But then I explained that facts are not something "elevated." Facts are states of affairs, and the state of affairs that's apparent in the world is that there is no God. — Terrapin Station
being able to experience all of time as a whole, — AJJ
that is just one more declarative statement without support - — Rank Amateur
Right--I can't imagine why you'd not say that in response to anything I'd say, because I have no idea what your criteria are to count as support rather than counting as a declarative statement without support. — Terrapin Station
because you have yet to supply any reason whatsoever behind you statement - i even tried to do it for you on the last one. You need to support your statements or they are just opinion — Rank Amateur
That would imply that you have criteria for what counts as reasons. — Terrapin Station
Right. So one reason that we know that it's a fact that there is no god is that there's no empirical evidence at all that there is a god. Now, you'd say that's not a reason, it's simply a "declarative statement without support."
So that means it doesn't meet some criterion you have for a sentence, Q, to count as a reason for or to count as support of another sentence, P. We need to figure out what your criteria are. — Terrapin Station
I’m suggesting it cannot be expected that one formal instance of understanding transfers unequivocably to separated propositions. In this case, the proposition constructed with a compounded subject and its predicate is an analytic true statement, whereas the separated propositions both require a formal synthesis in order to even be possibly true. Thus, the same understanding cannot justify all three at the same time. — Mww
I’m saying you threw a metaphysical monkey wrench into an otherwise respectable dialectic by forcing a co-conversant to argue from an irrational position. — Mww
No - that was a argument - if you remember way back to the first time - my argument back was - the lack of empirical evidence is a very good reasonable argument that god does not exist. It does not however make it a fact. As an example - there was no empirical evidence at one time for the atom - until there was. — Rank Amateur
I already responded to this. Do you withhold judgment on everything conceivable that there's no empirical evidence for, no matter how crazy the idea is? — Terrapin Station
I would say the only thing factual that can be said on the lack of empirical evidence, is that it is a lack or empirical evidence. — Rank Amateur
Sure. So you wouldn't say that it's a fact that there's no easter bunny, for example? — Terrapin Station
But with the Easter bunny notion, that's not even incoherent. There's just no evidence for it. So it doesn't seem consistent for you to not say that it's not a fact, there's just no empirical evidence for it--until there is. — Terrapin Station
.and theism isn’t so defined anywhere in the list of premises — Mww
I’m a serious reductionist. For me, defining what a “fact” is, even to qualify its limits, doesn’t say anything about the altogether tentative nature of human knowledge which are also generally the same limits placed on the “facts”. Something is needed to prevent falsification of the premise because it lacks the conditions of time. — Mww
no - as I said it is a fact that such things as bunnies exist, it is a fact we know the capabilities of these things we call bunnies, it is a fact that the these capabilities do not include filling baskets around the world on Easter Sunday. — Rank Amateur
So in other words, the idea is that given that you're okay saying it's a fact that there's no x on an absence of evidence of it even when the idea of an x is coherent (for example, the Easter bunny), it's even stronger to say that there's no x on an absence of evidence when the idea of the x isn't coherent (as with gods). — Terrapin Station
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.