Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,598
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
6 registered members (ProdigalOne, dedication, Kevin H, Karen Y, Daryl, 1 invisible),
3,212
guests, and 21
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Being wrong
#119127
09/13/09 03:29 PM
09/13/09 03:29 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
When reading in A Chalmers book "What is this thing called science?", I came upon this part: However, the falsificationist maintains that some theories, while they may superficially appear to have the characteristics of good scientific theories, are in fact only posing as scientific theories because they are not falsifiable and should be rejected.
...[example with Adlerian pscychology]...
If this caricature is typical of the way in which Adlerian theory operates, then the theory is not falsifiable. It is consistent with any kind of human behaviour, and just because of that, it tells us nothing about human behaviour. Of course, before Adler's theory can be rejected on these grounds, it would be necessary to investigate the details of the theory rather than a caricature. But there are plenty of social, psychological and religious theories that give rise to the suspicion that in their concern to explain everything they explain nothing. The existence of a loving God and the occurrence of some disaster can be made compatible by interpreting the disaster as being sent to try us or to punish us, whichever seems most suited to the situation. Many examples of animal behaviour can be seen as evidence supporting the assertion, "Animals are designed so as best to fulfil the function for which they were intended". Theorists operating in this way are guilty of the fortune-teller's evasion and are subject to the falsificationist's criticism. If a theory is to have informative content, it must run the risk of being falsified. The fortune tellers evation: 7. Luck is possible in sporting speculation
...[comments on preceding points]...
Assertion 7 is quoted from a horoscope in a newspaper. It typifies the fortune-teller's devious strategy. The assertion is unfalsifiable. It amounts to telling the reader that if he has a bet today he might win, which remains true whether he bets or not, and if he does, whether he wins or not. So my questions are: Is this way of viewing the world applicable to theology? If not, why not? If yes, what are the answers to the charge made? Could for instance any of the 28 FB be proven false?
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: vastergotland]
#119133
09/13/09 05:48 PM
09/13/09 05:48 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
there is plenty of evidence for an eternally burning hell in the bible.
we have come so far from the pioneers- which ellen white was also - understanding....they knew to dig deeper then the surface meaning of what was written. they knew that just because God said He did something that did not mean that He had literally done it.
in their deeper studies they came to know a God under the surface of the human language used to write the book.
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: teresaq]
#119151
09/14/09 11:54 AM
09/14/09 11:54 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
there is plenty of evidence for an eternally burning hell in the bible. Teresa, You have not introduced a connection with this statement to the content of the OP. Would you like to elaborate where you are going with this? Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#119152
09/14/09 11:55 AM
09/14/09 11:55 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Vaster, We are asked to believe things in the Bible without physical proof. That is why it is called "faith." Do you think a necessarily unprovable concept would be less necessarily unfalsifiable? In my mind, that which must be counted on faith may be neither provable nor disprovable. For example, science can never prove the non-existence of something. However, just because the concept of God is unfalsifiable (no way to prove God does not exist), does not mean that one should refuse to believe in God. In other words, there is no point in evaluating the "Articles of Faith," when indeed the very term indicates the non-scientific basis for accepting them. Faith that is seen is no longer faith (Hebrews 1:1). We do not call them "Fundamental Facts" but rather "Fundamental Beliefs." Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#119166
09/14/09 05:01 PM
09/14/09 05:01 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
there is plenty of evidence for an eternally burning hell in the bible. Teresa, You have not introduced a connection with this statement to the content of the OP. Would you like to elaborate where you are going with this? perhaps you missed this? Could for instance any of the 28 FB be proven false? or perhaps you were in a hurry as you read and didnt catch it all.
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#119169
09/14/09 05:55 PM
09/14/09 05:55 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,984
CA, USA
|
|
We are asked to believe things in the Bible without physical proof. That is why it is called "faith." Do you think a necessarily unprovable concept would be less necessarily unfalsifiable? In my mind, that which must be counted on faith may be neither provable nor disprovable. ... In other words, there is no point in evaluating the "Articles of Faith," when indeed the very term indicates the non-scientific basis for accepting them. Faith that is seen is no longer faith (Hebrews 1:1). We do not call them "Fundamental Facts" but rather "Fundamental Beliefs." hmmm, i think a little more thinking about that would reveal what i perceive as the fallacy in that thinking. if the reformers had accepted the papal doctrines on faith without searching the scriptures there would have been no reformation. if succeeding individuals had not studied further there would have been no christian connexion church from which came some of our pionneers. they had come out of various churches questioning each and every doctrine held by those various bodies and holding onto only those that were strictly bible. by your reasoning no one would have listened to william miller. subsequently there would be no seventh day adventist church today that would have fundamental beliefs that could be questioned. our pioneers, from such a rich background of questioning and searching the scriptures for oneself, found the truth. we are told there is more to discover and we are told that heresies would come in and we are told to not blindly follow our leaders however much faith and trust we have in them. from a higher authority than myself: I am glad that a time has come when something will stir our people to investigate the points of our faith for themselves. . . .
