Username: Additional_Goose_556
​
Interlocutor: Redditor10 (radical tolkienite)
​
Subreddit: DebateAnAtheist
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface: Persistence is key when people aren't understanding.
​
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
If there is no circumstance under which a claim can be falsified, then the claim is absurd. Absurd claims are unworkable. Unworkable claims are useless.
​
Yahweh is an example of an unfalsifiable claim. It is an absurd idea and has no use.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
If there is no circumstance under which a claim can be falsified, then the claim is absurd. Absurd claims are unworkable. Unworkable claims are useless.
​​
Yahweh is an example of an unfalsifiable claim. It is an absurd idea and has no use.
​
You existed as you made that message.
​
Can that claim about you be falsified? If not, then attempting to work with you would be absurd and useless, as I wouldn't even be able to establish that you exist.
​
That is...according to you!
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
Sure. The claim of my existence can be falsified.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
Sure. The claim of my existence can be falsified.
​
Please demonstrate it. That is, that you can be proven to not have existed while you wrote the message.
​
If you do not demonstrate it, then I will conclude that it is because you can't, as I believe it is necessarily true that you must exist in order to make a message. I believe what is true by necessity is unfalsifiable.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
I don't think you understand what falsifiability is.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I don't think you understand what falsifiability is.
​
Yeah, it's a word. Please explain what you mean by it.
​
Why don't you think I understand what it is?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
Falsifiability is the ability for a claim to be shown as false. For example, the claim, "all swans are white", is falsifiable. How? Because finding a non-white swan will falsify the claim.
​
Falsifiability doesn't mean the claim is demonstrated as false. It means that the claim can be demonstrated as false. That is, falsifiability is an attribute denoting the workability of any claim.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
Falsifiability is the ability for a claim to be shown as false. For example, the claim, "all swans are white", is falsifiable. How? Because finding a non-white swan will falsify the claim.
​
Falsifiability doesn't mean the claim is demonstrated as false. It means that the claim can be demonstrated as false. That is, falsifiability is an attribute denoting the workability of any claim.
​
Great, I understood what you meant by falsifiability. You say the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable. How? Being capable of finding a non-white swan falsifies the claim.
​
Rest assured, I am a worthy interlocutor. You can come back to proving your statement now if you want. You dodged it (perhaps justifiably?) the first time:
​
The claim of my existence can be falsified.
​
How?
​
That means it can be shown you didn't exist while you wrote the message.
​
Do you have the ability to make a message while not existing?
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
The claim of my existence can be falsified.
​
I would assume that all you need to do is demonstrate that I don't exist. Fairly straight forward. Similarly, there's a tree in my backyard. All one would need to do is to demonstrate that either (a) I don't have a backyard or (b) there are no trees in it.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
I would assume that all you need to do is demonstrate that I don't exist. Fairly straight forward. Similarly, there's a tree in my backyard. All one would need to do is to demonstrate that either (a) I don't have a backyard or (b) there are no trees in it.
​
But you know you exist. You know that I cannot demonstrate your non-existence. I encourage you to be honest and straightforward about this. So does this mean the claim about your existence is unfalsifiable after all, activating my first message about the uselessness of talking to you, according to your own words?
​
Or, are you unsure if you exist?
​
Also, why would you assume? Don't you know? Are you also assuming "the claim of your existence can be falsified"?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor10:
This is why I don't think you understand what falsifiability is. It's a description of the workability of any claim. That is, that the claim can be falsified.
​
You're asking a question about the content of a specific claim, which BTW isn't well-formed. The claim is: "Redditor10, the person posting on this subreddit, exists (as a person)." That claim can be falsified.
​
I don't think you understand this.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Additional_Goose_556:
This is why I don't think you understand what falsifiability is. It's a description of the workability of any claim. That is, that the claim can be falsified.
​
You're asking a question about the content of a specific claim, which BTW isn't well-formed. The claim is: "Redditor10, the person posting on this subreddit, exists (as a person)." That claim can be falsified.
​
I don't think you understand this.
