So, your argument rests upon the “supposition” that we must only use logic to substantiate our philosophical positions. In other words we must not let emotion into our critical thinking. No emotion – exactly how do we do that? More importantly – why would we want to try? Please show me how your arguments are devoid of emotion? — Thinker
Your logic is just a supposition in the final analysis. How do you determine this supposition is correct? — Thinker
My supposition is that it is impossible to separate emotion and logic. — Thinker
I think I have the stronger supposition. — Thinker
One always needs motivation to do anything – motivation always has an emotional component. — Thinker
Would you likewise go as far as acknowledging that they could be the intentional product of a creative intelligence? — aletheist
How should we determine what counts as evidence and how much is sufficient? — aletheist
It is impossible to leave all of our presuppositions behind. — aletheist
A counter-example to the PSR would be a proof of non-existence. Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk
There are plenty of things for which we have no explanations. Dark Matter is one that springs to mind. It is entirely possible that there is no explanation. But how could we ever know for sure that there isn't one — andrewk
Anyway, we prove nonexistence in the negative — TheMadFool
I very much doubt this. I am pretty confident there will be laboratories in which liquid methane is produced or stored for some experimental purpose or other. In any case, I said it is rarely possible, not that it is never possible. A handful of counterexamples (of which the liquid methane case is not one) does not contradict that.Liquid methane is nonexistent on the surface of the Earth because the temperature, pressure conditions are not right. — TheMadFool
What makes you think that?Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. — TheMadFool
That's exactly my point. Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. — TheMadFool
What makes you think that? — andrewk
Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk
I accept your apology.Sorry if my post didn't meet your standards of clarity. — TheMadFool
And nor have I accused you of a hasty generalization: a hasty generalization fallacy in this context would be something like examining a small sample of a population of universes, observing that they're ordered, and thereby concluding that all universes must be ordered. Nothing like that has transpired here: we currently have observational access to one, and only one, universe, namely ours.Please pick up a book on logic and read up fallacy of composition and how it's confused with fallacy of hasty generalization (both of which I haven't made, fyi)
Your mathematical hand-waving aside, the point you have failed to realize, which Harry Hindu pointed out to you way back on page 2 or so, is that there is nothing special, magical, or supernatural about order: it simply must be purchased by an input of energy, a purchase which tends to lead to increased disorder in the universe as a whole. That's it.I haven't assumed anything. I have first made an observation and it reveals undeniable order. I then entertained two possible origins of order viz.
1. God
2. Chance
I find possibility 2 to be unrealistic because it's, mathematically, next to impossible. Option 1 then becomes viable.
No we may not.When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. — TheMadFool
When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. — MadFool
I think it depends on the situation. If, for instance, particle physicists perform a series of experiments designed to detect a particle which their theory predicts will possess a mass within a certain range, and the experiment comes up empty-handed, that is at least preliminary evidence of the non-existence that particle. At the very least, the theory will need to be re-worked, and its ontological commitments re-examined.No we may not. There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later. — andrewk
There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later. — andrewk
We can't prove that something doesn't exist directly. We have to first assume that it does. The next step would be to look for it. When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. In short nonexistence can be proved only negatively.
Likewise, to prove something has no reason/cause we have to first assume that it does (an instance of PSR) and only when such a search comes up with nothing can we say that said thing has no reason. — TheMadFool
Ok. My belief in the PSR is cemented by all the fields of knowledge from prehistory till now. The dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth about 65 million years ago. Leibniz's PSR is suspect because he had theological agenda. And so on.
You reject the PSR. Give me proof why. — TheMadFool
Take for example a man from Biblical times. With his background knowledge flying is implausible. Now consider a man from this century. With his background knowledge flying is not only plausible but also a reality. Comparing the two, who's knowledge is more extensive? Likewise before an atheist says God is implausible he must have knowledge of the entire universe - because that's the extent of the possibility that God exists - and that, we all know, isn't the case. — TheMadFool
Either you disprove that P or you accept that P? — Terrapin Station
If it looks like I'm making up stuff ''to hold it together'' I probably am but...are there any logical errors? That's the question that I care about. — TheMadFool
Your point about emotions and motivation. My views, and everyone else's, are most likely affected to at least some extent by emotions and motivations. That isn't specific to my views on this topic. We aren't all Spock. None of us are, in fact. — Sapientia
They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. — TheMadFool
However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions. — Thinker
However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions.
— Thinker
Do you actually believe this, or were you just having a go at Sapientia? — Srap Tasmaner
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.