"In other words, faith is the crucial component of the scientific method" - Perhaps "hope" is a better word here? You are hoping that the test will turn out successful, even though you are not 100% sure that it is going to (which would be more akin to "faith"). In other words, you don't believe (with 100% certainty) that it's going to work, but you have enough motivation (hope) to at least give it a hard try, given some X, Y, Z reasons.

@Mark I like your gloss here. Faith and hope are definitely related. I use the Scriptural definition of faith, which I could try to state as (roughly) belief in things that are true, without having to be shown compelling evidence that they are true beforehand. For example, doing something because it is good, only later to find out that the claims are indeed true, I say would qualify as hope. Hope is also sometimes termed an expectation. In modern parlance, a person could hope to disprove a true claim, but that hope would be vain, it would not be faith.

@Mark In an experiment with a null hypothesis, perhaps the faith is not so much in that a given explanation is true, but rather in the prospect of learning something new and interesting. The faith of many scientists has been gratified by their unexpected discoveries. One does not have to be a good guesser to do science, one only has to put in the effort to learn and weigh the outcomes candidly.

But what would you say about people who are "on the fence" epistemically regarding the truth/falsity of Christianity, but are motivated enough to give the test an honest try, in the prospect that if the test actually works out, that would be earth-shatteringly awesome? Would you say that they "believe" that the test will work, or would you rather say that they "hope" that the test will work?

@Mark Belief does appear to be a necessary ingredient to faith, which is required in both of the above Scriptural promises. It doesn't grow all at once though. "exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." Alma 32:27 One of the best ways that occurs to my mind to try to measure belief or faith is therefore the degree of investment or amount of space in a person's life he devotes to pursuing and living the doctrine, in agreement with John 7:17.

Should " ... just as there does not need to exist a mechanism for proving a false claim to be true. " instead read true / true?

@RussellMcMahon both ways are mentioned to illustrate the duality. Falsifiability would only matter for false claims, verifiability only matters for true claims. There does not need to be a test for proving that a false claim is true, since that would lead to a contradiction.

I just keep remembering Michelson, who believed that the Luminiferous Ether existed. Even numerous negative results to his own experiments didn't dissuade him. This is why we require that other people be able to test our assertions, regardless of their stance. Being proven wrong is just as good as being proven right when it comes to increasing knowledge. We should be motivated by a "love of truth" (philo Sophia) rather than personal outcomes.

@ScottRowe Love of truth urges us to go on with endeavors that will yield fruit under the right conditions. Of course we encounter the halting problem: Those with hope in the truth will eventually find it, whereas those whose pursuit is of falsehood will never find it in all eternity. This is love of truth, that we endure until we find it, and love it when we do. The proof of an unfalsifiable but true statement is fairly made when the experiments to demonstrate its truth have succeeded, and the route of falsification never comes up with anything to the contrary. Thus all things are testable.

But if the only proof is personal experience, it is hard to call it truth. If Michelson found the Luminiferous Ether but other people did not, then what do we say?

@ScottRowe Proof is always personal because the convincing of the individual cannot occur outside of the individual's conscience or awareness. Of course this does not mean that truth is relative; it is not. There is no way to obtain a testimony of truth from afar. In order to believe and come to know what is true, we must be imminently involved and seeking to learn for ourselves. That is what all of the great experimenters and discoverers have learned. The only way to learn is to learn for ourselves. No one else's learning will do it for us. The only way to know is to know for ourselves.

@ScottRowe See churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/…

You aren't testing something if there's no way the test can fail (which is falsifiability). What you're proposing is like trying to test whether a building is stable, but without having any hypothetical circumstance where you'd conclude that the building isn't stable. You can't test whether the building is stable without being able to falsify that. You could potentially make a case that something is true without falsifiability (to deal with unverifiable truths and unfalsifiable falsehoods), but it doesn't seem reasonable to call that "testing", because tests that can't fail aren't tests.

"You don't see Q, therefore P is false." This assumes that the proposition P → Q is true, but this is the proposition under test. That is not a test of P → Q. Have you not heard of Bayes Theorem or experiential learning, or proving causation, or experimental design in general? It is true that P → Q does not imply that Q → P, but that is not even part of the test for the truthfulness of proposition P → Q! It is entirely irrelevant. The above does not depend on any such argument. Simply, if you were to attempt to disprove that P → Q, you do not do so by failing to satisfy condition P.

@NotThatGuy P must be true in order to falsify P → Q. You are testing the wrong proposition. P → Q is analogized to the claim that "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from God". P → Q is the truth claim you are attempting to falsify. This cannot be done without supplying P. You provide P, and as you said, if Q does not follow, then P → Q would be false. If you fail to provide P (by not following the experimental protocol), you cannot disprove P → Q.

