Thinking About Falsifiability and Abiogenesis

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

Scientists certainly could publish their conclusions about the existence of God in the philosophy of science journals. And in so doing they would not be acting in a non-scientific way.

Yes they would. That would be acting in a non-scientific way. As you explained…

@Ronald_Cram

You propose a nice scenario, but that actually isn’t how it worked when Allan Sandage made a scientific discovery that convinced him that God existed. He did not publish a naturalistic explanation for his observations. But you are correct that he did not try to publish a paper saying that God exists either. What he did was simply report his observations in the paper without discussing the implications of those observations. However, his conclusion did launch him on a two year long spiritual quest and at the end he became a follower of Jesus.

That is exactly my point. That quest was NOT his scientific work, it was a non-scientific journey he took as a scientist, launched by a scientific observation. He did that OUTSIDE of science. You, however, arguing for a change in how scientist do science. That cannot be done WITIN science in violation of MN. You are just missing what is happening right in front of you.

---

Look @Ronald_Cram, you’ve accused me of being disingenuous, and implied I am an atheist. You’ve ignored @AJRoberts’s response to clarify. On this point on MN, there is no indication you understand that with which you are disagreeing. I’ve answered your question. You refuse to answer mine.

I’m glad you are here, but this is not terribly fun. I hope that @jongarvey or @sygarte picks this up with you. At this point, I’m done talking with you about MN and abiogenesis. Instead, let’s talk (on another thread) about some places we might find common ground.