re: Satanic Temple puts up display at Michigan Capital

quote:

---

No, that's only provisionally verifiable to the person who dies, if it's true. That's kind of a goofy way to define something as verifiable.

---

I'm understanding "verifiable" to mean that a particular truth claim (belief) is able to be confirmed or denied. If I, personally, am able to verify whether or not my belief is true when I die, I count that belief as verifiable.

quote:

---

If a proposition cannot be verified in a substantive way that can be shared with others, it's not verifiable.

---

Why is the sharing of the outcome necessary for a proposition to be verifiable? Let's use this as an example:

Proposition - I believe that when the body dies, the soul goes to either Heaven or Hell depending on what a person believes while alive.

Outcome - Upon death, my goes to Heaven.

Does the outcome verify my proposition (belief)? I would say it does in this example, regardless of whether or not it can be shared with other living persons.

quote:

---

Otherwise, the crazy lady next door could "verify" that she's being abducted by aliens every night. If she can't provide substantive evidence of this belief to others, then it's not verifiable

---

What you are asking for is a scientific measure that can objectively prove or disprove a belief. What if no scientific measure exists due to the limitations of science, itself? Does that mean a person cannot verify a belief through experience?

quote:

---

This is not a timeline issue.

A fact is verifiable in the present.

A belief is not verifiable in the present.

Try to philosophize this all you want, but it does not change it

---

What this boils down to is whether or not a truth claim is actually true, and whether or not such truth can even be known "for a fact".

Not all truth is verifiable in the present. We see examples of this all the time. Take any case where, at the time, all of the evidence pointed towards a person's guilt in a court of law, yet the truth of innocence wasn't able to be proven until years later with advances in technology. The truth was always the truth, but the verification of it wasn't able to be made "in the present" at that time.

Similarly, either Heaven exists or it doesn't. There's no scientific way to prove it, but that doesn't mean it cannot be verified. The only known possible verification of it is death, which, unfortunately, renders communication about said verification impossible. You have to experience it to know whether or not the truth claim is actually true.

Some beliefs are verifiable in the present while others aren't. Like I said before, my wife can tell me something and I can believe it as true. I can accept her at her word (faith) or I can verify it. I can still believe something while having the ability to verify it in the present. When it comes to religious truths, those aren't necessarily verifiable in the present, but it doesn't mean that they can't be verified in the future (such as at your death).

quote:

---

I'm understanding "verifiable" to mean that a particular truth claim (belief) is able to be confirmed or denied. If I, personally, am able to verify whether or not my belief is true when I die, I count that belief as verifiable.

---

That's the thing, you can't. Your premise is not true.

Premise: If I, personally, am able to verify whether or not my belief is true when I die

The bolded is the problem. You can't verify if your belief is not true if you are wrong. You won't exist. That means the conditions are not met to satisfy your premise.

quote:

---

Ok substitute "atheist" for metaphysical naturalist. I would say you now have a belief.

---

Dude, he didn't mean that atheists don't have ANY beliefs, period. He meant they don't have a belief with respect to the existence of a god or gods. The word "atheism" literally means "without theism" or "without belief in god or gods"

quote:

---

It serves no purpose except to make others less comfortable.

It's sad these folks are not happy and comfortable enough with their own choices so as to feel need to make others unhappy with them. If this lady was pleased with her own belief-set, she would place something honoring atheism, or atheists.

Weird person. Weird concept.

---

Not really for you to say.

quote:

---

Under this definition we could say a rock or a tree is an atheist.

---

quote:

---

Here's where it gets tricky because you get into a lot of caveats based on the particular belief and the particular outcome. If there is nothing and my consciousness just disappears for eternity, the truth of an afterlife is verified to be untrue, even though I'm no longer aware to be able to know or understand it. That's an example where I cannot knowingly verify the truth claim, even if the truth claim is verified by my death.

---

I strongly disagree. If you don't exist, nothing can be verified to you. The existence of an observer is implicit and essential in the concept of 'verification'--you can't separate the two and still have verification. At least that's the way I see it.

I think you're overthinking this. are you an atheist because you don't believe in thousands of other gods except the one you believe in?

He was arguing atheism wasn't a belief system. Unless you want to say absence of belief is a belief system.

quote:

---

Unless you want to say absence of belief is a belief system.

---

you're making my point for me