At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99

Is that reason to accept your failed logic? Jeez

Why do you have a problem with estimation? — Devans99

Because you use it as a fundamental foundation for your entire theory of inductive probability. A foundation that would require a true premise, meaning, it requires it to be more than an estimate out of your belief. But your use of it for the conclusions at the end of your argument needs for it to be a fact, which it isn't.

My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty. — Devans99

Your personal idea about eternalism is not a valid foundation for a 50% probability, that is just your personal belief of what is true. You cannot use your own opinions and beliefs as a foundation for mathematical calculations, that is utter nonsense.

But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible. — Devans99

What the hell are you talking about?

What is the definition of low-quality posts? mods? I give up soon. This is like debating a dropout.

Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic. — Devans99

No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that is an evangelical sermon of your opinions.

No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true. — Devans99

Your allowance does not support 50% to be a number that is true. Your allowance is not grounds to support your premise. Your allowance is your belief, nothing more and nothing that can make your premises true out of what you allow. That number is your invention, nothing more.

A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed. — Devans99

That is 1 dimension. 2 has X and Y, 3 has X, Y and Z. 4 becomes a tesseract (hypercube), hypothetical string theory allows up to 11 dimensions. The possibilities punch holes in your logic by being possibilities alone, ignored by you and your argument.

And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. — Devans99

Induction doesn't mean your conclusion or premises can be fantasies. Induction means a probable conclusion based on true premises. You have no true premises, period.

You are being pedantic. — Devans99

No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT

My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. — Devans99

So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true.

So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it. — Devans99

Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist. If you can't do that, how can you conclude there to be only those two without any doubt and how can you assign 50% probability to either without any data whatsoever?

Prove your premises first. Seriously, your reasoning is infantile.

Your premises need to be true, not assumptions or guesses.
Your conclusion needs to be a probability based on true premises or a conclusion that is absolutely true based on absolutely true premises. If you do not, you fail at basic philosophical reasoning. So far, all premises are based on your assumptions, beliefs and what you want reality to be.

Seriously, how far should we go before you understand that your argument is invalid?

I've explained my reasons why I disagree with Christoffer above... — Devans99

We're not done yet, convince me with your superior math skills and superior knowledge of physics before claiming a win of the dialectics. Or are you applying circular time to your circular reasoning?

so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial. — Devans99

Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period.

You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options. — Devans99

I can't, I thought I could do what you do... invent a number out of thin air through pure convenience.
Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time. But your the amateur astronomer, who are any of us to argue with Devan Aquinas?

Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do. — Devans99

If there is no scientific data, you cannot conclude anything outside of belief. I wonder what mods define as low-quality posts, I would say that this is it.

What are you referring to? Provide a link. — S

I refer back to my own reference post of an argument that is 50% probable to be true based on a hypothesis that is part of my agnostic ideals. There, a bulletproof philosophical conclusion worthy of Aquinas!

There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do. — Devans99

How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is?

Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%: — Devans99

You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails.

That is the statistically correct answer. — Devans99

You wouldn't even pass basic math.

It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example: — Devans99

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you cannot use that as a scientific theory for a probability calculation. In order to have a probability of something, you need to have facts in support of it. A hypothesis is not enough. You are using educated guesses that haven't been confirmed in order to make a probability calculation for a solid conclusion.

It's so flawed it's infantile. Where did you get your basic education?

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT — S

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED

If anything, I am an agnostic. — Frank Apisa

Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT

Which number(s) do you object to? — S

Which counter-argument that is not valid are you referring to? :lol:

1% - is basically a rounded up estimate — Devans99

Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number.

12.5% - I already explained the derivation here: — Devans99

No, you didn't. You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd.

Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised.

There, now answer in a way that convinces us all how any of this is logical.

Which number(s) do you object to? — Devans99

1%

12,5%

Explain, now, or just stop trolling.

I understand philosophy involves argument and counter-argument. All you do is waffle.

SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE — Devans99

EVERYONE DID OVER AND OVER - DEAL WITH IT

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question. — Devans99

Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. That's the problem. People have pointed this out over and over but you won't listen. You have no source for the probability you propose. Seriously, how are you unable to see this simple fact?

