Viktor

[Viktor @tranirk]

@ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @RenoChan @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Actually you know what. I will stick with my empiricism. It’s a great way to spot bullshitters :)

[Viktor @tranirk]

@ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @RenoChan @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski OK. Let’s not use empiricism.

How did you verify Bible is true over let’s say Quran?

Remember logical arguments are not enough - you need something more.

[Viktor @tranirk]

@ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @RenoChan @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski OK. So make the prediction and let’s verify it. Remember prediction has specific location and time.

I will wait.

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Now we are talking. Make it specific. Give me formula I can use to predict it. Or how does it work?

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Correct - I don’t understand how you can claim something is science, when literally the point of science is to make predictions. And yet you can’t use it to make any single one.

Make it make sense

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Science allows you to make predictions.

I dare you to make a prediction using Bible.

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski I know. That’s why I don’t trust it lol

[Viktor @tranirk]

I have a perfect understanding of it - there’s a ton of books that people claim to be sacred, but in reality it’s unverifiable fiction.

Because if it was true knowledge - we would be able to make predictions using it.

But we can’t. Which means it’s a pure bullshit that someone pulled out of their ass.

[Viktor @tranirk]

@ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @RenoChan @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Can you make any prediction using Bible so we could verify it’s a real knowledge?

Because there’s no such thing as objective empirical knowledge which doesn’t make predictions

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Yes, I’m lazy to study unverifiable bullshit.

That’s exactly right

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Now compare your “verification” with how we can verify that gravity works - you can go jump from the bridge and see whether it works for yourself.

See the difference?

As I said - thanks for making it clear.

[Viktor @tranirk]

It seems to me design argument is not falsifiable because:

1. The only alternative to intelligent design I can think of is a mindless process.

2. But then even if we somehow prove that something is not designed and we know 100% it’s created by some process - we can always make a claim the process was designed.

We can easily apply this reasoning to evolution - even if evolution is true, how do we know evolution itself wasn’t designed?

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski So what I hear from you is I can’t really verify whether it is true or not.

Which means it can’t be objectively true. Thanks for making it clear.

[Viktor @tranirk]

I personally find an idea of verification really useful. And the next claim that makes sense to me is “for something to be objectively true it has to be verifiable” - because how else do you know it’s objectively true?

And different types of truth have different types of verification:
* empirical claims are being verified through falsification
* math claims are being verified through whether they can be deduced from initial axioms
* historical claims are being verified through “best explanation” reasoning

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Ok, that makes sense. So what exactly can I do to verify it’s true?

[Viktor @tranirk]

@RenoChan @ProdigalNo_More @this_is_easy @DrHelios42 @Kerikal_816 @David_Kicinski Again - how do you verify that what it says is true?

This is the main property of truth - it should be verifiable.

[Viktor @tranirk]

> The Bible doesn’t claim to be empirical science. It operates in a different category.

Question 1: What category? It makes the same claims that empirical science makes: the origin of earth, the origin of first humans, etc. So clearly it pretends to be empirical science.

Question 2 (again): how do you verify those claims are true without relying on faith?

[Viktor @tranirk]

There’s a simple way to know whether something is bulshit - ask yourself “how do I verify whether it’s actually true?”

In science the answer is “I make a prediction and verify it against reality”. In math the answer is “I verify whether it’s logically deducible from the original set of axioms without contradictions”

But you can’t verify revelations. Because revelations is just fiction that someone just pulled out of their ass and called that book sacred.

Find a way to verify them and then it will be a productive conversation.

[Viktor @tranirk]

Yes, except empirical sciences and math have clear separation - empiricial science attempts to describe the world (which match doesn't do), and math gives us abstract tools (which empirical sciences don't do).

Philosophy (like psychology) is not a science - it's just a logical exercise. Nothing they claim is verifiable - so who cares what they say.

Religion, however, gets into domain of empirical science by attempting to describe the world - so it tries to pretend to be empirical science. And the fact that it doesn't make any predictions - is a clear sign that it's not a real science.

[Viktor @tranirk]

@ProdigalNo_More @DrHelios42 @David_Kicinski For something to be science it has to make accurate predictions about the future.

How many accurate predictions theology made? 😂