I don’t think it’s about flying cars either. — praxis

:lol: :point:

Am I a dualist? No. I wasn’t sure how serious a question that was and also didn’t want to lose track of the subject in a tangent, or at least an uninteresting tangent. — praxis

I didn't need an essay. A yes or no, and perhaps a brief explanation, would have been fine. And you had already seemingly lost track of the subject, which isn't about computers. Anyway, so you think of the order you were talking about as physical then, presumably. We're supposed to be talking about the source of morality, and if you think that order is of relevance, then discussing what kind of thing that is doesn't seem off topic.

...that of S and his stoner friends camping in the woods. — Michael

We had a good time. We actually met a few members of the community who were absolutely fine with us being there, doing what we were doing. We weren't causing any harm. We were being respectful. We were by a river, and there were a few narrow boats nearby. The owners came by a few times, walking their dogs. We greeted each other, stroked the dogs, had a brief conversation, and one of them let us sit in his camping chair.

What's the harm to the community which you asserted? And to what extent is the supposed harm? And why should the community take priority? I just want an answer to these questions without you assuming something that isn't necessarily true of that scenario, like that we're talking about a bunch of hell raisers who could set fire to an old lady at the drop of hat, because they're wild and crazed and out of their minds.

I’m not saying that harm isn’t harm. I’m saying that you haven’t justified your assertion that any and all harm is immoral.

Saying that if something causes harm (of any degree) then it is immoral is a non sequitur.

All harm is harm but not all harm is necessarily immoral. — Michael

Indeed. His argument is a great example of simplistic, black-and-white thinking.

Agreed, even a good thing. But you have omitted what they're doing. That matters, yes? — tim wood

No, not necessarily. That's your burden, not mine. If they were playing cards, would that matter? Would that be a harm to the community? You haven't reasonably justified that taking drugs in those circumstances is much different. And pointing to more extreme cases won't work, because not all cases are the same. It's unreasonable to tar with the same brush. And if you respond with something like "risk of harm", then you have a burden to explain how you're not just special pleading with drug taking, but you're presumably okay with other recreational activities which have a risk of harm, of which there are many.

Btw, is the "e" in your "judgement" and your "judgemental" a British thing? On this side it's judgment, judgmental. Thought you'd like to know. — tim wood

Yes, it's a British thing, and I alreay knew about the variation in spelling. The language is called "English" for a reason. I am English, and I speak English, not the bastardised American English.

But the issue is harm to community. Anyone challenge that? — tim wood

We don't need to challenge what hasn't been properly justified. A few friends sitting by a campfire in the woods or in their own home, minding their own business and having a good time, is not in itself a harm to the community, and not everyone in the community is narrow-minded and judgemental. I've met members of the community who are okay with this sort of thing, and are not jerks or squares.

Okay, so you can't reasonably support your own claims. Got it. You go from "highly likely" to "I prefer it". That's pretty ridiculous, and way below the standards of good philosophy.

I'm out the door to donate blood for the 14th time, so I only have a second.

Being held in existence is not up for debate because the alternative is not only unintelligible, it's downright insane. Think of the philosophical contrary and the square of opposition.

Give me enough time and an open mind and I will turn the person around.

Why? Because we're being held in existence, and only One entity exists as an intrinsic necessity performing that ongoing fact. If something else besides God is holding you in being and THAT Supreme Being is going to have you cease to exist then it's not much of a holder now! — Daniel Cox

But you've given me no reason to believe anything you just said. (Well, setting aside your first sentence about giving blood. And good on you, by the way). I've been trying to get you to realise how you come across to a sceptic by bringing up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I take it you don't believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessarily under your bed right now?

How is my explanation "bad"? — Noah Te Stroete

It's not supported by any of the things which you assert support it, and you're just buying for time instead of getting on with it. Just turning up and presenting a bad argument isn't anywhere near meeting your burden of justification. Nor is just saying shit without backing it up with reason.

How does one explain something by not reaching a conclusion? — Noah Te Stroete

A conclusion is reached. That conclusion is that we don't know enough. Given that we don't know enough, your conclusion is unwarranted.

I don't think that that's hard to understand.

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

Calling something as controversial as that "a fact" has no philosophical value. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't mean a thing. I can do that by acknowledging that the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is under your bed right now has a trillion times the value of your belief in God.

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

Quit trying to bamboozle or impress me with philosophical jargon. It has the opposite effect. Cut to the chase. You assert that the existence of God is a fact. Simply tell us why we should believe that.

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. That beats a bad explanation.

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. You must argue the point. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that your preferred possibility is more realistic or less baffling or more in line with Occam's razor. And no explanation is always better than a god of the gaps. There's a reason why I haven't concluded that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world and intervenes to maintain order in an invisible and undetectable manner. And it has nothing to do with preference. I quite like the idea of that, but I'm not an idiot.

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

I can't believe you managed to misinterpret it so badly. What you said had no philosophical value. It was just bare assertion. Are you two going to start doing philosophy any time soon?

There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. That's the nature of abductive reasoning! :lol: — Noah Te Stroete

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, if you even have anything to show.

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

Lol, sorry. I submit comments too soon, then think of something I should've added.

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. If you think that you've met it, then show me where. You made the false suggestion that this is a matter of preference. I've dealt with that by saying, in effect, speak for yourself, and by showing how it's trivial if you just turn up to a philosophical discussion to say something like, "I like cheese!". We don't care about your preference, we're here to be reasonable.

No, you haven't. You made bald assertions. — Noah Te Stroete

I think my head just exploded because the irony of what you just said is through the roof.

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.

