The second is far from boring, but it's definitely more meaningful as you have pointed out. Asceticism should not be caused by a sour grapes mindset. This way, you are not a passive observer in life, you are actively renouncing pleasure. — Eskander

It's not that simple; (bodily/worldly) pleasure is addictive (morphine-endorphin). I recall someone (I think it was myself) telling someone (else) not to start smoking instead of experimenting with nicotine and having to quit, kick the habit, later.

I thought these - confirm & falsify - were two sides of the same coin! Plus, if the experimental findings match theory-based predictions, that does/should count, no? — Agent Smith

No. For instance, many accurate predictions can be made with Ptolemy's geocentric "theory". (re: scroll down the wiki to Contents)

No. For instance, many accurate predictions can be made with Ptolemy's geocentric "theory". (re: scroll down the wiki to Contents) — 180 Proof

Good point although I'm not sure about "many accurate predictions". If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory?

Consider this too: To falsify a theory, doesn't one have to try and confirm the theory. When that fails, the theory is falsified. Two sides of the same coin.

It's under-determination. For any finite set of observations an infinite number of hypotheses can be generated that will fit the data. For any finite number of co-ordinates an infinite number of lines will pass through them. But as more data / co-ordinates are observed, some of the hypotheses are falsified.

If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory? — Agent Smith

Because it also makes false predictions, in addition to the true ones.

The problem is we can show this:

If Theory, then Data.

And so we can show this:

If not-Data, then not-Theory

But we can't (deductively) show this:

If Data, then Theory

If fairies paint the buttercups yellow, then we'll see yellow buttercups. True.
If we don't see yellow buttercups, then the fairies aren't painting them yellow. True again.
So if we see yellow buttercups, the fairies are painting them? No, sorry.

Good point although I'm not sure about "many accurate predictions". If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory? — Agent Smith

Well, for starters, there are also problems with the geocentric model that, when addressed by shifting an assumption or two, suggests a heliocentric model which lacks said problems and makes better predictions (re: Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Galileo, et al). That's how natural science works – e.g. conjecture, parsimony, fallibilism, etc.

Consider this too: To falsify a theory, doesn't one have to try and confirm the theory.

NO ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

So if we see yellow buttercups, the fairies are painting them? No, sorry — Cuthbert

I still want to go with "yes". Fairies painting the flower colours seems much more appealing.

A zero-dimensional point rather than a concrete entity (or fact), ergo wholly imaginary .

You don't get my point. You are still concerned with dimensions. The concept of dimensions doesn't apply to God. That's why l used the word "transcendent". If you want to question the meaningfulness of religious language. The concept of God is meaningful in religious language games (using linguistic philosophy ) or the classical explanation : You don't need to know "how" in order to believe in a "what" and the attributes we assign to God are clearly meaningful.

Such as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)? :pray:

The law of non contradiction isn't necessary or justified for every system. If you want a inconsistent system (this does exits), you can remove the law of non-contradiction . You see, we pick and choose whatever we want to believe/use as our foundation.

Just 'making shit up to console yourself', Eskander, amounts to little more than a drug habit (i.e. philosophical suicide ~Camus); to wit: Thou Shalt Not Question The Questionable (and the corollary Thou Shalt Defend The Indefensible In The Name Of Believing The Unbelievable).

No, I have my own intuition telling me there is a God. I don't have a mathematical proof or a experiment l can perform for you all. The existence of a order in the universe (scientific laws, mathematical truths ) POINTS to the existence of a God. You can reject this intuition but theism arguably requires less blind faith than atheism. Camus was another arrogant philosopher who could not think beyond the "intellectual" atmosphere of 20 century post WW2 Europe. His greatest problem in philosophy was "the question of suicide", it doesn't get more ridiculous. That's what you end up with once you abandon the clear intuition in your head for a gloomy doomy, woe is me, mommy I am hurt nihilism.

You don't get my point. That's why l used the word "transcendent". — Eskander

Yeah, and apparently you don't get what your "point" entails. Only unreality (the imaginary) "transcends"
reality. :pray: :roll:

The law of non contradiction isn't necessary or justified for every system. If you want [an] inconsistent system (this does exi[st]), you can remove the law of non-contradiction .

Of course, but why would a rational thinker "want" that – especially for metaphysics? "An inconsistent system" produces nonsensical results (re: principle of explosion), mere magical (woo-of-the-gaps) thinking – jibber-jabberwocky – rather than a rational (i.e. self-consistent, conceptually coherent, inferentially valid) metaphysics, etc.

The existence of [an] order in the universe (scientific laws, mathematical truths ) POINTS to the existence of a God.

