But most philosophical discussions I witness tend to be evangelical rants in some vague attempt to pick a fight online or some other trivial reason.

When my head feels like burning because I get challenged by really good counter-arguments, I know my knowledge is improving. If not, it's usually a waste of time. — Christoffer

How am I evangelizing? You haven't addressed anything I've said.

Furthermore, what good counter-arguments?

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

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 spams discussions with irrelevant stuff. In the end, what do you want to accomplish with participating in philosophy discussions? — Christoffer

I feel like my positions are well-supported and thoughtful. I have read hundreds and hundreds of books on philosophy, physics, biology, psychology, history, and tons of classic literature; just not in the last decade. When you've been constantly harassed by the community for dropping out of law school, losing your mind, and going on disability for schizoaffective disorder; you tend not to give much of a fuck anymore.

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. — S

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

Hard to do philosophy like that though, especially the hard questions. — Christoffer

I wasn't always this way. I just don't care as much as I once did. In fact, my giving-a-fuck factor has gone down exponentially in the last decade. :razz:

I'm not trying to be argumentative with anyone, I'm on psychotropic or psychoactive drugs too. I have to try extra hard not to be argumentative. — Daniel Cox

I find it cannot be avoided in a philosophy forum, but one can still be civil. I'm not all the time, but one can. :wink:

haha! My wife complains about my laziness (which is due in large part to the psychoactive drugs I’m prescribed). Perhaps I should turn to cocaine to get up and get going? :wink:

I don't have any likelihood beliefs about anything that I don't have frequency data for, unless I think either it's 1 ("100%" or certain) or 0--impossible/incoherent. — Terrapin Station

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.

That’s fair. It seems rational to me.

Because likelihood makes no sense if we don't have data re frequency of occurrence. Even then there are problems with it, but we definitely can't reach a conclusion about it without data re frequency. — Terrapin Station

Then one cannot hold any beliefs such as belief about a lot of metaphysical or ontological things. What about your beliefs about physicalism?

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

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

They're not. — S

How so or why not?

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. — S

That’s a non answer.

I think the whole idea of likelihood for such things is nonsense. That has to do with what likelihood is. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps it’s nonsense. Perhaps not. One cannot have certain beliefs about certain things without abductive inference, which may just be a matter of preferences.

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?

Why? Laziness? — S

Yes. I was being lazy. I’m an extremely lazy person. God bless me.

Just Googled it with my iPhone. I’m not saying the alternative is necessarily false. I am saying that it is a better explanation that conscious life was guided into existence.

My Google Home Hub gives the Divine Fallacy when I ask it that. Why not define it here for all of our amelioration?

I said that you'd commited the fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. — S

Can you define that for me?

I was more interested in talking about epistemology in general, and the idea of likelihood more specifically (although we never ended up getting into that). — Terrapin Station

Sure. I also infer inductively by analogy, but it is not something that ALSO doesn’t rely on an abductive inference that everything you experience is really happening. How do you know that you’re not hallucinating and are delusional all the time? — Noah Te Stroete

My point was that it is more likely that the physical world exists, and that a conscious mind that is working properly is more likely to perceive it usually accurately. This is an abductive inference.

Could an artificial brain be conscious? Also, I am not claiming I know the nature of this “divine” consciousness of which I speak. Could it also be somehow instantiated in something physical? I don’t know.

The other issue is how we'd support that there would be some sort of mechanistic explanatory model by now. — Terrapin Station

True. I have a preference for a “divine” consciousness, just as others have a preference for no “divine” consciousness. I gave my reasons for my belief. What are your reasons for yours?

Would you say then that you're also essentially arguing that "If matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance, then it seems likely that there would be a mechanistic explanatory model for that by now"? — Terrapin Station

I would argue that even if such a model were given, it still couldn’t rule out some kind of guidance. I would still infer abductively that there is a “divine” consciousness.

I suppose I am.

What makes the supportive/justificational difference between the sentence above and the alternate sentence that you typed? We ask the person above what they're basing their sentence on and they say: "It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood. " Is that good enough? If so, why don't you believe their sentence over your alternate sentence? — Terrapin Station

It seems that there is no mechanistic explanatory model for how conscious life formed.

Behavior in conjunction with one's first-person knowledge of how one's similar behavior is correlated with mental activity. — Terrapin Station

Sure. I also infer inductively by analogy, but it is not something that ALSO doesn’t rely on an abductive inference that everything you experience is really happening. How do you know that you’re not hallucinating and are delusional all the time?

Or that materialism is a better explanation than idealism? As you seem to.

An abductive inference based on what? — Terrapin Station

What do you mean? Let me ask you this: how do you infer that other people are conscious other than that it is a better explanation than that solipsism is true?

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

It’s an abductive inference. Abduction necessarily deals with likelihood.

Argument from incredulity.

Perhaps you find this arguement compelling.
— Noah Te Stroete

No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling. — S

My understanding of the Divine Fallacy is that “supernatural” explanations are given to phenomena that one cannot imagine to be explained as natural. My argument is that a “divine” consciousness is a natural explanation abductively inferred as a better inference than that of a spontaneous and accidental explanation. I will repeat: it is an abductive inference. I use the term “divine” not in the ordinary sense, but as a descriptor for which there is a lack of a better word for the guiding consciousness that led conscious life to form. This, too, would be a natural phenomena, as I believe that everything that exists is natural.

It has not been established, nor I highly doubt that it ever could be, that there is an accidental and spontaneous mechanism that causes inanimate matter to form into conscious life. And, no, evolution does NOT explain it. In order for my argument to be characterized as an instance of the Divine Fallacy, it would have to be a supernatural explanation for which there is a natural explanation. It is not this at all for the reasons I just showed.

I'm no longer interested in this discussion. I thought it had some potential, but it is quickly turning into something mundane, banal, commonplace, ho hum, and altogether uninteresting.

So what's your point exactly? Devans99 was saying that the origins of the universe are definitionally unnatural or supernatural.

That says more than what you are saying, but each religion further defines "God" according to their traditions.

Also, I don't define Her/Him.

Like I said, that's not a definition. That's like saying, "God is God," or "the Creator is the Creator." It says nothing about what it is. The teapot argument doesn't refute a First Cause, as it wasn't meant to refute that.

That's like saying the Creator of the Universe is the Creator of the Universe. It doesn't tell us anything about "The Creator of the Universe". That's the crux of the teapot argument, I think.

That's not defining "God". That's claiming there is a God.

As for the natural vs. supernatural, I don't think he would agree with your definition of "supernatural".

For one, you seem to be strengthening his argument, rather than refuting it. You have failed to define "God". That strengthens what he was saying with Russell's argument. Furthermore, his point about the natural vs. supernatural was completely missed by you, but I will let @I like sushi explain that one.

I don't think you understood what @I like sushi was saying at all.

Well said. I tend to think that many Christians, for example, are afraid of disapproval from their fundamentalist pastors, reverends, and priests; so they pay lip service to the tenets of their faith lest they be shamed and shunned by their community. Most of them are probably like me in their hearts.