3. If some evidence is not improbable under A but very improbable under B, then that evidence provides strong evidence for A. — SwampMan
I notice this appeared in the puddle example but not the original one. It's like saying option 2 is "friend melted into a puddle and there's not a leak in the roof above", which makes the option deliberately unlikely for the purpose of 'proving' option 1.(also for the sake of the example assume they are the only two possibilities) — SwampMan
Atheism is not an assertion of lack of a deity. It is simply a lack of belief in it, no different than a lack of belief that my mailbox will spontaneously explode tomorrow, despite lack of hard evidence that it will not. Not sure what the official word is to describe a belief in the unreality of a god. — noAxioms
Atheism is not an assertion of lack of a deity. It is simply a lack of belief in it, no different than a lack of belief that my mailbox will spontaneously explode tomorrow, despite lack of hard evidence that it will not. Not sure what the official word is to describe a belief in the unreality of a god.
— noAxioms
This I never/don't got/get! Would you be so kind as to explain this to me. Thanks in advance. — Agent Smith
As you can see, it depends on the type of argument being made as to whether atheists need to argue their position or not. — Agent Smith
which apparently you group into scientific and non-scientific, but I think they're all non-scientific since any model that posits such a thing is outside of the methodological naturalism under which science operates, and under which the bulk of its progress has been made.There are two kinds of arguments for god(s). — Agent Smith
For almost two decades my default has been "to argue the position" regardless by demonstrating that the sine qua non claims of theism are not true (and thereby entailing that 'theistic deities' are merely imaginary). I don't directly address "god" or "God" itself, only the claims made about it or entailed by predicates attributed (via "revelation" or "speculation") to it in a fashion analogous to negative theology. I don't bother with the contradictions / inconsistencies of "sacred scriptures" or religious dogmas; it suffices to demonstrate that all theistic religions are founded on the same untruth.As you can see, it depends on the type of argument being made as to whether atheists need to argue their position or not. — Agent Smith
predicates attributed — 180 Proof
Maybe — 180 Proof
lottery — unenlightened
multi universe — unenlightened
I googled 'Prime Principle of Confirmation' and found no reference to the principle outside of any page related to ID arguments, leading me to believe that the ID folks made up this principle.3. If some evidence is not improbable under A but very improbable under B, then that evidence provides strong evidence for A.
The Prime Principle of Confirmation is premise 3 in the above argument. — SwampMan
No, that's not the premise. It does not presume any such upper limit, which would be sort of a fatalistic premise.The main premise of the Doomsday argument: There's an upper limit to how many humans can live — Agent Smith
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.