Explain how you ended up with those probability numbers, it's the biggest hole in your logical reasoning.

I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility? — Devans99

Are we hostile just because we point out your logic is invalid? As I said, you don't seem to understand what philosophy really is.

I am an amateur astronomer. I am also an amateur philosopher. I have not had anything published but then I have not tried until recently.

Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so. — Devans99

Just saying our counter-arguments are invalid does not make it so.
You are right in that you are an amateur. Many in here are, but being an amateur might also mean that you don't even have the dialectical methodology to be able to participate in proper philosophical discussions.

Your way of dismissing counterarguments show that you don't have any grasp on actual philosophy. It's self-proclaimed philosophers like you who makes me feel I already have a PhD.

Those are all unnecessary platonic ideas. The word "atheism" is incoherent. I agree with Frank on this point, "People who claim the word 'atheism' morph its meaning depending on the circumstance." Atheism is the denial of the deity claim and we're all born "atheists" and then when it's shown that babies don't deny deity claims the claimed adherent then claims, "I'm not making claims, it's a proven scientific fact that babies lack belief of gods." What the hell happened to the part about denying deity claims? — Daniel Cox

Your own definition of atheism is still in line with what I described. The concept of a God or Gods does not exist for a baby, but is learned. If the baby had the tools of critical thinking and not just accepting the ideas put forth by parents and the environment around them, they would question the validity of the claims they learn. This means that pure logical and rational reasoning, which babies lack, is a standard ideal within atheism. Compare that to agnosticism which accept the belief that a God or Gods might exist, only that we don't know. Atheism does not even accept the belief in the first place, it's a tabula rasa of concepts about existence, it focuses on what is, not what might be or what is believed.

The core of what I'm saying is that if you are to define atheism you need to specifically draw the line between the different fields; theism, agnosticism, and atheism. If theism is belief without actual proof and agnosticism is a belief that you cannot know either (which accepts a belief in each direction), then atheism cannot be about a belief in anything, it is the lack of belief altogether. That would essentially boil down to atheism relying on what is, not what is believed, i.e the definition I previously gave.

The thing I can see is that the concept and methodology of thinking without belief is so alien to theists and agnostics that it's hard to actually explain this kind of perspective. Essentially, it seems that to be able to truly explain atheism, you need to be an atheist. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that, but I find it common that atheism is a hard perspective for many to grasp. It's like the difference between asking someone to imagine something specific and to ask someone to imagine nothing. To imagine something is easy, to imagine nothing is a concept hard even through philosophy. To grasp theism is easier than to grasp the absence of belief in god and the ascent of god.

So how do I view things as an atheist? I reject belief of any kind that doesn't have support. Belief in my eyes is only valid as a hypothesis, which means it has rational support as educated guesses. If I believe something, I do it because of having some data in support of it. If I encounter something in which I don't know anything, I cannot have a belief in anything about it, since any unsupported belief becomes a concept of fantasy for me. I know where the line is between fantasy and conviction. This means that if we look at Russel's teapot, I cannot accept the concept of a teapot in space to be anything other than a fantasy. I don't even believe there to be no teapot in space, because a belief of non-existence is a belief accepting the possibility of the opposite. There is no belief, i.e there is nothing before data of a possibility of it being there. If someone recorded a blurry image of something resembling a teapot in space and interpretations of historical data suggest that it might be a teapot because we have records of historical events that might show a teapot have been ejected into space at some point in history. No one can know for certain, but the hypothesis is sound. In that case, the hypothesis about a teapot in space can exist as a concept for an atheist but never accepted as truth before proven beyond doubt. This is why I used a form of extension of Russel's teapot for this reasoning in order to exemplify the difference between the three positions. This is why I can't define atheism within any concept o belief. Belief is non-existent in any form within atheism.

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live. — Devans99

Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? Show that you have credentials if you use that as support for your arguments.

What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle. — Devans99

Which you already have been given, by all of us. We pointed out that your probability reasoning is flawed and doesn't work and your response is just to say "no valid counter-arguments". Respectfully understand this simple fact, please.

Maybe if I write in all caps you will understand:
YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID - YOUR PROBABILITY LOGIC IS NOT VALID.

