He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum I have encountered. — S
You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.
Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional. — Christoffer
This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave — Christoffer
Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads. — Christoffer
I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. — Christoffer
You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. — Christoffer
Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event. — Christoffer
Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. — Christoffer
cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true. — Christoffer
You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic. — Christoffer
I think it's self-explanatory. — Christoffer
Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math? — Christoffer
You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations. — S
That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math. — Christoffer
"But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution
— Devans99
No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic. — Christoffer
Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God — Christoffer
I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa
That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention. — Christoffer
You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed. — Christoffer
No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to — Christoffer
1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. — Christoffer
You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa
How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer
As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support — Christoffer
So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death — Christoffer
It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. — Christoffer
and we have the makings for man to become gods — Fooloso4
No, you can call it a form of pleasure as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit. Whether that gives them pleasure is beside the point. — S
No it isn't. And even if it was, that would be irrelevant. — S
Lots of people wouldn't want to be strapped into a pleasure machine, because they value reality over maximum pleasure. — S
That's astoundingly ignorant. You've asked everyone in the world about this, and they all answered in the affirmative? — S
No, the pleasure machine isn't contradictory. Once again, the pleasure machine is machine which gives maximum pleasure. If you're talking about a machine which doesn't do this, then you're talking about something else. — S
My conclusion from what you have said here is that there is no certainty, in practice, in real life. — Pattern-chaser
Yours seems to be that we must assume that some arbitrarily-close approach to truth is actually true. Is that correct? — Pattern-chaser
The pleasure machine is a machine which gives maximum pleasure — S
Well it doesn't. The pleasure machine thought experiment refutes that. — S
First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from
— hachit
Long term > Short term
So Right is what is optimal for the long term (exercise, healthy diet, helping others)
Wrong is what is optimal for the short term (sweets, laziness, harming others)
— Devans99
Is this a joke? Did you not read what he just said? — S
Have you read the moral theories I posted before? It's basically based on this value calculus :wink: — Christoffer
But if we think long term, how do we know that the one person killed isn't the causal start of something that leads to a cure for cancer? That person's child or they themselves might solve such a cure in the future, meaning that if you kill 5 to save 1, you save more in the long term. This is why the trolley problem becomes problematic. — Christoffer
Agreed, but within this group, how do you solve the trolley problem? As an example? Moral dilemmas need a method that includes the complexity of many different situations. — Christoffer
Willpower is irrelevant if a deep understanding of human psychology and biology as roots for moral values are ignored. Deep understanding of ethics is required before willpower to act upon such balanced moral values. — Christoffer
This is why it's complicated as thinking "too big" locks any morals into unknowns. — Christoffer
Then explain how some people develop new moral on there own, because if you are correct morals set and no new ones can be created. — hachit
The morals that we sense to be basic, like "don't kill each other" basically stem from the emotional care of the group — Christoffer
I don't want to start a whole debate about religion, but you brought it up. — Purple Pond
t was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest. It's also important to realize that often times the "obvious" answer is not always correct. — Purple Pond
I also agree with @SethRy that a person can live a fulfilling life without religion — Purple Pond
God gave religion the second he created us, so there was never a time where we were without religion.
I'm just kidding, I don't believe any of that. — Purple Pond
You just turned my whole question around: Is it natural to live with religion? — Purple Pond