And also, there's another fallacy known as a false dilemma. You'll be committing that fallacy if you suggest that, "We don't know", is not a possible answer.

Point out where I went wrong. — Noah Te Stroete

I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult.

And how is my position not supported by logic, reason, or Occam's razor? It certainly is not contradictory to science either. — Noah Te Stroete

It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so.

I feel like my positions are well-supported and thoughtful. — Noah Te Stroete

But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage it. It has been refuted. The fault was easy to find. It took me less than a minute, I think.

I take it to mean most preferable to someone, if not most preferable to the experts. What could "best" possibly mean? — Noah Te Stroete

I don't believe you're incapable of thinking up what that could mean. Are you just being lazy again? It could mean something like most plausible or least problematic. It could be an assessment based on reason, logic, science, or Occam's razor.

I agree with what Christopher said. You're not really doing philosophy when you say something similar to, "I like cheese!". Good for you, but we're trying to do philosophy here.

That can be true for personal things, but I don't think it's preferable for philosophy. If people want trivialities, there's Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so on to be lazy on. Being lazy in philosophical discourses means you really get nothing out of it and just spam discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions? — Christoffer

Yes, and that goes for you too, Daniel Cox.

Hi, I know I'm being held in existence by a Supreme Being. You don't like the reality doing the conserving, I don't have a problem with that, but it's an undeniable fact I'm being held in existence by that "Entity."

So, there is evidence everyone is aware of. — Daniel Cox

How so or why not? — Noah Te Stroete

Abductive inference is not a matter of preference. I shouldn't even have to explain something so obvious. It's a form of reasoning, not a matter of preference. Do you even know what you're talking about? Do you actually know what abductive inference is?

What is it a matter of then? “Inference to the ‘best’ explanation.” What does “best” mean here? — Noah Te Stroete

It could mean a number of things, but if it means most preferable to you, then you're not being reasonable, you're just being emotional.

That’s a non answer. — Noah Te Stroete

No it isn't. Your questions were wrong. I corrected you. The answer is that it isn't a matter of preference.

One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences. — Noah Te Stroete

They're not.

When I use the term “better” as in it’s a “better explanation”, I suppose I am really saying that I prefer it. What else could I mean? Do you prefer the explanation that conscious life spontaneously came about? If so, what is your justification? — Noah Te Stroete

It's not a matter of preference. Maybe it is for you, but that would mean that you don't care about the truth or being reasonable. I do.

And you started out claiming that it was highly likely. Have you abandoned that claim now?

Yes. I was being lazy. I’m an extremely lazy person. God bless me. — Noah Te Stroete

You're also not forthcoming with any reasonable support for your bare assertions, and that's because you don't have any. You're just buying for time.

So you didn't read past the first sentence of the first link in the search results? Or click the second link, titled "Argument from incredulity"?

Why? Laziness?

I am saying that it is a better explanation that conscious life was guided into existence. — Noah Te Stroete

And I'm saying that bare assertions like that can be rightly dismissed.

Why not just google it?

Weird. I didn't even mention the divine fallacy. I said that you'd commited the fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. And you're confusing where the burden of proof lies. I don't have to lift a finger. You have to justify your bare assertion about an "abductive inference". You must show your workings, and then we can assess them. Thus far, what you've presented has been fallacious.

Even if it's true that, historically, the feminist movement excluded black women, and even if it's true that a men's rights movement stems predominantly from straight white males, these are awful reasons for rejecting the positions they endorse. You care too much about things which shouldn't matter, such as someone's skin colour, gender, or sexuality. You're part of the problem. Stop targeting people because they happen to be straight or white or male.

However, if that were really the case, why isn't the dog-eat-dog morality one of our morals? If we are so determined to survive and overpower the strong, why is murder or even just hurting someone not one of our core morals? Why do we feel it is wrong to mess with weaker people? Bullying is exactly that: picking on weaker people, but we, overall as a society, view bullying to be wrong. — Play-doh

Because it's often not a successful tactic. It's successful when you get away with it, but how often is that? There would likely be repercussions if witnessed or caught.

And in answer to your title question: yes, of course.

Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists. — Christoffer

Hear, hear.

I really don't understand when people use "likely" that way. Likely based on what? It seems like it's just shorthand for "based on my intuitive preconceptions . . . " — Terrapin Station

In cases like that, I'd say that it's a statement of wishful thinking. It's like saying that it's highly likely that a random stranger will come up to me today and give me a free slice of chocolate cheesecake.

Atheists generally make the same mistake as the classic empiricist, they are intellectially comitted to the law of contradiction, to the point that they become inured and lost in understanding and reflection. — Merkwurdichliebe

There's nothing wrong with being committed to the law of noncontradiction. It's a fundamental law of logic.

I’m wondering if you’re both amazed and fascinated by how much we've already discovered in the ‘soft’ sciences. — praxis

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my questions, but to answer yours: yes, psychology in particular.

Yes, well, no. Anselm's argument... — SethRy

Why have you changed the topic from Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you, to Anselm's argument?

You and I know that, that is only satire to taint theism, so even your own mind would concede total faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs - so I would not think it applies to evidence from belief. Moreover, the history of the made deity can be traced back to our contemporary society, christian theism falls exponentially further than that.

Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist. — SethRy

All I see is waffle, instead of a recognition that the reasoning fails because it can be applied in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and innumerable other inventions which you dismiss as ridiculous or some sort of insult, even though you can't do that and still claim to be reasonable, because that is special pleading, and special pleading is a fallacy. You must justify your exception.

The Big Bang looks like empirical evidence for an unnatural first cause: — Devans99

It looks like that to you because of confirmation bias.