​
If that claim can be falsified, then why don't you demonstrate that it can be falsified? You said falsifiability is the ability for a claim to be shown as false. Is it possible to show you don't exist? If not, then it must be unfalsifiable. Just saying "it's possible to show I didn't exist" doesn't make it possible nor falsifiable, it just proves your existence and consequently supports the unfalsifiable aspect of the claim.
​
I think you have been very closed off from actually engaging with me when I put your words into practice.
​
If you understand what falsifiability is, you should know that the concept behind the word can be applied to the content behind specific claims. That would be a type of practical speech. This is what I have done since the beginning. Knowing what falsifiability is, I applied it to your actual situation. Would you like to engage with me as I put your words into practice?
​
You said,
If there is no circumstance under which a claim can be falsified, then the claim is absurd. Absurd claims are unworkable. Unworkable claims are useless.
​
I said [Claim 1],
​
"You existed as you made that message."
​
That is a claim. I worded it this way figuring you would accept the content. This should have grabbed you and pulled you out of "non-practical mode" to consider the deeper "practical mode". Hey! You made a message. Can't we agree and talk about it? Why don't you put your words into practice?
​
Suppose it is true that you made that message.
​
Since you did make that message, my point is that your existence must necessarily be true. This is logical and fundamental. In this scenario, you cannot prove it to be false that you existed, because it has already been established that you made the message. Attempting to prove your non-existence would further prove your existence, which supports the unfalsifiable aspect of the claim. It is impossible to show you didn't exist. With the truth established, there is no circumstance under which [Claim 1] can be falsified.
​
Since you adhere that a claim is absurd, unworkable and useless if there is no circumstance under which it can be falsified, and I have established there is a truth claim where there is no circumstance under which it can be falsified, you adhere that a truth claim is absurd, unworkable and useless. Now, according to you, since I couldn't work that useless truth claim, I didn't work it, and this message therefore doesn't exist. Is my reasoning flawed? or is yours?
​
If truth claims are absurd, unworkable, and useless, then do you know why people are here searching for truth? Is there anyone else here who agrees with you? Of course, I am applying what you taught, to show you the odd consequences of your teaching. I believe you were mistaken.
​
You also said,
​
Yahweh is an example of an unfalsifiable claim. [Therefore, the idea is absurd, useless, etc.]
​
What if something true is unfalsifiable? What if Yahweh really exists as unfalsifiable? Perhaps you don't know that our reality is dependent on Yahweh, so Yahweh is necessarily true, and therefore unfalsifiable. But you'd call the truth absurd, unworkable and useless? If truth is absurd, then why do you think people here are trying to discover truth? Or, do you perhaps think the truth can't be unfalsifiable, so if someone shows a claim to be unfalsifiable, then it must not be true? But if truth claims cannot be unfalsifiable, then I have just proven your non-existence (it cannot be so.)
​
Someone can just give you the response you gave me:
​
"The claim of Yahweh's existence can be falsified. I would assume that all you need to do is demonstrate that Yahweh doesn't exist. If you try to say it can't be done, well, then you're just talking about the content of a specific claim, and it seems you don't know how falsifiability works."
You might say, "But that's not how falsifiability works, because you can't demonstrate Yahweh doesn't exist. I don't think you understand..." If this is the case, then that is fine. You also can't demonstrate you didn't exist while you made that message. So what makes Yahweh's existence unfalsifiable without affecting the supposed falsifiability of your existence?
Do you think I am wrong about something? If so, what exactly? and how does it render my point invalid, if at all?
Or, will you just appeal to my supposed lack of understanding again without engaging?
​
...
​
Also, I think a better way to form your claim is, "Redditor10 exists as a person posting on this subreddit". It maintains the heart of the message with a more straight-forward structure. It also uses less words than yours, doesn't repeat a noun like yours does, and it doesn't resort to using brackets. Your way is definitely fine though, it gets the message across clearly.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor10 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [006] Disguise Statements
​
Next: [008] No Power Over Logic
​
Enter: Additional Writings