-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!!I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. — Gnomon
The problem is that philosophy on supernatural principles is not real philosophy. there is no wisdom to gain from unfalsifiable conclusions that do not advance our understanding of the world.BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. — Gnomon
-I don't know what you mean. Not being a theist doesn't guarantee rational thinking. There are atheists who are spiritualist, or supernaturalists and accept all kind of weird and unfounded claims.I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. — Gnomon
-I get what you are saying....but there is objectively bad and good art. No...to be more precise, there is art on the canvas, or an audio track, on marble, on a piece of paper etc...and art that one claims he has on his head and haven't find the time to express it on a medium.IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. — Gnomon
-Nobody did that. The demanded standards are based on Logic. Objectivity and Sufficiency is what your evidence need to have.So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. — Gnomon
-Actually we don't have to assume it . We just acknowledge that we can not demonstrate any connection between god and existence so we reject the claim(god is found not guilty of existing until the evidence meet the criteria to overturn the judgment!).So, we assume no connection between God and existence (H0) and then try to disprove that assumption i.e. prove that there's a connection between God and existence. — Agent Smith
It means that those who make the claim must demonstrate the connection between an entity and a state of existence. They should be able to point to characteristic properties that are displayed by entities that exist.What does "connection between existence and God" mean? — Agent Smith
It seems like you're saying it isn't the claim "God exists". If so, the Null Hypothesis method is pointless, oui?
Since the Null Hypothesis seems to be about correlations, it's mostly got to do with causal hypotheses and isn't suitable for proving/disproving existence. Existence, causation, two different things! — Agent Smith
Those who accept a claim as true need to provide justification for it. — Nickolasgaspar
So we wont find any of those in philosophical forums debating their beliefs.......oh wait!
lol. — Nickolasgaspar
independent of their intentions,from the moment they share their views we have to inform them that they hold irrational beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar
— Janus
-yes people don't react well to criticism and they are not interested to be reasonable or to hold true beliefs....what is your point? When they go public they will get their critique either they are interested or not...period. Those who make the claim have the burden independent of their intentions and goals.Of course you will find many who feel compelled to argue that their beliefs, although neither logically entailed by anything, or empirically evidenced by anything; are nonetheless rationally justifiable. Others may just present their ideas (whether they count as beliefs or merely entertainments) in case someone may find them interesting or inspiring or whatever. You know...like poetry... — Janus
-red herrings is your A game?We all hold irrational beliefs; or at least beliefs which are not strictly rationally supportable. If you think you are exempt from that, then there's an irrational belief right there. — Janus
connection between god and existence — Nickolasgaspar
what is your point? — Nickolasgaspar
I hold irrational beliefs,but in contrast to those who you defend, I am interested in identifying and correcting them.
Try addressing the points made by your interlocutor...don't' construct accusations out of thin air mate. — Nickolasgaspar
As far as I can tell, you're mistaken about the Null Hypothesis. It's a statistical tool applied to populations and is designed to assess causality. — Agent Smith
-it means that god doesn't exist is the null hypothesis and through investigation we need to provide the evidence for the rejection of the default position.This statement makes zero sense. I can understand a connection between prayer and cure, between smoking and cancer, but between existence and god, what does that even mean? — Agent Smith
In your prejudicial imagination. :cool:-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar
That people have different motivations for presenting their ideas. — Janus
-you are seriously confused. I never made any points on people's motivations mate.The points you make are based on a narrow conception of both people's motivations for presenting ideas and the epistemological status of the ideas they present. — Janus
-So your innervation had no other goal just to play the wise guy on an obvious matter?Don't worry; if I think that people are incorrectly imagining that the beliefs they are presenting are rationally justifiable, I will be the first to let them know, — Janus
-You are the one being defensive when you bring up subjective intentions to protect people's irrational beliefs.No need to be defensive; what are you trying to defend? I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of. — Janus
-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful.Just out of interest, what is the assumption upon which you base your belief that it is necessary or desirable to identify and correct all your irrational beliefs? — Janus
-No that is a fact. Supernatural presumptions leading to supernatural conclusions do no provide wisdom that we can act upon inform our actions and expand our understanding!-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!! — Nickolasgaspar
In your prejudicial imagination. — Gnomon
-I just read the first line and my eyes glazed over !FWIW, see my reply to ↪Agent Smith
:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622 — Gnomon
We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books — Tom Storm
If one is not interested in convincing people ...good for him...the idea remains fair game for dissection — Nickolasgaspar
-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful. — Nickolasgaspar
I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists. — Hanover
you tap dances in an effort to avoid challenging his faith based beliefs.... — Nickolasgaspar
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.