@NotThatGuy The proposition is that you (and anyone) can come to know the Actual God and that He exists (Q) by satisfying the prerequisites He has given (P). Together, this proposition is P → Q. P and P → Q are not the same test. They are not even the same proposition. P is not even merely a proposition. It is a condition. I have a degree in this field and have taught professionally. If you were doing this as an assignment I would fail you on this.

@NotThatGuy If Q is false, then P is false or P → Q is false. This is true. However, it is not the same test because you failed to disambiguate whether P is false or P → Q is false. Since you did not satisfy P, you can say nothing about P → Q. This is very simple. You don't assume P, you must provide P so that you have a chance at falsifying P → Q (or of failing to falsify it by observing Q).

@NotThatGuy Again, P is not what is under test. I have stated this many times. This really isn't rocket science, it's just the most basic and ubiquitous element of logical proofs used everywhere throughout the world. If P then Q. Is that statement true? In order to find out, you must supply P. Otherwise it remains unfalsified, not because it is unfalsifiable, but because of a simple failure to conduct the experiment at all. It is telling the teacher that the answer to the hypothesis in the assignment is "no" "because I didn't even do the assignment!"

@NotThatGuy I clearly demonstrated to you that you had chosen to conduct the wrong test (not the test advanced in the question nor addressed in this answer), and you had decided not even to entertain the experiment, and then you claimed that the question was faulty, introducing circular reasoning, even though it really is just vanilla Modus Ponens, the first homework assignment we give in propositional logic classes. You can do with that what you will.

By the exact same logic, Islam/Zoroastrianism/Hinduism/etc are all veritably true, as all truly converted muslims/zoroastrianists/hindus/etc can attest. Since all these religions are incompatible, all but one (at least) MUST be wrong by definition. Given that the exact same logic simultaneously proves (potentially) true statements AND (demonstrably) false statements, how exactly are we meant to use it? Either you have a logical paradox... or the logic is just wrong.

@JSLavertu Not remotely. You just assumed truth is relative, but it is not. There are such things as dishonest and deluded attestations. But if no one can know anything, you're stuck in relativism forever. People can know things for certain. The standard of truth is not whether someone says something is true unless that being is God. There is no paradox. You assumed that nothing is knowable, or that truth is relative. I made no such assumption. Remove your faulty assumption, and the problem goes away.

@pygosceles Lets say I meet a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu. Using the argument you presented, all three claim to have objective knowledge that their religious beliefs are true and that the other two are dishonest or deluded. By definition, we know that at least two of them must be wrong. How can we test which are wrong and which are right? If you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from God" to justify the Christian faith, you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from Allah/Shiva/Odin/etc." to justify any religion.

@pygosceles The exact same logic you use to dismiss other religions can be used to dismiss yours. You claim that other religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded, others claim that your religion's attestations are dishonest or deluded.

@JSLavertu No, not at all. A syllogism based on false premises is not logically equivalent to one based on true premises. Learn the difference.

@JSLavertu "How can we test which are wrong and which are right? If you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from God" to justify the Christian faith, you can use "if you ask in faith, you will receive an answer from Allah/Shiva/Odin/etc." You misunderstand. The justification is not in making the claim about asking in faith. The justification is in the fact that the God of Christianity will answer whereas the others will not, because they do not exist. By this recipe anyone can know that the God of the Bible is the One True God, and all others are false gods.

@pygosceles You claim the God of Christianity will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. Others claim the God of Islam/Hinduism/etc. will answer whereas the others will not because they do not exist. You start by defining your position as being correct and use that as a justification to say it is correct, that's just circular reasoning. You've provided zero reason why a neutral observer would accept your religion's claim to objective truth over any other religion's claim to objective truth.

@JSLavertu Again, you are just arguing in circles by conflating a claim with a proof of the truth value of the claim. "Because I claim X, X must be true". That is not my argument. The proof is independent of the claim. All who ask God sincerely in faith to know He is real are answered by Him. Please be honest and do not misframe the issue. I know emotions are caught up in the subject which can make it difficult to reason objectively when you don't want something to be true. You can't falsify the syllogism without satisfying the prerequisite. This is basic science and good logic.

@pygosceles It's rather ironic that you'd accuse me of having trouble reasoning objectively because I don't want something to be true given your complete refusal to engage with the fact that other religions use the exact same argument you use to prove their claims and discard yours as delusions or lies. Your line of reason provides no way to verify or test which contradicting claim is true (if any), because it fundamentally relies on claims that cannot be falsified. It's neither basic science or good logic.

