Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

[The Big Dog]

You get two internets for scoring a "point".

My list wasn't an exhaustive list, obviously. It was representative. But actually taking it as that wouldn't let you score a "point".

Your response is about as sensible as responding to "You can measure speed with a radar gun" by saying "Oh, so if I point a radar gun at something, it's moving?"

You have anything meaningful to say?

Did I have anything meaningful to say? You mean other than utterly destroying your claims that you can "scientifically" "test' love?

By the way, creating a more exhaustive list is not going to solve your problem when the list includes items that are not exclusive to testing for "love" and includes nothing that is mandatory for defining love.

Another fine example, my kids love me, do they feed and clothe me? hell no, the little dogs did not even buy me the socks I asked for Christmas!

Testing for something using vague, subjective and non-mandatory standards is neither scientific, nor indeed much of a test at all.

I get, tho, that you will not find this valid, clear, devastating critique "meaningful."

 

[The Big Dog]

Define love.

I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
We are together I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

 

[Hellbound]

Did I have anything meaningful to say? You mean other than utterly destroying your claims that you can "scientifically" "test' love?

By the way, creating a more exhaustive list is not going to solve your problem when the list includes items that are not exclusive to testing for "love" and includes nothing that is mandatory for defining love.

Another fine example, my kids love me, do they feed and clothe me? hell no, the little dogs did not even buy me the socks I asked for Christmas!

Testing for something using vague, subjective and non-mandatory standards is neither scientific, nor indeed much of a test at all.

I get, tho, that you will not find this valid, clear, devastating critique "meaningful."

Yes, obviously

Because we can measure the speed of a car with a radar gun, but we can't measure the speed of light with a radar gun, it obviously means there's no way to scientifically measure speed.

 

[The Big Dog]

I do find it funny that's he's arguing that no one can recognize love.

Yeah, your claim was that you can "scientifically" "test" love, a claim that you have failed to support and the argument that you have proposed to support it is has been utterly destroyed.

"recognizing" something is absolutely not the same as "scientifically" testing it.

 

[Hellbound]

Let's try a different track for a moment.

Tell me how you recognize love?

And it better be a way that isn't scientifically testable, because that's the argument that's being made.

 

[Hellbound]

"recognizing" something is absolutely not the same as "scientifically" testing it.

Prove it.

Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable.

And remember, you're demanding 100% conclusive proof from science (a claim never made), so your recognition needs that same standard of accuracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, obviously

Because we can measure the speed of a car with a radar gun, but we can't measure the speed of light with a radar gun, it obviously means there's no way to scientifically measure speed.

argument by irrelevant inconsistent strawman analogy fallacy.

 

[Hellbound]

argument by irrelevant inconsistent strawman analogy fallacy.

No argument at all. Noted.

ETA: Simply stringing a lot of words together and claiming fallacy isn't an argument or a counter-argument. Not to mention you obviously don't understand logic.

A strawman is, by definition, irrelevant, so you're doubling up on words there.

As to inconsistent, what is inconsistent with what?

As to strawman, you argued that not all the things I mentioned are present for every type of love (a claim I never made, so a strawman in and of itself). In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all. The analogy is perfectly apt to show the speciousness of your argument.

ETA2: Either that, or you're saying all love has to have identical characteristics...which makes me worry for your children/family (or feel sorry for your spouse/SO, either way).

 

[The Big Dog]

No argument at all. Noted.

ETA: Simply stringing a lot of words together and claiming fallacy isn't an argument or a counter-argument. Not to mention you obviously don't understand logic.

A strawman is, by definition, irrelevant, so you're doubling up on words there.

As to inconsistent, what is inconsistent with what?

As to strawman, you argued that not all the things I mentioned are present for every type of love (a claim I never made, so a strawman in and of itself). In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all. The analogy is perfectly apt to show the speciousness of your argument.

Simply typing out a completely inapplicable analogy is not an argument.

"In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all." Yes, now you are getting it! We cannot "scientifically" measure something that is not subject to objective criteria!

Lets take "speed.' We can measure "speed" because we have objectively established the criteria necessary to do so! We take our definition of a second (based on radiation emitted from caesium-133) and our definition of a meter (which ironically is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum) and bob's your uncle, there you go.

