Yours is a completely conditional claim and unfalsifiable in this life, with a prepoderance of people claiming equivalent quality and quality of evidence that they're right and you're not.
“If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith," is logically flawed. At minimum, it's confusingly stated (possible typo?) Faith *is* unfalsifiable by design.
You might mean: “If it were falsifiable, it would no longer be faith.” *That* would align with traditional definitions.
The idea that faith ends at revelation — common in Christian eschatology — renders faith temporally bounded, which undermines claims of its enduring epistemic value.
*This logic is invulnerable to critique unless the premises (scripture as source of truth; faith as virtue) are themselves challenged — which would require an entirely different framework.*
Your theological language masks what is essentially: "I'm right because I have faith I'm right, and someday you'll see I was right all along." If you're right, make specific and timebound predictions regarding events. Saying "the end is nigh" ad infinitum until any end arrives for any reason then saying, "I told you so," is not valid. Failing to do analysis, show the working and make clear and testable predictions based upon it is an admission of a lack of sovereign epistemology and ontology.
The original poem does not engage with the world in such a manner at all; it courts paradox, accepts unknowability, and (superficially) moves through contingent willingness, not doctrinal certainty (by some readings).
Unfalsifiable means that something (like a statement, theory, or claim) cannot be proven false.
In other words Faith cannot be proven to be false.
Faith may well be temporally bounded by eschatology but life itself is temporarily bounded my friend. Epistemic faith is transcendent and even if we now see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Cor 13:12), and it is ontological because the philosophy of being and the nature of reality was recognized even by the ancients as the shadow of eternal forms (Plato) or defined by materialism and empiricism (Aristotle) and probably resides in the merging of both approaches. Shakespeare's Hamlet quote comes to mind: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Like your poem scripture courts paradox (freewill/predestination) and unknowability (hence faith) with God being at the same time knowable and unknowable (John 17:3/Acts 13:23/Exod 6:3)
The realized teleology of faith complements the eschatological teleology inspiring confidence even when dark forces are hijacking the script "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will" (Rev17:17). The Abraham accords will fail. Someday you'll see I was right all along (lolz).
You've also contradicted your first assertion re faith:
"If it were unfalisifiable it would not be faith."
is contradicted by
"Unfalsifiable means that something (like a statement, theory, or claim) cannot be proven false.
In other words Faith cannot be proven to be false."
their you agree with me that:
" “If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith," is logically flawed. At minimum, it's confusingly stated (possible typo?) Faith *is* unfalsifiable by design."
Saying "The Abraham Accords will fail" when:
A. Present circumstances are highly destructive and transient politically;
B. The AAs are barely in place or in effect to any significant extent;
C. The underlying force of tension between AA drivers and countervailing realpolitik i.e. Hegemonic (Palestinian genocide + AA + Syrian Usurpation & break up + Greater Israel plan) vs counter-hegemonic (anti-US imperialism + multi polarity via BRICS + potential extremis anti-Israeli genocide regional kickback) supranational conflict (read Hybrid World War 3) is in its second phase (of several);
Is not insightful or of predictive value. It's nothing more than saying "it'll snow in Iraq".
Your core rhetorical strategy: is [assert self-righteous certainty around vague statements] i.e. you aren't engaging in good-faith reasoning but rather performing certainty through religious authority.
You can retreat into pseudocomplexity (Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare references) after being caught in logical contradiction all you like but that is only greater proof of the need to engage in classic deflection tactics. Name-dropping when the underlying logic remains flawed does not bolster you when you contradict yourself and therefore agree with me and concede the ground (faith IS unfalsifiable by definition).
You will continue to double down with more theological "complexity" -- deliberately using complexity as camouflage rather than illumination -- or switch to attacking me and/or my motivations, but you've effectively demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of arguing from unquestioned authority while claiming logical superiority without possessing foundational solidity.
Your position benefits (in an extremely limited way) from being internally consistent with its own theological logic and unassailable if the sanctity of religious texts remain axiomatically accepted (I do not accept that though you accept it for a version of the Christian bible -- hundreds of variants being contradictory proof). Even under those circumstances, which you have attempted to lever and assert here, you have simply undermined yourself and that position in a single contradiction that you, not I, generated under no pressure from me:
"If it were unfalisifiable it would not be faith."
This is the single, indelible fingerprint of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.
