Of course, it would be trivially easy for God to convince everyone in the world that he exists if he wanted to, but evidently he does not want to, so the burden of proof falls upon those who claim he exists.
To respond to the topic at hand, I'd begin by saying that if a pandemic caused mankind to lose their sense of sight, it would be totally "unfalsifiable" to claim that color was real. The concept of unfalsifiabity is really a word game that since "I never experienced it, therefore it can't be real". In my example you can see how there are other kinds of claims that are "unfalsifiable" that can nevertheless be true. (Of course this is true for any historical claim as well, ours just happens to be quite similar to the one I chose.) What Sagan is doing with his unfalsifiability blabber is reframing the argument as scientific one (and I mean the current physical science version of that), when it is really an argument of a different nature entirely.
You don't need everyone to lose their eyesight in a pandemic -- it's already unfalsifiable to claim that *other people* experience color, or indeed, experience anything at all. You might be the only mind in the universe and everyone else is just a p-zombie. I prefer not to argue over the sorts of topics that stoned college kids debate in their dorm rooms.
True, but while you wrote that very well, you missed the point. I didn’t express interest in debating these sorts of topics; I merely used my example (as I explained) because it is similar to Judaism’s claim. My point was simple: Sagan’s “unfalsifiability” is useless in this conversation. Judaism’s claim isn’t a scientific argument, but that doesn’t mean it’s like the invisible lizard or whatever.
I see that you're very eager to continue the conversation, but if you are unable to answer the question in the title of this post, you're frankly admitting that there's no conceivable way I could change your mind. I'm not sure how fruitful further conversation will be.
I can’t answer that question in one fell swoop. It just isn’t the first thing to talk about because it gets answered after many other layers. Your need for a one sentence answer is unreasonable.
#3 is an odd one: Assuming God is omnipotent, he should have some way of proving he exists beyond reasonable doubt, rendering it perhaps falsifiable.
Of course, it would be trivially easy for God to convince everyone in the world that he exists if he wanted to, but evidently he does not want to, so the burden of proof falls upon those who claim he exists.
Not yet.
I wouldn't hold my breath
This is basic. BTW, I strongly believe that Judaism cannot be falsified, as it doesn't fall into the category of fact. Its for a later post.
Will your later post explain the difference between believing in Judaism and believing in the Simulation hypothesis or the Dragon hypothesis?
Sorry, I had to answer someone else's comments. But oyurs is next. Promise!
Looking forward to it!
Yes. I hope to get to it next post.
To respond to the topic at hand, I'd begin by saying that if a pandemic caused mankind to lose their sense of sight, it would be totally "unfalsifiable" to claim that color was real. The concept of unfalsifiabity is really a word game that since "I never experienced it, therefore it can't be real". In my example you can see how there are other kinds of claims that are "unfalsifiable" that can nevertheless be true. (Of course this is true for any historical claim as well, ours just happens to be quite similar to the one I chose.) What Sagan is doing with his unfalsifiability blabber is reframing the argument as scientific one (and I mean the current physical science version of that), when it is really an argument of a different nature entirely.
I hope to respond to your other post soon.
You don't need everyone to lose their eyesight in a pandemic -- it's already unfalsifiable to claim that *other people* experience color, or indeed, experience anything at all. You might be the only mind in the universe and everyone else is just a p-zombie. I prefer not to argue over the sorts of topics that stoned college kids debate in their dorm rooms.
True, but while you wrote that very well, you missed the point. I didn’t express interest in debating these sorts of topics; I merely used my example (as I explained) because it is similar to Judaism’s claim. My point was simple: Sagan’s “unfalsifiability” is useless in this conversation. Judaism’s claim isn’t a scientific argument, but that doesn’t mean it’s like the invisible lizard or whatever.
Or we can have the conversation here...?
I see that you're very eager to continue the conversation, but if you are unable to answer the question in the title of this post, you're frankly admitting that there's no conceivable way I could change your mind. I'm not sure how fruitful further conversation will be.
Eager is hardly the word.
I can’t answer that question in one fell swoop. It just isn’t the first thing to talk about because it gets answered after many other layers. Your need for a one sentence answer is unreasonable.
Here is one sentence though: I would know I'm wrong if all the layers that have gotten me to where I am are shown to be unfounded.