Love doesn't work that way, as you yourself have just noted "because the same criteria can't be used for every case," indeed there is NO criteria that can be used in every case.

QED

 

[Hellbound]

Simply typing out a completely inapplicable analogy is not an argument.

"In other words, because the same criteria can't be used for every case, we can't measure it at all." Yes, now you are getting it! We cannot "scientifically" measure something that is not subject to objective criteria!

Lets take "speed.' We can measure "speed" because we have objectively established the criteria necessary to do so! We take our definition of a second (based on radiation emitted from caesium-133) and our definition of a meter (which ironically is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum) and bob's your uncle, there you go.

Love doesn't work that way, as you yourself have just noted "because the same criteria can't be used for every case," indeed there is NO criteria that can be used in every case.

QED

Yet there are criteria that can be applied to each case, or category of cases, because "love" is not a thing. It's a word used to describe a multitude of types of affection, from familial, neighborly, parental, or preferential perspectives (to name a few).

If there are NO objective criteria to determine love at all, then it's a meaningless concept. If there's no objective criteria, then that necessarily means there's no effect on reality. That means that there's nothing there. It can't be recognized by anyone, because there's nothing to indicate it exists.

Several posts back I gave you the exact method to completely demolish my argument...I notice you've skipped over that:

Prove it.

Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable.

And remember, you're demanding 100% conclusive proof from science (a claim never made), so your recognition needs that same standard of accuracy.

Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

 

[baron]

Anyone?

A non-repeatable event.

A non-predictable event (e.g. a quantum event).

The non-existence of anything.

The velocity and location of a sub-atomic particle.

Any purely mathematical formulation (and even within maths we have proofs that certain truths cannot be proven, e.g. Gödel’s theorems).

 

[Hellbound]

A non-repeatable event.

History is not science, okay.

A non-predictable event (e.g. a quantum event).

Wonderful! I'll go tell all those quantum physicists that they aren't scientists either. And they aren't really testing any quantum events, because they can't.

The non-existence of anything.

Right, so there's no way to determine there is no square circle.

The velocity and location of a sub-atomic particle.

Both are perfectly testable, just not to arbitrary levels of precision.

Any purely mathematical formulation (and even within maths we have proofs that certain truths cannot be proven, e.g. Gödel’s theorems).

You seem to have missed the point. All of these are testable (that's how we can know those mathematical proofs can't be proven...we tested them).

Testable doesn't mean 100% accurate in all and every circumstance, to any arbitrarily determined level of precision.

And no OTHER method provides anything approaching the precision and accuracy given by science. Nothing you've given has any alternative means of recognition that is anywhere close to the 100% accuracy being demanded of scientific investigation. And in pretty much ALL of your examples, the levels of accuracy we DO have are due to science.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yet there are criteria that can be applied to each case, or category of cases, because "love" is not a thing. It's a word used to describe a multitude of types of affection, from familial, neighborly, parental, or preferential perspectives (to name a few).

If there are NO objective criteria to determine love at all, then it's a meaningless concept. If there's no objective criteria, then that necessarily means there's no effect on reality. That means that there's nothing there. It can't be recognized by anyone, because there's nothing to indicate it exists.

Several posts back I gave you the exact method to completely demolish my argument...I notice you've skipped over that:


Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

Well, now we have gone from "it's scientifically testable" to "it doesn't exist" in absolutely no time flat!

And I have already demolished your argument and salted the earth where it used to be, but you have set them goalposts a moving and want me to "Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable."

Now who else sees the problem? The word "recognized" is totally undefined, of course, which kind of blows a huge smoking hole in your request that an undefined and inherently vague concept be "scientifically testable"!

But we persevere! TBD types the word "recognized" into Google news search... picks the first article:

"Postulator: Religious killed in Algeria will be recognized as martyrs."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/05/postulator-religious-killed-algeria-will-recognized-martyrs/

"exact method to demolish" your argument you say?

Argument utterly demolished.

 

[Loss Leader]

I want no other, no other lover
This is our life, our time
We are together I need you forever
Is it love?
What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.