No one with understanding of faith that you claim to have would have made that statement, then, when asked if it was a typo, said, "no, and now I'll contradict my own statement by agreeing with you about what faith is but then continue to double down while ignoring my fundamental error."
Look up any/all of these terms:
- Pseudo-intellectual
- Epistemic arrogance
- Intellectual hubris
- False consciousness
- Sophistry (dependent on cleverness, proven likely not to apply here given the self contradiction and double down)
You just demonstrated that you have not changed and this paragraph is pure projection and sums you up perfectly:
"Pseudo-intellectual - Epistemic arrogance - Intellectual hubris - False consciousness - Sophistry (dependent on cleverness, proven likely not to apply here given the self contradiction and double down) - Dunning-Kruger effect - Confirmation bias - Motivated reasoning - Epistemic closure - Epistemic overconfidence."
For all your "intellectualism" and "analytical insights" you are narrow minded. I will take my lead from Scripture: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt 7:6 ). I will unsubscribe and you can employ your semantics and pilpul elsewhere. They won't save you.
The statement "If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith" is internally contradictory within Christian theological tradition, which precisely defines faith as belief in the absence of empirical proof (cf. Hebrews 11:1).
Paul freely said "If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith". This contradicts the Bible and the concept of faith.
He then agreed with me that faith cannot be proven false, thereby conceding the initial error without acknowledging it.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV):
> "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
"This verse explicitly defines faith as belief in the absence of empirical confirmation. It also aligns with the theological principle that faith precedes knowledge, and, in some traditions, is the only legitimate conduit to certain forms of knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God, salvation, eternity)."
Faith is thereby intentionally unfalsifiable, affirming my interpretation and contradicting his own earlier misstatement.
Freedom is not Free my friend,
It comes at a price.
one that has already been paid,
For if the Son set you free,
You are free indeed.
Yours is a completely conditional claim and unfalsifiable in this life, with a prepoderance of people claiming equivalent quality and quality of evidence that they're right and you're not.
It is called faith.
And the just shall live by faith.
If it were unfalisifiable it would not be faith.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Soon it will be seen and then faith will no longer be necessary.
In the meantime science (or transhumanism) won't save humanity.
Huge changes are coming. The evil works of man will be undone.
Your statements are:
- circular in multiple ways;
- use internal theological logic to assert its necessity, legitimacy, and eventual obsolescence;
- combines scriptural reference, doctrinal framing, and self-reinforcing (metaphysical) claim structure.
“If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith," is logically flawed. At minimum, it's confusingly stated (possible typo?) Faith *is* unfalsifiable by design.
You might mean: “If it were falsifiable, it would no longer be faith.” *That* would align with traditional definitions.
The idea that faith ends at revelation — common in Christian eschatology — renders faith temporally bounded, which undermines claims of its enduring epistemic value.
*This logic is invulnerable to critique unless the premises (scripture as source of truth; faith as virtue) are themselves challenged — which would require an entirely different framework.*
Your theological language masks what is essentially: "I'm right because I have faith I'm right, and someday you'll see I was right all along." If you're right, make specific and timebound predictions regarding events. Saying "the end is nigh" ad infinitum until any end arrives for any reason then saying, "I told you so," is not valid. Failing to do analysis, show the working and make clear and testable predictions based upon it is an admission of a lack of sovereign epistemology and ontology.
The original poem does not engage with the world in such a manner at all; it courts paradox, accepts unknowability, and (superficially) moves through contingent willingness, not doctrinal certainty (by some readings).
It is deliberately constructed.
Semantics and Pilpul
Unfalsifiable means that something (like a statement, theory, or claim) cannot be proven false.
In other words Faith cannot be proven to be false.
Faith may well be temporally bounded by eschatology but life itself is temporarily bounded my friend. Epistemic faith is transcendent and even if we now see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Cor 13:12), and it is ontological because the philosophy of being and the nature of reality was recognized even by the ancients as the shadow of eternal forms (Plato) or defined by materialism and empiricism (Aristotle) and probably resides in the merging of both approaches. Shakespeare's Hamlet quote comes to mind: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Like your poem scripture courts paradox (freewill/predestination) and unknowability (hence faith) with God being at the same time knowable and unknowable (John 17:3/Acts 13:23/Exod 6:3)
The realized teleology of faith complements the eschatological teleology inspiring confidence even when dark forces are hijacking the script "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will" (Rev17:17). The Abraham accords will fail. Someday you'll see I was right all along (lolz).
