Pascal's Wager: What Have I Lost?

[37818]

Only if they are making scientific claims and are meant to be read as a scientific text. But if they are making theological claims in poetic language, how can they be scientifically falsifiable or falsified?

How about creation of Adam and Eve and the fall being historical? The science cannot prove that those events did not happen. How could it?

[Kbertsche]

How about creation of Adam and Eve and the fall being historical? The science cannot prove that those events did not happen. How could it?

Agreed. Neither can science disprove rare, "one-off" historical events, like the Resurrection of Christ or other miracles.

[Tassman]

Only if they are making scientific claims and are meant to be read as a scientific text. But if they are making theological claims in poetic language, how can they be scientifically falsifiable or falsified?

They can’t be scientifically falsifiable or falsified because they are not science. If you want to argue that the creation narratives in Genesis and Adam and Eve in particular are poetry then I have no problem with that. Does the same apply to the "second Adam" too?

[JimL]

Edgar Cayce received unexplainable knowledge while in a sleep like trance. He was responsible for healing many people by diagnosing maladies that stumped the doctors He claimed that Christ was to be mans highest goal and aspiration. To be more Christ like. He claimed Jesus visited us four times and I believe him. There are somethings science cant explain.

Of course you believe Cayce and his claims, thats the point, like the ancient and ignorant jews and christians, you're susceptible to the con. You believe because you want to believe!

[Meh Gerbil]

You believe because you want to believe!

There are two ways to believe:
1: Believe against your will.
2: Believe because you want to.

In different posts throughout this forum both have been discounted - the wanting to believe makes you an idiot and the forced to believe makes you a slave - this is another example of arguments being used to cut off absolutely every path to belief.

[Sparko]

They can’t be scientifically falsifiable or falsified because they are not science.

Previously on Theologyweb...

The creation narratives in Genesis (and Adam and Eve in particular) are scientifically falsifiable and falsified.

Foot-in-Mouth-Disease.jpg

Tassy, do you have Alzheimer's? You seem to forget what you said previously all the time.

[Tassman]

Previously on Theologyweb...

Tassy, do you have Alzheimer's? You seem to forget what you said previously all the time.

Poor Sparko, you try so hard and never get it right.

Once again for the dummy: If the creation myth, including Adam and Eve, is presented as a scientific argument then it can be, and has been, falsified. OTOH, if it is presented as poetry it cannot, because you cannot falsify poetry.

Context, my child!

[Sparko]

Poor Sparko, you try so hard and never get it right.

Once again for the dummy: If the creation myth, including Adam and Eve, is presented as a scientific argument then it can be, and has been, falsified. OTOH, if it is presented as poetry it cannot, because you cannot falsify poetry.

Context, my child!

The context is you keep contradicting yourself and act as if you can't even remember what you said previously.

They can’t be scientifically falsifiable or falsified because they are not science.

The creation narratives in Genesis (and Adam and Eve in particular) are scientifically falsifiable and falsified.

Only one can be true. If they are scientifically falsifiable, then show it. If they are not, then you were wrong to say they were. That's the context.

[JimL]

There are two ways to believe:
1: Believe against your will.
2: Believe because you want to.

In different posts throughout this forum both have been discounted - the wanting to believe makes you an idiot and the forced to believe makes you a slave - this is another example of arguments being used to cut off absolutely every path to belief.

Believing against your will makes no sense, but believing because you want to believe simply means your beliefs are without credible evidence.

[Tassman]

The context is you keep contradicting yourself and act as if you can't even remember what you said previously.





Only one can be true. If they are scientifically falsifiable, then show it. If they are not, then you were wrong to say they were. That's the context.

Nope! The context is that scientific propositions can be falsified whereas poetry cannot. Hence the Adam and Eve story, if presented as allegory, cannot be falsified because it's not a scientist statement. Conversely, if Creationists insist that the Adam and Eve story is factually true then this is a scientific assertion that can be, and has been, falsified by science.

[Kbertsche]

Nope! The context is that scientific propositions can be falsified whereas poetry cannot. Hence the Adam and Eve story, if presented as allegory, cannot be falsified because it's not a scientist statement. Conversely, if Creationists insist that the Adam and Eve story is factually true then this is a scientific assertion that can be, and has been, falsified by science.

You seem to be equating "fact" with "science", and "poetry" with "fiction". This is a confusion of categories.

Don't you believe that poetry can express factual truth? That poetry can be historically accurate, even though it isn't science? Haven't you ever heard of epic poems or ballads that do exactly this?

[Tassman]

You seem to be equating "fact" with "science", and "poetry" with "fiction". This is a confusion of categories.

Don't you believe that poetry can express factual truth? That poetry can be historically accurate, even though it isn't science? Haven't you ever heard of epic poems or ballads that do exactly this?

Science is all about empirical verification of the facts of the natural universe. Conversely, this is not the role of poetry, which is about allegory and insightful sentiments re the human condition...not necessarily verifiable facts.

[Sparko]

Nope! The context is that scientific propositions can be falsified whereas poetry cannot. Hence the Adam and Eve story, if presented as allegory, cannot be falsified because it's not a scientist statement. Conversely, if Creationists insist that the Adam and Eve story is factually true then this is a scientific assertion that can be, and has been, falsified by science.

You were the one making the claim that it can and has been falsified by science! Then you said it could not be! It is either one or the other.

[Tassman]

You were the one making the claim that it can and has been falsified by science! Then you said it could not be! It is either one or the other.

Sigh!

Once again for the dummy: The Creation narratives of Genesis, which 'the faithful' believe to be literally true, have been falsified by science. OTOH if they are taken as allegory, rather than as literally true, then they cannot be falsified by science, because they are not scientific claims.

This seems to be beyond your capacity to comprehend.

[Sparko]

Sigh!

Once again for the dummy: The Creation narratives of Genesis, which 'the faithful' believe to be literally true, have been falsified by science. OTOH if they are taken as allegory, rather than as literally true, then they cannot be falsified by science, because they are not scientific claims.

This seems to be beyond your capacity to comprehend.

no. this seems to be you back pedaling because your error was pointed out and you want to save face. You made the claim that Adam and Eve was scientifically falsified. When it was pointed out to you that no it hasn't because most of the narrative is poetry and doesn't go into anything science can disprove you said "They can’t be scientifically falsifiable or falsified because they are not science."

duh. They are not science. Even if you take them as literally true, they are not science. So science can't falsify them.