I had hoped that you would be open to the possibility of being wrong in your argument now that more have given responses to your argument and logic, but it seems that you are just ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you.

So, you fail in logic and philosophical reasoning. Your argument is not valid, your logic is not valid, deal with it or your theory will never hold ground outside of your own mind. The whole point here is to convince people beyond any doubt that your argument is solid and correct. By just ignoring everyone you're essentially trying to argue that everyone else is stupid and doesn't understand your logic or argument. This is simply not the case.

We've all addressed your reasoning and logic and pointed out why it fails, but you persist. Being stubborn is good in some cases, but I think that you need to publish your ideas if you are actually doing a real paper on it so that you'll get proper counter arguments from philosophical academia. You can argue stubbornly against all of us, but if you're just as stubborn within academia, you will never accomplish anything with your ideas.

If we're not enough to show you why you are wrong or incomplete in your reasoning, then expose yourself to the highest level of philosophical discourse. Maybe then you'll understand what we are talking about in here.

If you came here just to rant your ideas without discourse, you're just spamming and trolling the same thing over and over. I'd say that's low-quality posting, but I'm no mod.

Based on what? You don't listen to others at all. If you ever even looked at the dialectics I've gone through on this board you would see that when someone counter-argues my ideas I try and modify accordingly. You ignore everything.

If you see no counter arguments anywhere, go publish those papers you said you wrote. You said that you use these forum discussions to falsify your ideas and since, by your account, you don't seem to find any counter-arguments valid, your papers must be solid.

So, go publish and we'll continue when you get feedback on those papers. I think that would be a good lesson for you.

If you want to keep discussing here, you might need to actually listen to people instead of spamming the same things over and over.

This is a philosophy forum. — Devans99

Then why are you here?

I have not succeeded so far. — Devans99

Because you won't actually listen to people. It's called cognitive bias. I'm not the only one who countered your arguments, I might be the only one stupid enough to keep answering. But you're trapped in circular reasoning and everyone tries to give you a way out, but you're stuck in that circle. Then people stop trying and leave you there, still convinced to be correct in your conclusion.

I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument. — Devans99

You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.

Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional.

Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?

- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true

You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth. — Devans99

This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave.

And a boolean proposition is not the same as attaching your personal conviction or belief to such a calculation and concluding it to hold up. You have no data to support anything, no science, no nothing, but mix and match science and math in a way that fits your narrative. Then ignoring everything people counter-argue about it.

Eternalism is supported by science — Devans99

The conclusions you make are not. You cannot take one conclusion and twist it into your own true conclusion.

Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads.

I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. You just spam your convictions over and over and ignore the things said. Before this discussion can move forward, you need to address the actual counter-arguments given, not ignore them and repeat yourself. I cannot continue the discussion with someone who won't understand the counter-arguments.

If you are actually working on papers to be published, please do so and listen to the feedback on those publications. It will be relentless I'm afraid. And maybe then you'll understand the counter-arguments given in all your threads on this forum.

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate. — Frank Apisa

Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things already addressed. Move on to the definitions given in my answer to Daniel Cox, that's the latest point in the discussion. What you are doing right now is going back to the bullying mentality of previous posts you've made and I couldn't care less.

No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

The counter-argument is that you have no support for your math premises. How are those not valid counter-arguments? Produce actual support for your premises first.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99

No, I think you have a cognitive bias towards your own ideas to the degree that you won't listen to actual counter arguments made. You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. Do you think all of us are stupid enough to continue counter-arguing if we didn't see the holes in your reasoning? If you want us to agree with your conclusions you need to actually address the criticism you get, not just tell us your conclusion once more.

You can't hammer in the nail perfectly if you already bent it, it's still gonna be bent, regardless of how hard you smash it. You need a new nail.

Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability. — Devans99

Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event.

That has nothing to do with a concept that is hypothetical without any data to support it. You try to use this example of probability as an example comparable to a conclusion made from not even having a coin.

So you have a belief of something and then you draw probabilities for that belief. That is NOT the same as having an actual coin with actual measurable data to draw probabilities from.

How this isn't obvious to you I don't know.