You've simply repeated prior argumentative style: asserted self-righteous certainty around vague statements.
You've also contradicted your first assertion re faith:
"If it were unfalisifiable it would not be faith."
is contradicted by
"Unfalsifiable means that something (like a statement, theory, or claim) cannot be proven false.
In other words Faith cannot be proven to be false."
their you agree with me that:
" “If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith," is logically flawed. At minimum, it's confusingly stated (possible typo?) Faith *is* unfalsifiable by design."
Saying "The Abraham Accords will fail" when:
A. Present circumstances are highly destructive and transient politically;
B. The AAs are barely in place or in effect to any significant extent;
C. The underlying force of tension between AA drivers and countervailing realpolitik i.e. Hegemonic (Palestinian genocide + AA + Syrian Usurpation & break up + Greater Israel plan) vs counter-hegemonic (anti-US imperialism + multi polarity via BRICS + potential extremis anti-Israeli genocide regional kickback) supranational conflict (read Hybrid World War 3) is in its second phase (of several);
Is not insightful or of predictive value. It's nothing more than saying "it'll snow in Iraq".
Your core rhetorical strategy: is [assert self-righteous certainty around vague statements] i.e. you aren't engaging in good-faith reasoning but rather performing certainty through religious authority.
You can retreat into pseudocomplexity (Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare references) after being caught in logical contradiction all you like but that is only greater proof of the need to engage in classic deflection tactics. Name-dropping when the underlying logic remains flawed does not bolster you when you contradict yourself and therefore agree with me and concede the ground (faith IS unfalsifiable by definition).
You will continue to double down with more theological "complexity" -- deliberately using complexity as camouflage rather than illumination -- or switch to attacking me and/or my motivations, but you've effectively demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of arguing from unquestioned authority while claiming logical superiority without possessing foundational solidity.
Your position benefits (in an extremely limited way) from being internally consistent with its own theological logic and unassailable if the sanctity of religious texts remain axiomatically accepted (I do not accept that though you accept it for a version of the Christian bible -- hundreds of variants being contradictory proof). Even under those circumstances, which you have attempted to lever and assert here, you have simply undermined yourself and that position in a single contradiction that you, not I, generated under no pressure from me:
"If it were unfalisifiable it would not be faith."
This is the single, indelible fingerprint of a man who doesn't know what he's talking about.
No one with understanding of faith that you claim to have would have made that statement, then, when asked if it was a typo, said, "no, and now I'll contradict my own statement by agreeing with you about what faith is but then continue to double down while ignoring my fundamental error."
Look up any/all of these terms:
- Pseudo-intellectual
- Epistemic arrogance
- Intellectual hubris
- False consciousness
- Sophistry (dependent on cleverness, proven likely not to apply here given the self contradiction and double down)
- Dunning-Kruger effect
- Confirmation bias
- Motivated reasoning
- Epistemic closure
- Epistemic overconfidence
You just demonstrated that you have not changed and this paragraph is pure projection and sums you up perfectly:
"Pseudo-intellectual - Epistemic arrogance - Intellectual hubris - False consciousness - Sophistry (dependent on cleverness, proven likely not to apply here given the self contradiction and double down) - Dunning-Kruger effect - Confirmation bias - Motivated reasoning - Epistemic closure - Epistemic overconfidence."
For all your "intellectualism" and "analytical insights" you are narrow minded. I will take my lead from Scripture: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Matt 7:6 ). I will unsubscribe and you can employ your semantics and pilpul elsewhere. They won't save you.
FOR THE REMOVAL OF AMBIGUITY/DOUBT
The statement "If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith" is internally contradictory within Christian theological tradition, which precisely defines faith as belief in the absence of empirical proof (cf. Hebrews 11:1).
Paul freely said "If it were unfalsifiable it would not be faith". This contradicts the Bible and the concept of faith.
He then agreed with me that faith cannot be proven false, thereby conceding the initial error without acknowledging it.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV):
> "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
"This verse explicitly defines faith as belief in the absence of empirical confirmation. It also aligns with the theological principle that faith precedes knowledge, and, in some traditions, is the only legitimate conduit to certain forms of knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God, salvation, eternity)."
Faith is thereby intentionally unfalsifiable, affirming my interpretation and contradicting his own earlier misstatement.