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

[Hellbound]

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

We'll disagree on that, then.

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

You're the one that gave it as an example of something not scientifically testable. We can determine the probabilities of quantum interactions, by scientific testing.

Actually there is.

Right, so that argument is out, as well.

Excuse me?

We can determine the position of a particle, but such degrades the accuracy of any measure of momentum (rather than velocity, but close enough), and vice-versa. Both of these measurements are made with scientific tests...thus, scientifically testable.

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

No, that isn't. I asked for something recognizable that can't be scientifically tested, and asked for the same level of accuracy on that recognition (100% accurate, absolutely no chance of error) that is being demanded of scientific testing.

I assumed you meant meaningfully testable.

To a degree, yes.

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.

It's either testable, or makes no difference to reality.

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

I'm not. There's simply no better method yet known for understanding reality.

 

[Hellbound]

Flawless victory.

takes a bow.

Thank you for conceding.

IF you were an honest debater, you would realize that, in the last quote, I was speaking of the argument I was arguing against: Your and others claim that love can't be tested.

But of course, actually attempting to understand would undermine your internet point scoring.

 

[applecorped]

love

/ləv/

noun

noun: love; plural noun: loves

1.an intense feeling of deep affection.
"babies fill parents with intense feelings of love"

synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment;

ETA: Of course that's easy, but you do hit on the problem: Just like "god" and "soul" people add a LOT of baggage to their definition of "love".

Frankly, we can recognize love...that's why we have a word for it. How do we recognize it? Either by how we feel (internal behaviors) and act (external behavior) towards one we "love", or by how they act towards us.

Both of which are amenable to scientific investigation.

Love is a description of multiple behaviors. One person's love is another person's hate. IE. Tough love.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thank you for conceding.

IF you were an honest debater, you would realize that, in the last quote, I was speaking of the argument I was arguing against: Your and others claim that love can't be tested.

But of course, actually attempting to understand would undermine your internet point scoring.

Oh dear, you are supposed to be arguing FOR this:

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 would not have us believe that the burden has shifted and that we have to show the negative of your claim, now do you?

Of course not. Seeing how you claimed it " absolutely be tested with science" and that you have absolutely failed to show this in any way, shape or form it would appear that my preceding point was indeed the winning one.

 

[Hellbound]

Love is a description of multiple behaviors. One person's love is another person's hate. IE. Tough love.

Exactly. But for any given definition, that definition can be tested against the behavior observed.

 

[Hellbound]

Oh dear, you are supposed to be arguing FOR this:



You would not have us believe that the burden has shifted and that we have to show the negative of your claim, now do you?

Of course not. Seeing how you claimed it " absolutely be tested with science" and that you have absolutely failed to show this in any way, shape or form it would appear that my preceding point was indeed the winning one.

Funny, and here I thought I've given multiple examples of how different definitions of love can be tested. You then proceeded to use different definitions and claim victory.

Not to mention my initial post was the response to the previous assertions that love and belief can't be tested or are outside of science. No one's supported that with anything but assertion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Funny, and here I thought I've given multiple examples of how different definitions of love can be tested. You then proceeded to use different definitions and claim victory.

Not to mention my initial post was the response to the previous assertions that love and belief can't be tested or are outside of science. No one's supported that with anything but assertion.

"how different definitions of love can be tested"? First of all, that is absolutely hilarious for reasons that should be obvious.

Second, claiming something can be 'tested" does not at all mean the test is scientific.

Third, you have proposed this:

"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."

which demonstrates that you have unilaterally defined a term describing a behavior that is not exclusive to a relationship of "love" and then set up a "test" (which is "counting" ) which gives us data which .... what exactly are we to do with that data? Is there a chart you would have us draw up or something?

 

[Hellbound]

"how different definitions of love can be tested"? First of all, that is absolutely hilarious for reasons that should be obvious.

Second, claiming something can be 'tested" does not at all mean the test is scientific.

Third, you have proposed this:

"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."

which demonstrates that you have unilaterally defined a term describing a behavior that is not exclusive to a relationship of "love" and then set up a "test" (which is "counting" ) which gives us data which .... what exactly are we to do with that data? Is there a chart you would have draw up or something?

1, 2, 3... look ma I'm doing SCIENCE!

Yes, I'm giving you precisely the kind of scientific testing that can be done. Simplified, of course.