Ah, let's see: spacetime ("order") "points to" some entity "beyond spacetime"? Uh huh. Well, Eskander, the Argument From Poor Design, among many other sound arguments, reasonably suggests otherwise. :point:

I have my own intuition telling me there is a God.

Aka wishful thinking. 'Wanting it to be so, therefore it must be so' (i.e. making shit up just to comfort yourself). Sounds solipsistic to me. Too g_od to be true – this doesn't ring any bells or raise any red flags, huh?

Camus was another arrogant philosopher who could not think beyond the "intellectual" atmosphere of 20 century post WW2 Europe. His greatest problem in philosophy was "the question of suicide" ...

Camus' "greatest problem" was formulated in 1940 after France fell to the Nazis and then published in 1942 – nothing to do with "post WW2". Conspicuously, you "arrogantly" deride and dismiss what do not comprehend, my friend, which also may be why you're content with the fact-free fiats of "my own intuition". :roll:

Well, for starters, there are also problems with the geocentric model that, when addressed by shifting an assumption or two, suggests a heliocentric model which lacks said problems and makes better predictions (re: Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Galileo, et al). That's how natural science works – e.g. explicability, parsimony & fallibilism, etc. — 180 Proof

I get this part.

NO ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability — 180 Proof

Here's how I understand falsifiability:

1. Formulate a hypothesis, call it T

2. T entails prediction P

3. Conduct an experiment to observe P

4. Either P is observed or P is not observed.

5. If P is not observed, then T is falsified

If P is observed, then ?

P being observed has to mean something. Otherwise there's no difference between there's no hypothesis (no T, no P) and there's a hypothesis (T $\rightarrow$ P).

Kindly read my reply to 180 Proof (vide supra).

P being observed has to mean something. — Agent Smith

This "means" nothing more than the hypothesis-P (model) has not been falsified yet. If there isn't better – fewer assumptions, more predictions, greater explanatory scope – alternative, then the currently unfalsified hypothesis-P is most preferable until it's either falsfied or superceded by another better hypothesis. Tell me, Smith: how does one "confirm" for all-time that hypothesis-P is 'the final explanation' (i.e. the truth). I'll wait ... :eyes:

Sorry but something's not quite right with your take on the issue.

There are 3 possibilities when it comes to predictions:
1. No prediction

2. Yes prediction
(i) Prediction is true
(ii) Prediction is false

If 2 (i) [Prediction is true] doesn't mean anything then it's the same as 1 [No prediction]. It doesn't make sense.

You have to be aware that science bends/breaks the rules of deductive logic.

No idea what your last post has to do with my last post.

It is impossible to understand how God exists but it's possible to see understand him with attributes we have a good understanding of. (The most merciful, The Wisest, The most Just ) etc. — Eskander

Fair enough. Is this being a presupposition of yours? By that I mean is he just something, an idea of yours, that you assume for the sake and benefit of the assumption. Or do you claim he exists in the sense that chairs and books exist, and that it's his existence that matters?

(And do you recognize that "attributes" for such an existing being are very problematic?)

No idea what your last post has to do with my last post. — 180 Proof

@Cuthbert

I'll try another approach.

If a hypothesis T makes a prediction P and P is observed via experiment is it alright to say that T is one of many possible hypotheses that explains P?

Hypotheses don't explain their predictions. (Approximately, fallibilistically) hypotheses explain phenomena. Experiments test predictions and thereby the hypotheses from which the predictions are deduced. So, again:

Tell me, Smith: how does one "confirm" for all-time that hypothesis-P is 'the final explanation' (i.e. the truth). — 180 Proof

Hypotheses don't explain their predictions. (Approximately, fallibilistically) hypotheses explain phenomena. — 180 Proof

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Aren't predictions phenomena? Being so, predictions need explanations and the hypotheses that entails them are it.

Let me tell you what I have a problem with.

Suppose hypotheses H1, H2, H3, all of which predicts P.

Then

1. P is false means H1, H2, H3 are falsified (We agree on this)

2. P is true means H1, H2, H3 aren't falsified (your stance and I agree)

What's the next step?

Evaluate hypotheses H1, H2, H3 with Occam's razor and other parameters and zero in on the best hypothesis, say H1.

In other words P is true leads to a different set of procedures in re the scientific method than P is false. These give me the impression that one of the hypotheses (H1, H2, H3) is confirmed i.e. one of H1, H2, H3 is the best and all that's needed now is to use other evaluative mechanisms to home in on it.

I believe it was Oscar Wilde's favourite novel. — Tom Storm

even his last name suggests he wasn't into direct asceticism.

Aren't predictions phenomena? — Agent Smith

No. They are statements.

No. They are statements. — 180 Proof

Statements about phenomena, no?

Statements about phenomena, no? — Agent Smith

Maps =/= territory.

Maps =/= territory. — 180 Proof

:ok: