A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 5

No, I didn't refute Petersen; Petersen did

 

Jason Petersen has already responded to my May 7 "Part 3" post. Of course, he did it at his website without any link or reference from his home page, so I had to find out about it from others who have had run-ins with Petersen.

Karen claims that because my arguments are unfalsifiable, therefore, my 24,000 post was destroyed. She then goes on to, in behavior that is ever so typical for her, straw man me by saying that I couldn’t be wrong, that, therefore, my worldview is not testable. Now, why did I say that my worldview is unfalsifiable? Anyone who read my previous response to her would clearly see that I said that the reason why my worldview is unfalsifiable is because it’s true. How can one falsify the truth? Such a notion is nonsensical. If Karen ever figures out a way to show that the truth is actually false, then perhaps she should go write a book on it. I am sure such a spectacle would have philosophers in awe.

(ONE MORE FACE PALM!)  Jason refuses to recognize what unfalsifiable really means. His "worldview" can neither be proven true nor false. To use the quote from Part 2 of my posts to Petersen: there’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where his worldview is true appears exactly identical to the world where his worldview is false. His worldview tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about his worldview. So, there is no reason to believe. The failure to meet the criterion of falsifiability is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

But Petersen still has to find a way to pat himself on the back and puff out his chest:

Karen also quotes me concerning when I pointed out that if the foundation of her argument is refuted, then her examples fall along with it. That said, I’d like to say something to Karen directly: The problem is, Karen, that the foundation of your argument is still refuted. You have not bothered to respond to the argument that I erected against your idea to test revelation with IQ tests, nor did you respond to the paper that I cited that showed that IQ tests aren’t reliable after all.

It doesn't matter WHAT Petersen claims now about whatever my worldview may be, because in asserting his worldview as "unfalsifiable" he refuted himself. He denigrates something that could possibly test it ("IQ tests aren't reliable after all") which confirms it further.   I may have already suggested trying other tests (there are many) of reasoning and logic skills, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Petersen would conveniently find none of them to be "reliable." 

In his new diatribe, he continues to use Bible verses to back up his claims for "revelation" he receives...from the Bible (?!!!)....while trying to exempt his god as an "appeal to authority" in a special pleading. It's a sad display of circularity.

I'll continue answering him, however, i.e., Jason, here's some more rope if you want it.