You realise you have just presented two conditionals and a set relation argument. Two arguments in logic.
Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? Because if you did, I missed it. — Isaac
Science does indeed make claims of the latter type. A pristine bedroom with no evidence of mud, fur, paw prints, and disorder, is scientific evidence of the absence of a filthy and excited dog having been in there. — S
None of that is anything at all like all the noseeum arguments you try to make. — Rank Amateur
And I stand by my point that - lack of evidence only proves a lack of evidence. — Rank Amateur
Standing by it is not the same as justifying it. What's your counter to the claim that lack of evidence in support of a proposition constitutes reasonable grounds for not believing it? — S
I have no need to support it, I am not trying to change your POV. I have no issue at all with what you believe. I can't prove to you that God is, is a fact. So I don't try. I can't prove to you that atheism is not reasonable, so I don't. Your beliefs do not bother me, and I have never challenged you on them.
It seems rather apparent that mine bothers you, you are the one making the repeated claim that my faith based theism is in error. It is you making the claim - and you who should make the argument to support it. — Rank Amateur
My belief is, as always, that my theism is a matter of faith, and that faith is not inconsistent with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur
Let's not go round and round all day, like twitter. Let's do philosophy. — Rank Amateur
We make an argument to influence others that their view is in error, or to convince them that our view is correct/better/ more reasonable.
If one has no interest in either of these objectives - he has no need to argue.
I have no interest in changing your mind, I have no need to argue anything to you.
If you wish to change mine, make a complete and coherent argument with clear propositions and conclusions and I will answer them as honestly as I can. — Rank Amateur
Faith is inconsistent with reason. — S
They are two fundamentally different things, — S
Reason leads me to reject what you have faith in. — S
, because you don't know what the factual situation is regarding the existence of God. — S
My goodness. Do you want to do philosophy or not? Because the above is just excuse and red herring. If you want to do philosophy, please go back to my post and probably engage my philosophical enquiry — S
it — Rank Amateur
is — Rank Amateur
not — Rank Amateur
but — Rank Amateur
you — Rank Amateur
and we are back to twitter.
what you really want to do is just argue, it in some way feeds your ego, or feeds some need that validates you. From the outside it appears to me your self worth is based on some view that you are an intellectual and these banters back and forth are your validation.
You are in no way really interested in an exchange of ideas - you just want to fight. — Rank Amateur
One problem I have is with the move from the absence of a reasonable explanation to some story of powers, or forces, or realms, or reality, or Being, or beings. or a particular being or relationship between two special beings: God and man. In such stories man often has some unique privilege or place is the larger whole. It could be argued that such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but why should it be ruled in? Do we have good reason to think that this is the way things are other than the comfort this way of thinking may bring to us? — Fooloso4
So yes, I agree with you: there's no reason to suppose that, if there is a Creator ... — Pattern-chaser
But speculation is not, of itself, persuasive, as you say. It can be interesting, though, and it can spawn ideas that eventually turn into something a lot more definite.... — Pattern-chaser
but this leaves open the questions of God and the whole. — Fooloso4
When there is no definite information, we speculate. — Pattern-chaser
Is there good reason to suppose that there is a Creator? I can't think of one, other than comfort. I do not find questionable interpretations of things we do not understand, such as the origins of the universe, the quantum world, and consciousness, persuasive. — Fooloso4
You must admit that the terms are themselves rather broad. We can experience happiness or suffering in a variety of ways. I was thinking of it as a general barometer, but it can also be broken down into various aspects, such as stress level, general health and fitness, socialization, self actualization, etc etc.
Ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science, basically, rather than traditional moral codes given by religious authority.
There’s no reason that the full spectrum of moral intuitions couldn’t be taken into account. — praxis
I’m not going to put my faith in science as a moral authority, any more than I would traditional religious doctrine. — Possibility
In my opinion, morality is not an external authority, but an internal understanding of our interconnectedness. It’s not a code we impose on others or punish them by, but one we inspire them to realise and honour in themselves by our example. — Possibility
↪Isaac I am talking here about experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are spiritual. As I posted to another response,
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience — Ilya B Shambat
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.