Yet surely if one declared that these "brilliant and innovative new ideas" were true, despite the fact that they lacked any supporting premises, that would be a dogmatic assertion.

I would consider a claim whose only supporting premise was itself to be without any premise at all. Just as, if you're the only person who agrees with you, then in truth no one agrees with you.
But that's just semantics. I think I can accept that definition of "dogmatic".

You can be sure that I wouldn't do anything so silly as to drop a silk glove.

That would be a gauntlet - a manly metal gauntlet at that.

Feel free to trip over it at your liesure.

I'm not sure this works with our established definition of dogmatic as "un-falsifiable".

If the assertion that "Jesus is the son of God" is based on the the Bible as a source, then that assertion by-itself cannot be dogmatic because it depends on something other than itself. I.E. it could be falsified by demonstrating either that the Bible does not actually support such a claim or that, regardless, the Bible is not a reliable source.

If the claim that "Jesus was the son of God" were truly held as dogma (using the definitions here) then it would have to be held regardless of what the Bible (or anything else) said.

Not really. That person would merely be making a mistake, or jumping to conclusions. They are human after all and humans are prone to making mistakes and/or jumping to conclusions.

To be dogmatic, one would have to insist that the ideas must be true and cannot be false. Merely suggesting that the brilliant new ideas were true is not in itself dogmatic. That could be a statement of mistaken belief.

I think you have a semantic dead end.

Your theory of 'lacking premise' is not functional as a statement could have a dozen different premises and still be dogmatic (religion comes to mind here). The key to spotting the dogmatism is the conclusion is the same as one of those premises.

Lacking a premise is neither necessary or sufficient condition for determining whether or not a given statement is dogmatic.

Agreed.

I forgot that the Bible doesn't really state that Jesus was the son of God. I think? Does it? I can't remember. Anyhow, if it doesn't then you are right that it's a bad example of Biblical dogma. Seemingly at least. However, if anyone states that Jesus is the son of God then it remains an unfalsifiable statement, simply because the premise of divinity is divinity and nothing else than divinity. I think we've had this discussion before, though.

yes it does. The book of John and Hebrews are the major books with this concept

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

If you say it does then I'm confident it does. Thank you.

I think the falsifiability of ANY statement it depends entirely on why they the statement.
In this example, if someone says that they believe Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says so then its obviously falsifiable because it rests on something other than itself. Convince them that the Bible does not say so, or that the Bible is in error and they will say their belief was false.

Ah, but it isn't so simple. You may feel that the only logical premise of divinity is divinity (and you may well be correct), but if someone else feels that they have a separate premise (illogical or otherwise) and their belief is based on that separate premise then they cannot accurately be called dogmatic.
For example, if I believe in God because leaves are green (and for whatever reason that makes sense to me) then my belief in God is not dogmatic (by our definition here) because it depends on something else and is thus falsifiable. If it were demonstrated that leaves were, in fact, not green then I would claim my belief in God to be false.

It does sound familiar. But I don't think it really comes into play here since we're not really talking about rational reasons for belief in divinity. For the purposes of determining whether a doctrine is falsifiable, it matters only whether the person who holds that doctrine does so because he/she feels it to be built on some separate premise(s), not whether those premises actually support it logically.

That someones perception of X is "falsifiable" (in this case in the form of a belief in a religious doctrine but it could also be a physicians perception of an idea about gravity) has no bearing on the falsifiability of X. In theory, any religious belief is "falsifiable" - if at all such a concept can be applied to religious belief (hence the double quotations). That's not the issue. The issue is the falsifiability of the tenets. Not of the belief in those tenets.

The statement that Jesus is the son of God remains an unfalsifiable statement no matter if anyone has faith in it or not.

The speaker's motive is irrelevant to the falsifiability status of any given statement. From any objective sense, the speaker's motive is always unknowable.

No. The statement that your belief in God is based upon leaves being green is a statement that can be falsified by you alone and that is entirely subjective. To everyone else on the planet, your statement is non-falsifiable. The status of your belief can only be known to you.

If a statement could theoretically be proven wrong, then it is falsifiable. One doesn't have to have or demonstrate the proof, only the logical possibility that a proof could exist.

If a statement cannot ever be proven wrong by definition of the statement, then it is non-falsifiable - and thus, dogmatic.

It is really that simple. A statement cannot be falsified as long as a single component of the statement is unfalsifiable.

If you redefine God to be some naturally occurring object or concept that can be tested then yes, the statement that God exists because leaves are green can be tested and is perfectly antonymous to dogma. However, if the god contained within the statement is unfalsifiable then the entire statement becomes unfalsifiable. And again, it doesn't matter if anyone actually believes it or not. Belief in X - or lack of same - does not make X more or less dogmatic.

It is all about the premises. It's not about belief in, adherence to, rejection of or any other relation between you and the dogma.

Your relation to a doctrine can of course be the only reason that the doctrine exists (for example, the Roman gods do not "exist" for the very simple reason that there's no demand for faith in Roman mythology). This is not to be confused with the premise of the truth of said doctrine. In short, the existence of a doctrine is never a premise for its truth.

Precisely!
And what determines whether or not a given statement can possibly be proven wrong? The determining factor is whether or not the statement is built on some assailable foundation, some crucial premise.
If it is, then it may be proven wrong by showing that the key premise(s) is/are flawed.
If it is not, then it cannot be proven wrong because it has no vulnerable premise(s) to attack.

Let us say 'ABC' represents some assertion ("Trees are green", "God exists", "I like chocolate" whatever).
Can 'ABC' be proven wrong? It depends entirely on what premises led us to arrive at 'ABC'.
Proof and disproof implies logical operation. And logic implies combining premises into conclusions (e.g. A=B & B=C :. A=C). But you cannot logically disprove something that does not rely on a logical proof to begin with. Thus, the determining factor in whether or not something is logical (and thus falsifiable) is whether or not it rests on some set of premises.

If we arrived at 'ABC' through some logic-like method, say, 'If XYZ then ABC' and XYZ can be disproved then ABC can be disproved.
If there is no XYZ (I.E. if ABC is taken to be self-evident like Cogito ergo sum) then it cannot be disproved. It is utterly unassailable.

Agreed. But no amount of merely looking at the statement will tell you this. You must find out what, if anything, supports the statement in order to know if it is dogmatic; you must know if it has a proof in order to know if it can be disproved.

That assertions "God exists" and "The sky is blue" may be equally dogmatic (as you demonstrated above). They may also be equally non-dogmatic. One can be dogmatic about any assertion; yet no assertion is necessarily dogmatic. In each case it depends entirely on how the assertion was arrived at.

I fully agree, though perhaps I ill expressed myself before. See the above post to White Rabbit for, perhaps, a more lucid approach to what I was trying to say.

.. except if it rests upon itself for truth (it's its own premise) or it rests upon a premise/premises which in turn rests upon itself/themselves for truth. You'll always run into a begging the question situation when trying to assert falsification of a priori premises. IOW, it keeps running into itself and can, as such, never be falsified.