@pygosceles Consider this idea: Your claim to know the Christian God exists is the result of deception by Shaitan, but if you ask Allah sincerely in faith, he will reveal the truth. If you don't get an answer from Allah, you are simply deluding yourself and aren't asking sincerely in faith. See how the exact same argument you use to dismiss other religions can dismiss yours?

@JSLavertu It's not the exact same argument. We can summarize our conversation thus: Pygo: "Thy sky is blue. Anyone can look up and see that the sky is blue." JSL: "That claim is just as valid as saying that the sky is green." Pygo: "No it isn't. One is true and the other is false." JSL: "But the only reason for saying it is blue is your claim" Pygo: "No it isn't. The sky is blue independent of claims." So again, do not be deceptive, but look up and see what color the sky really is. In other words, ask God with humility instead of insisting that He is unknowable because of contrary claims.

@JSLavertu Of course coming to know that the sky is blue by looking and seeing it presupposes that we have eyes. Do you have eyes and do you use them for seeing?

@pygosceles I don't think you could strawman my argument harder if you tried. In case you didn't notice, I'm not religious. The actual conversation is this: Pygo: "My religion is objectively true and self evident, all others are wrong." Another religious person: "No, MY religion is objectively true and self-evident, all others are wrong". JSL: "At least one of you must be wrong and since I don't know which (if any), I can't use one person's claim of objective truth to verify either religion."

@pygosceles Which brings us to the main issue. You claim A and notB, they claim B and not A. Both of you claim that sincere faith will eventually result in proof of your claim. So tell me, how can I tell the difference between a god that doesn't think I meet the threshold for revelation and a god that doesn't exist? If I sincerely ask in faith for the Christian God and get no answer, you'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there. If I sincerely ask in faith for the Muslim God, they'll say I'm doing it wrong and that the objective truth is right there.

@pygosceles At the end of the day, your claim of objective truth is functionally equivalent to other religions claims of objective truth. Both depend on claims that revelation will follow if you you are sincere enough, and that any lack of revelation just means you aren't doing it right. I'm sorry, but your claim is just as self-evident as the claims of other religions, which is to say not at all.

@JSLavertu All people have a religion. In the example you gave, you are punting on what is true. Again, I say the sky is blue. Someone else says it is green. "These claims are logically equivalent", you say. "I cannot tell which is true", you say. You could look up and see. Again, the truth is not proven by the claim but by the means of discerning whether the claim is true, or which may be true. "how can I tell the difference between a god that doesn't think I meet the threshold for revelation" You had better meet that threshold for revelation. Otherwise you have got nothing to say.

@JSLavertu "if you you are sincere enough" - How sincere are you willing to be? It is already a given that our capacity to discern truth, especially truth of the greatest worth, depends greatly on the degree of our sincerity and the price we are willing to pay to know it. If you are in any way not sincere or are deficient in the requisites, what are you doing pretending to be able to attack or debunk the knowledge someone else has? Go and get your own. The manner is published and thoroughly attested.

@pygosceles I can see there is no rational discussion to be had here since you aren't willing to engage with my argument in good faith. Shame.

@pygosceles Also, this just came to mind: "The sky is blue" is true AND falsifiable. If I measure the wavelength of light coming from the sky and it doesn't land within roughly 450-495nm, the claim would be wrong. A claim being falsifiable doesn't depend on the claim ultimately being true or not.

@JSLavertu I have characterized your argument precisely as it really is. Your only argument is that you punt on the question of what is actually correct. An identical argument could be advanced for theories both true and false, and your only claim is that because they sound similar to a novice who is unwilling to perform any experiment to confirm what is true, they must be judged on the sole basis of the claims, without any external verification. This is congruent with whim and prejudice. Popper's claim equating falsifiability with testability is false. I don't know if you read the answer.

@pygosceles Your refusal to acknowledge that, without actual evidence, other religion's claims to objective truth have just as much value as yours does not constitute a flaw in my argument. I understand the rationale of your argument: If your claim is objectively true, getting an answer WOULD be proof. But if it ISN'T, getting an answer is simply delusions or self-deception (in the exact way you claim the followers of other religions are deluded or self-deceiving). Since the contents of your mind aren't accessible, an outside observer cannot tell the difference based on your words. [1/2]

[2/2] The only way to prove it is to get personal revelation, but since there is no way to distinguish between a god that doesn't answer (for whatever reason) and a god that doesn't exist, we've reached a point where its impossible to contradict the truth claims of ANY religion. A believer can merely say that the lack of revelation is due to not meeting the threshold, independently of whether or not their god exists. Just as you do here.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.