Christoffer
507
↪Frank Apisa
The claim "there are no gods" is an unfalsifiable claim upon an unfalsifiable idea. The claim "there is a god" or "there are gods" must first be made before someone can claim "there are no gods". A child born in isolation and who knows nothing of religion will not claim "there are no gods". Burden of proof applies to the initial claim. By saying that burden of proof applies to "there are no gods", you are ignoring Russel's whole logic, simple as that. Read Russel. — Christoffer
It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so. — S
I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult. — S
No, you haven't. You made bald assertions. — Noah Te Stroete
You still don't seem to understand how philosophy works. You don't get to just assert that the alternative possibility is just as good an inference. You don't get to just spurt out how something seems to you. You don't get to just assert that something is not contradictory to science. You don't get to just assume that there's a consciousness about which you say you do not know the nature of.
That's not doing philosophy. I have zero reason to believe any of these claims. They require support. It's on you to support these assertions. — S
I think my head just exploded because the irony of what you just said is through the roof. — S
I gave reasons. Whether you thought they were bad reasons is your preference because you haven't addressed my reasons. You just said I was wrong. — Noah Te Stroete
You're lying. I accurately identified a fallacy in your argument. I also pointed out that you have a burden of proof, and that you've failed to meet it. — S
You constantly edit your posts after I've read them. You can't expect me to go back and see if you've edited all of your posts. Why do you do that? — Noah Te Stroete
There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. That's the nature of abductive reasoning! :lol: — Noah Te Stroete
For nearly 50 years I didn't understand that I was being held in existence. Your belief it in any way is trivial or not a matter of discussion here is beyond my belief. I can't believe you believe what you wrote to me. — Daniel Cox
You don't know what you're talking about. Don't put too much into the "proof" part. Think of it as a burden of justification or a request to show your reasoning. — S
But you have a preference for physicalism. Perhaps I’m not using “likelihood” in abductive inference the same way I would use “likelihood” in statistics. — Noah Te Stroete
it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence. — Terrapin Station
t's not a preference, it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence.
If I were doing ontology based on preferences, the world would have things like ghosts in it. — Terrapin Station
I gave my reasoning in my seven-point argument. You said I wasn't justified in saying that conscious life spontaneously and accidentally came into being was less likely than that it was guided by a higher consciousness. I think instead of "less likely" I could just as well have said "less elegant". I explained to Terrapin that I wasn't using "likelihood" in the statistical sense. It is used in the Occam's razor, better, more realistic, less baffling sense. ***How would one even explain conscious life coming into existence from inanimate matter spontaneously and accidentally?*** At least my explanation makes intuitve sense. The alternative does not. — Noah Te Stroete
Like I said, an argument from incredulity. Your incredulity, or bafflement, isn't reasonable grounds to reach your conclusions. — S
Is it a false dichotomy then? Is there another explanation that I missed? No explanation is NOT in line with Occam's razor. And yes, when one of two alternatives doesn't make sense, I choose the better of the two. — Noah Te Stroete
Yes, the explanation that we don't know enough to reach a conclusion. — S
Acknowledging the fact God is holding us in existence has millions of times more value than everything you've ever written or said combined! — Daniel Cox
Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of hours of real world experience it took to arrive at that? No, you don't. I'm the only one who comments here daily who knows the difference between formal and instrumental signification; the distinctions between 1st-, second-, & 3rd-person experience; the difference between the two main theories of truth; & the separation of modern analytic logic/philosophy from Intentional Aristotelian logic/philosophy.
My methods of learning are unlike everyone else's here. "What you said has no philosophical value." Come on, you got to be kidding me. — Daniel Cox
Fuck Russel. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.