Falsifiability of Probability

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Does anyone disagree with this as a principle? And if so, why?

Actual Falsifiability: If I say all swans are black, I must say I am wrong if I find a white swan.
This is generally accepted as true. If something can never be disproven, the fact that it isn't disproven ceases to have meaning.

My proposal:
Falsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.
I'm proposing this because, if you say that both finding a swan and not finding a swan positively indicate water, then what you are actually saying is that the presence of a swan is irrelevant; water is irregardlessly positively indicated. This ruins your original case that the swan is what indicates the presence of water.

[Difflugia]

Falsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.

Yes. That's the essence of statistical analysis.

[Purple Knight]

Falsifiability of Probability: If I say that finding a swan makes it more likely to find water, I must say that not finding a swan makes it less likely to find water.

Yes. That's the essence of statistical analysis.

That's why I say that both of these topics present something unfalsifiable.

Topic for Debate: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING BEING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

The exact fine-tuning of all the scientific laws and the universal constants.
Category: Mathematics and Science

If God is good, why is there evil, suffering and death?

In the first instance I am on the atheist side and in the second I am on the theist side, and for the same reason.

I don't believe you can even ask the question.

In the first instance, to say, god is more likely because of the laws of the universe, you must say god is less likely in chaos.

In the second instance, to say god is less likely if suffering exists, you would have to say, god is more likely if suffering does not exist.

And how can we say that latter thing when we can't even conceptualise what it would be like? We can't conceive what it would be like for the laws of nature to not exist or be extremely different, and we can't conceive of life without suffering. Personally I don't even think we'd even be conscious without suffering. We learn by the things that cause us to suffer to avoid those things. Without suffering there is no learning, and without learning how can there be consciousness? So I call these both cases where the question itself is unaskable, because we can't see the other side of the scales. We go toward the carrot, yes, but only because the stick poked us. If we weren't suffering hunger we wouldn't bother.

It's like asking, "O God, if you really love us, why have you made bald people?!" And that's a decent question. But asking why are there bald people if everybody was bald... we wouldn't even know what we were asking. It might still be a good question but we have no way of knowing that.