1. Observation: Observe a phenomena, event, whatever you'd like to test
2. Define terms: what are you testing for? My definition is that that is love, and exclusive to it. If you have a different definition, then trot it out and I'll give you an example of a test for it.
3. Set up your test. I gave a very overly simplified example, but you could easily set up controlled conditions to test a specific situation. For example, a situation where test subjects are given enough food for a single meal, then have to decide whether it goes to them or their loved one. That's still simplistic, but gets across the concept.
4. Examine the results.

Again, your main argument seems to be twofold: first, I'm not using your definition of love (which you seem strangely reluctant to give , almost as if you know that if you do it will be amenable to testing), and second, you're demanding 100% proof and accuracy of any test (rather than the reality, that science simply gives us the best answer within the limits of the question).

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, I'm giving you precisely the kind of scientific testing that can be done. Simplified, of course.

1. Observation: Observe a phenomena, event, whatever you'd like to test
2. Define terms: what are you testing for? My definition is that that is love, and exclusive to it. If you have a different definition, then trot it out and I'll give you an example of a test for it.
3. Set up your test. I gave a very overly simplified example, but you could easily set up controlled conditions to test a specific situation. For example, a situation where test subjects are given enough food for a single meal, then have to decide whether it goes to them or their loved one. That's still simplistic, but gets across the concept.
4. Examine the results.

Again, your main argument seems to be twofold: first, I'm not using your definition of love (which you seem strangely reluctant to give , almost as if you know that if you do it will be amenable to testing), and second, you're demanding 100% proof and accuracy of any test (rather than the reality, that science simply gives us the best answer within the limits of the question).

4. Examine the results. Ok, now what? I literally just pointed out that you have failed to explain what we are supposed to do with the data, and "examine it" ain't gonna cut it.

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "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."

 

[Hellbound]

4. Examine the results. Ok, now what? I literally just pointed out that you have failed to explain what we are supposed to do with the data, and "examine it" ain't gonna cut it.

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "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."

If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.

 

[The Big Dog]

If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.

You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy!

Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.

 

[Hellbound]

You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy!

Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.

That was the assertion that prompted my initial response, the claim that love and belief were somehow beyond science.

And that seems to be your MO. To simply point out, without any evidence whatsoever. To assert failure and claim victory on the basis of smoke and shadows.

So, let's try another tactic, if you actually believe your argument has merit.

Answer either of the following questions:

1. How do you determine when you love someone?

or

2. How do you determine someone loves you?

ETA: I'll even give you a third option: How do you define love?

Answer any of those, if you actually want to do anything to support your position, instead of just naysay and assert the usual bluster.

 

[Thor 2]

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."

I wouldn't take your children's love for you as a given. I have seen many examples where this is not the case at all.

My brother embraced Christianity in his late teens and thought my father possessed by a demon, because of his lack of religious observance. There was little love there.

You may find yourself thinking about this when your children get older. Your kids may reject Christianity or .... even worse .... become protestant, and resent the years of religious indoctrination you subjected them to. The quality of their love for you might then become apparent.

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't often see that blatant of an attempt to switch the burden of proof and to top it off, I am to prove a negative. HooBoy! Again, I will point out that your "welfare" testing regime is the antithesis of "scientific" testing.

So, let's try another tactic, if you actually believe your argument has merit.

Answer either of the following questions:

1. How do you determine when you love someone?

or

2. How do you determine someone loves you?

ETA: I'll even give you a third option: How do you define love?

Answer any of those, if you actually want to do anything to support your position, instead of just naysay and assert the usual bluster.

Now I am being gaslighted...

Let me repeat this again:

My "main" argument is quite simple:

you have wholly failed to prove this: "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."

I actually bolded it this time. As such, there is no need to change the subject or try a different tactic.

Just support your claim. easy peasey!

 

[Hellbound]

I have supported my claim.

You keep saying I haven't, and throwing around bald assertions, but you seem unable to give any specific reasons as to why my claim fails.

You assert the definition is wrong, yet provide no correct definition to use.

You assert fallacy, but can't show it.

You assert the test is unscientific, but give no details as to why. Simply your bare assertion. I don't accept your authority as a scientific expert, considering that in your time on this forum you've given no evidence of understanding anything about it (beyond parroting some buzzwords).

