Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S
S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred you to, and you could have easily found my answer to your silly questions yourself. It's another false dilemma. Here is what I already told you, in reply to you, on the very first page of your one and only discussion:
Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S
So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability.
The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to developed around that realisation. — S
That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
You were taking exception to that. — Frank Apisa
Fooloso4
278
That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."
You were taking exception to that. — Frank Apisa
We do not know if there is life on Mars but this does not mean that it is as likely to be true that there is as it is that there is not. We do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is as likely to not rise as it is that it will rise. Not knowing something does not mean that it is as likely to be true as false. We need to consider why someone thinks something is or is not likely to be the case. — Fooloso4
Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments. — Frank Apisa
Fooloso4
279
Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments. — Frank Apisa
Really? I think it is quite clear. Not knowing whether God exists or not does not mean we should conclude that it is as likely that he does as it is that he does not. — Fooloso4
But that has been my point right along.
Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing? — Frank Apisa
S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I do not judge the matter in terms of likelihood. I do not judge there to be any warrant for making any assessment in those terms. No, 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, or any other likelihood.
You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50. — S
Fooloso4
281
But that has been my point right along.
Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing? — Frank Apisa
If that has been your point right along then I am agreeing, although I have been known to disagree with myself. — Fooloso4
S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word. — S
Now, as often happens, what you've done there is said much without really saying anything at all. — S.
I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. — S.
You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be? — S.
S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. — S
What I said is as clear as day... — S.
"...and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticism", that being one of them. Also, I am English, so my preference for that spelling is understandable. Do your research next time. — S.
S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
What you're doing speaks for itself. — S
When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. — S.
You talk of mud, yet you're the only one continuing to sling it, whereas I've washed my hands. — S.
There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational. — S.
S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications?
Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...??? — 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.