin Plantinga’s Argument
– Pascal’s Wager
– Epistemological Arguments
& then there are all of the piss-poor ways strong theists/apologists try to misuse science to “prove” God.
– Mathematics/Biblical Patterns (basically Apophenia)
– Thermodynamics
– Quantum Mechanics
– Geology
– Radiometric dating (or a misunderstanding of it).
– Others I can’t think of right now.
0