 

[Hellbound]

Well, now we have gone from "it's scientifically testable" to "it doesn't exist" in absolutely no time flat!

And I have already demolished your argument and salted the earth where it used to be, but you have set them goalposts a moving and want me to "Give me one thing that can be recognized in a way that isn't scientifically testable."

Now who else sees the problem? The word "recognized" is totally undefined, of course, which kind of blows a huge smoking hole in your request that an undefined and inherently vague concept be "scientifically testable"!

But we persevere! TBD types the word "recognized" into Google news search... picks the first article:

"Postulator: Religious killed in Algeria will be recognized as martyrs."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/01/05/postulator-religious-killed-algeria-will-recognized-martyrs/

"exact method to demolish" your argument you say?

Argument utterly demolished.

You really have no clue, do you?

The entire argument was that love and belief can't be scientifically tested. You argued that recognized doesn't mean tested. Things that can't be scientifically tested can't be argued to have "existence" in any meaningful sense. If you'd read the thread, you'd understand the context.

If there's no criteria to recognize love, then it can't be argued to have any meaningful existence. That's where this started from. You can't recognize anything without criteria, and given those criteria, the same recognition can be done scientifically.

If you want to talk definitions, you left love entirely undefined, then broke off from the example I gave to wander all over varying types of love. And yes, everyone saw that.

You've demolished nothing except your own credibility.

Wait, no sorry, your credibility is another one of those concepts that can't be said to have any meaningful existence.

 

[Hellbound]

This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.

This. So this.

For anyone one who says "I love so-and-so" or "So-and-so loves me", they made that conclusion using criteria that can be objectively tested for, either directly or by the effects.

Do argue otherwise is to argue that "love" is an arbitrary label slapped on anything one wishes, with no criteria at all, making it utterly meaningless.

ETA: Just as an add-on, even subjective criteria are scientifically testable...or does no one believe that scientific tests can identify mood-altering drugs?

 

[baron]

History is not science, okay.

So there's another one to add to my list.

Wonderful! I'll go tell all those quantum physicists that they aren't scientists either. And they aren't really testing any quantum events, because they can't.

You could try telling them that. Let us know how you get on.

Right, so there's no way to determine there is no square circle.

Actually there is.

Both are perfectly testable, just not to arbitrary levels of precision.

Excuse me?

You seem to have missed the point. All of these are testable (that's how we can know those mathematical proofs can't be proven...we tested them).

Something that is observed to be true and can't be proven, that's what you asked for, that's what I gave you.

Testable doesn't mean 100% accurate in all and every circumstance, to any arbitrarily determined level of precision.

I assumed you meant meaningfully testable.

And no OTHER method provides anything approaching the precision and accuracy given by science. Nothing you've given has any alternative means of recognition that is anywhere close to the 100% accuracy being demanded of scientific investigation.

You asked a question, I answered it. You can't expect me to answer a question you didn't ask, any more than you can expect me to believe everything is scientifically testable.

And in pretty much ALL of your examples, the levels of accuracy we DO have are due to science.

Science is great, it gives us a lot, but let's not wank off over it.

 

[The Big Dog]

This isn't a definition. If you can't define "love" then it's no wonder you can't test for it.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

Saying that you know it when you see it is a cop-out. Saying your kids love you would be nice if the word had a consistent definition. Otherwise, you're pointing at clouds and demanding that we prove they're made of cotton.

Did you mean to reply to me? Because I am not the one claiming that love is scientifically testable.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

 

[The Big Dog]

You know, I get tired of the whole "you can't examine love with science!" argument. And I think many miss the obvious response to it. It can absolutely be tested with science.

You really have no clue, do you?

The entire argument was that love and belief can't be scientifically tested.

Flawless victory.

takes a bow.

 

[Hellbound]

Did you mean to reply to me? Because I am not the one claiming that love is scientifically testable.

Define the concept that you believe: a) means "love"; and b) is not testable.

a) Love is the willingness to put the welfare of another above that of oneself.

b) Observe the behavior of those who claim to "love" someone else. Count the number of times they give up things they want or desire to help the other person.

You're actually getting to precisely the point I've been saying.

For any given definition of love, there are two options: it is testable, or it is meaningless.