Even if it's possible, absent any evidence, it's a possibility that only fools would take seriously. So you're fighting a losing battle here. — S

That sounds like an argument from incredulity.

If we were to preclude all possibilities but one, that would be a proof, correct? — Terrapin Station

I suppose that’s logically correct. However, we haven’t done that yet.

That sounds like an argument from incredulity. — Noah Te Stroete

Haha. No. There's nothing fallacious about what I just said, and Hume put it well: a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. I trust you can work out the implications.

I suppose that’s logically correct. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. So, are empirical claims provable?

Ask the Hume expert @S.

Sure. So, are empirical claims provable? — Terrapin Station

The answer is that they're not.

Precluding possibilities is only relevant to proofs.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc. — Terrapin Station

No, they’re not provable. That was my point.

The answer is that they're not.

Precluding possibilities is only relevant to proofs.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, it's a red herring, and quite predictable. It's not uncommon to fall back on, "But you haven't shown that it's impossible!", as a distraction from the fact that there's no evidence in support of it. And if your epistemic standard allows for serious consideration of possibilities absent any supporting evidence, then that's an epistemic standard not worth it's salt.

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon.

No, they’re not provable. That was my point. — Noah Te Stroete

So bringing up that we haven't excluded some possibility is irrelevant. It's a red herring.

you anti-science buffoon — Noah Te Stroete

That's a bit much considering the op.

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon. — Noah Te Stroete

The key word being speculation. And that's what it'll remain, pending sufficient evidence. And it's more promising than the religiously influenced fantasies that you're peddling.

So bringing up that we haven't excluded some possibility is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that black holes retain information, that there is extraterrestrial life, different theories yet differing opinions about the expansion of the universe, etc.

And it's more promising than the religiously influenced fantasies that you're peddling. — S

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation.

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that black holes retain information, that there is extraterrestrial life, different theories yet differing opinions about the expansion of the universe, etc. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm confused as to what that has to do with my comment and with the conversation we were having in general.

...you anti-science buffoon. — Noah Te Stroete

Also, make your mind up, lol. One minute I'm an ardent advocate of scientism, the next I'm anti-science!

Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me.

Also, make your mind up, lol. One minute I'm an ardent advocate of scientism, the next I'm anti-science! — S

Scientism is anti-science. I’ve been trying to make that point all along.

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation. — Noah Te Stroete

One: can't you read? Two: are you seriously going to deny that your talk of spirit and God is religiously influenced?

Both of you worship science — Noah Te Stroete

That couldn't be more off the mark in my case.

It also has nothing to do with the comments I was making.

One: can't you read? Two: are you seriously going to deny that your talk of spirit and God is religiously influenced? — S

I am influenced by many things. I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some. I am not religious.

Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me. — Noah Te Stroete

Can you please be transparent enough to stop hiding behind the term "open-minded" when you really mean "accepting of nonsense"?

Can you please transparent enough to stop hiding behind the term "open-minded" when you really mean "accepting of nonsense". — S

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you.

I am influenced by many things. — Noah Te Stroete

Right. And I suppose it was your love of stamp collecting which influenced your talk of spirit and God. Religion had nothing to do with it.

I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some. — Noah Te Stroete

You're still missing the point, it seems. There's an important difference between ruling out and what I call taking seriously.

I am not religious. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, you know what? Since you didn't hesitate to call me an advocate of scientism, I'm going to call you religious from now on.

Well, you know what? Since you didn't hesitate to call me an advocate of scientism, I'm going to call you religious from now on. — S

I have been called worse from better people than you.

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh! You were speculating! And that suddenly makes this a worthwhile philosophical activity? I've already stated my disagreement with that suggestion. Whatever next? Can pigs fly? Is the moon made of cheese? What if fish could ride bikes? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You're still missing the point, it seems. There's an important difference between ruling out and what I call taking seriously. — S

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life without an original thought.

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life without an original thought. — Noah Te Stroete

Will you pray for my soul?

Will you pray for my soul? — S

I very much doubt that you have a soul. To take a play from your playbook, there’s no evidence for it.

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, or fantasizing, basically. I like doing that, too, but I don't take it to be something other than fantasizing.