I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. — Noah Te Stroete
And what is philosophy to you? In all of my interactions I’ve had with you I’ve yet to see you put forth an argument for any positive claim. You are adept at questioning premises in others’ positive arguments, though. However, that’s easy. My mentally ill, mentally retarded, drug addict cousin can do that. Anyone can. When are you going to START doing philosophy? You’re no better than a troll. — Noah Te Stroete
The expert in philosophy, Dr. Dennis Polis, Ph.D. (Physics) — Daniel Cox
I’m not really religious. — Noah Te Stroete
I have a problem with people not comprehending something like abductive reasoning. — Noah Te Stroete
You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling. — S
Who has more authority than a physicist? — Daniel Cox
That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”. — Noah Te Stroete
The belief in naturalism, what I'm hearing you put forward (reading) is synonymous with "atheism; PHYSICALISM; causal closure; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism (exactly what you're arguing against here!); functionalism; behaviorism; & determinism (Causal; motivational; & hedonistic). Some people also lump in "mechanical" determinism. I have a complete list if you want? — Daniel Cox
You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? — S
You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional. — Noah Te Stroete
As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. — Noah Te Stroete
I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says over what you've said. — S
I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense. — Noah Te Stroete
You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here! — DingoJones
Petitio Principii
God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist. — TheSageOfMainStreet
If you can't feel any self-respect without associating yourself with a Higher Power, then for God's sake make one up! — TheSageOfMainStreet
No it doesn't, and I don't. — S
French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand. — SethRy
It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S
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.