Simply naysaying doesn't defeat an argument. A counter-argument has to be supported just as an argument does. If my arguments are insufficient, then be specific in the objections.

I also notice you continue to avoid actually defining any terms or answering any questions that might provide a way to move forward in this. Because, of course, you know that if you do, if you can no longer rely on the nebulous and varying definitions of love to change the criteria from moment to moment, you'll no longer be able to deny that I'm right.

You're quick to throw insults, but seem to be sorely lacking in anything of substance.

So prove me wrong. We're all still waiting.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have supported mmy claim.

You keep saying I haven't, and throwing around bald assertions, but you seem unable to give any specific reasons as to why my claim fails.

You assert the definition is wrong, yet provide no correct definition to use.

You assert fallacy, but can't show it.

You assert the test is unscientific, but give no details as to why. Simply your bare
assertion.

Simply naysaying doesn't defeat an argument. A counter-argument has to be supported just as an argument does. If my arguments are insufficient, then be specific in the objections. I don't accept your authority on, well, anything.

I also notice you continue to avoid actually defining any terms or answering any questions that might provide a way to move forward in this. Because, of course, you know that if you do, if you can no longer rely on the nebulous and varying definitions of love to change the criteria from moment to moment, you'll no longer be able to deny that I'm right.

So prove me wrong. We're all still waiting.

You mean where I pointed out several times the obvious glaring flaws in your completely made up welfare explanation where you "count" sacrifices and conclude "If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love," which is not only is laughably unscientific ("consistently" now there is a solid term, consistently as compared to what?) but fails to take into account the love that exists in the absence of "sacrifices" (such as a child's love for a parent).

Most importantly, the rebuttal to your claim (ie love "can absolutely be tested with science.") is again right there in your post: the definition of love is "nebulous" because it is subjective and the way a person experiences love differs for each and every person. That is why you cannot and have failed to show that love "can absolutely be tested with science."

Again, QED

eta: avid readers will again note the attempt to shift the burden, and that I have to prove him wrong. I don't have to prove anything, it is his burden, and indeed he has not only failed to carry the burden he has indeed repeatedly proved himself wrong.

 

[baron]

I have supported my claim.

You haven't. Subjective information cannot be measured objectively. The clue is in the word 'subjective'. What a ridiculous assertion.

 

[Fudbucker]

If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love. More trial runs under more situations over more time will increase the accuracy of the results.

Just because the criteria is subjective, doesn't mean it can't be objectively tested.

You have wholly failed to prove it can't be tested.

It is? I'm a teacher who routinely places my kids' welfare above my own. I don't love my students.

 

[Hellbound]

You mean where I pointed out several times the obvious glaring flaws in your completely made up welfare explanation where you "count" sacrifices and conclude "If a person consistently places the others welfare above their own, then it's love," which is not only is laughably unscientific ("consistently" now there is a solid term, consistently as compared to what?) but fails to take into account the love that exists in the absence of "sacrifices" (such as a child's love for a parent).

Gotcha. So you continue to rely on not defining the term in order to muddle the waters. Also continue to rely on the fact that love is a group of behaviors, rather than a single one. By the same argument, energy can't be measured scientifically.

Most importantly, the rebuttal to your claim (ie love "can absolutely be tested with science.") is again right there in your post: the definition of love is "nebulous" because it is subjective and the way a person experiences love differs for each and every person. That is why you cannot and have failed to show that love "can absolutely be tested with science."

Again, QED

And for any of those subjective definitions, they can be tested. All that's required is to define the definition you're testing beforehand, and design your test and predictions based on that.

More bluster, more assertion, and you still can't explain why those multiple definitions of love can't be tested (you simply assert that they all, necessarily, have to be included in every test or it doesn't count. Because you don't understand, well, anything really).

I'm off to enjoy my weekend. Have fun with your "victory".

If you ever get around to making an actual, valid objection, I'll get back to you next week.

 

[The Big Dog]

Gotcha. So you continue to rely on not defining the term in order to muddle the waters. Also continue to rely on the fact that love is a group of behaviors, rather than a single one. By the same argument, energy can't be measured scientifically.

Oh well, now I have to define the term HE used in HIS claim ("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.")

And I guess energy is a "group" of "behaviors" or something which is simply another terrible analogy like the speed of light analogy that I demolished by showing that speed is measured using OBJECTIVELY verifiable standards.

have a super weekend, tho.