My cry has been: Investigate the Scriptures for yourselves, and know for yourselves what saith the Lord. No man is to be authority for us. If he has received his light from the Bible so may we also go to the same source for light and proof to substantiate the doctrines which we believe. The Scriptures teach that we should give a reason of the hope that is within us with meekness and fear.--Letter 7, 1888, pp. 3, 4. We are on dangerous ground when we cannot meet together like Christians, and courteously examine controverted points. I feel like fleeing from the place lest I receive the mold of those who cannot candidly investigate the doctrines of the Bible. {1SM 411.1} If your track is crossed in any way, if any one differs in opinion from you, then in place of feeling humility of mind, in place of carrying your burden to Christ, and asking him for wisdom and light to know what is truth,
you draw from him, and are tempted to present your brother's views in a false light, that they shall not have influence. We know that this manner of spirit is not of God, no matter by whom it is manifested.
When you see your case as it stands before God, you will have different ideas in regard to your own defects of character than you now have. When views are presented that do not seem in harmony with your own, it should drive you to study your Bible, and investigate it to see if you yourself hold the right position on the subject. That another holds a different opinion, should not stir up the very worst traits of your nature. You should love your brother, and say, "I am willing to investigate your views. ..{RH, August 27, 1889 par. 3} Suppose a brother should come to us, and present some matter to us in a different light from that in which we had ever looked at it before, should we come together with those who agree with us, to make sarcastic remarks, to ridicule his position, and to form a confederacy to misrepresent his arguments and ideas?... If you do take this position, you say by your attitude that you consider your own opinion perfection, and your brother's erroneous. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 5} We should never permit that spirit to be manifested that arraigned the priests and rulers against the Redeemer of the world. {RH, August 27, 1889 par. 6}
Psa 64:5 ...an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them?
Psa 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief (and his violent dealing) shall return upon his own head.
Psa 7:17 I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#119171
09/14/09 06:23 PM
09/14/09 06:23 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Vaster,
We are asked to believe things in the Bible without physical proof. That is why it is called "faith." Do you think a necessarily unprovable concept would be less necessarily unfalsifiable? In my mind, that which must be counted on faith may be neither provable nor disprovable.
So you would reject the example that Chalmers gives in the quote as false? That making claims that fit all possible situations that might concievably happen tells us nothing at all about anything. For example, science can never prove the non-existence of something. However, just because the concept of God is unfalsifiable (no way to prove God does not exist), does not mean that one should refuse to believe in God. In other words, there is no point in evaluating the "Articles of Faith," when indeed the very term indicates the non-scientific basis for accepting them. Faith that is seen is no longer faith (Hebrews 1:1). We do not call them "Fundamental Facts" but rather "Fundamental Beliefs." Blessings, Green Cochoa.
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: vastergotland]
#119173
09/14/09 06:45 PM
09/14/09 06:45 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
The following came to mind: God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.(SC 105) If I'm understanding your question correctly, Thomas, you're asking if the 28 FB's are unfalsifiable? Have you read "Mere Christianity"? C. S. Lewis took a crack at making an argument for Christianity. Very interesting book. One of the FB's asserts that the Bible is true. I think that one could be accepted as unfalsifiable. However, accepting that one as true, as a sort of axiom, the others are falsifiable.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: Tom]
#119176
09/14/09 07:12 PM
09/14/09 07:12 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Its really the other way around Tom. I am asking if the 28 are such statements that they make claims which could be shown to be false, even though they would have survived such honest atemtps or have failed to join the list.
I did read Mere Christianity a couple of years ago. I am not sure though whether Lewis is representing the average adventist or even adventism in this book.
Stating that the bible is true is a statement which would be falsified if it was shown that the bible is not true. The question then becomes, can a test be devised which the bible could fail in? And where it would be concluded that if it fail it is false while it would equally be concluded that if it does not fail it would still stand? Further, would such a test be desireable?
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: Being wrong
[Re: vastergotland]
#119180
09/14/09 09:51 PM
09/14/09 09:51 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Regarding your question about the 28 fundamental beliefs, if they are not unfalsifiable, then they could be shown to be false. Maybe you're asking if they might actually be false?
C. S. Lewis wasn't an Adventist. He was writing about Christianity.
I don't think that the Bible is true is falsifiable. There's so much room for interpretation, that whether an event is true or not could always be disputed, it seems to me.
However, Josh McDowell wrote a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" which is very interesting. The author was a skeptic, and set about to prove that Christianity was false by disproving the resurrection of Christ, and after considering the evidence became convinced that Christ actually had been resurrected. I suppose one would argue this proves the Bible is true, as it would be unlikely for Christ to have actually been resurrected and yet the Bible be false.
Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|