That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition. — Devans99

Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. If you want to put "life after death" on a higher plane of hypothetical truth than the existence of God, you need to first prove it to have scientific validity as a concept, which it hasn't. What you believe is more or less true between the existence of God and life after death is totally irrelevant. It's therefore not a high-level statement, it's a logical conclusion of the nature of the argument.

You still have no valid premises and no support for your probability numbers. And you are referring to yourself as a foundation for the validity of those premises, i.e cognitive bias.

Stop hammering that bent nail.

An excert from a paper I'm working on: — Devans99

That doesn't mean anything. I'm working on paper as well, but it's not truth, both because I'm working on it and because it hasn't gone through falsification methods and cross-examinations through argumentative dialectics. I cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true.

...and I wouldn't, ever, start a follow-up paper/argument assuming my, not finished, previous argument's conclusion to be true.

It is not, please explain. — Devans99

You believe some parts of math and therefore you classify some parts as not belief. What parts are beliefs whatsoever in math? You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic.

Which math is a belief and which is not a belief?

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa

And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, why would you?

Some of the axioms of math I do not believe, so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. Why is that strange? — Devans99

"Some of the axioms of math I do not believe"
"so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. "

Why is that strange?

I think it's self-explanatory.

I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief. — Devans99

Yes it is. You believe it to be 50% true, you have no foundation for those numbers in anything but your own opinion and belief. How you mix together your belief with probability math and deduce it to not be belief is self-delusional.

Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math?

Your statement about your convictions makes zero sense to your own convictions.
The house is blue while some of it is not red, but it's completely blueish.

I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths — Devans99

This might be the most incoherent sentence of personal convictions I've ever read. :rofl:

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa

It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions.

The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here — Devans99

That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math.

But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution — Devans99

No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic.

The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do. — Devans99

This is utter nonsensical support of why you end up with those numbers. There's no math here, just made up numbers.

Here's a number: 7,37.
Do what you like with it, it's a number I find very probable to support a very large number of things.
- That's the logic proposed in your argument.

Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP. — Devans99

Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God. Just as a conclusion that the universe is an apple pie with us being crust crumbs. There's a 7,37% chance of us being crumbs, because of the logic I just invented, supported by a boolean distribution calculation.

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post.

The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here: — Devans99

That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention.

I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them. — Devans99

You cannot assign any probability like this and not for the others either.

You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed.

We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. — Devans99

People's desperation in a will to continue life after death does not support there ever being any life after death. Desperation as a source for conclusions is an extremely irrational belief without any substance of knowledge at all. Emotional desperation is not enough to create a foundational understanding of the universe.

But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities. — Devans99

This is fundamentally lacking any logic. Without any data or rational deduction, you have nothing but belief, which is not a foundation for any probability.

I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a ca — Devans99

No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to. You can't just invent a number like that, it's not how logic or probability math works. This is I think why you often ignore the counter-arguments you get on this forum. You are so convinced that your math logic is true that you ignore the holes in your logic and therefore others must be wrong. But your math logic is made up, there's nothing to support concluding with your numbers.

1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. Why not 12,6%? Why not 1,76%, Why not 19,4%? If some new theories pop up, are they within the calculus? Do they affect these numbers? If there are other possibilities, doesn't that mean that the calculated probabilities only ends up being based on how many guesses about the universe there is? If I say the universe is an apple pie, that's a possibility I just invented, so there must be a 1% chance that we are all interdimensional crust crumbs.

How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions?

As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support.

So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death. So it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, adding probability to theories that do not have any foundation in the first place. To return to my favorite analogy in epistemology, Russel's teapot; we must first establish a true probability of there being a teapot, before adding the probability that it is a white, blue or red teapot. The attributes of the teapot cannot have a probability when there are no data to support that it's even out there in space.

It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. Establish that there is data to support an actual hypothesis of me owning a car, then attach a probability of color. However, if it's only hypothetical that I own a car, then you can just continue with hypothetical probabilities of all attributes of that hypothetical car, without there ever be any data whatsoever of anything other than the existence of the car itself. So a low probability truth has low probability attributes. It becomes a form of infinite regress and thus the existence of the car needs to be established beyond the hypothetical before we continue with hypothetical attributes of that car.

Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints.