S

Funny. I know you don't literally mean "wishful thinking", but that's all you're effectively conveying. And who cares about your belief being strength...

I didn't say you were. "Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find ...

Have you tried opening your eyes? I have given plenty of positive arguments on this forum. And viewing criticism as a bad thing which should be discou...

You're confusing me with someone else, like Terrapin. I have never actually claimed that morals are a matter of preference. But not the serial killer,...

Yes, and I like cheese, although not as much as I like punching babies. But this isn't doing philosophy.

And properly dealing with scrutiny? :brow:

Right, the difference is that you really do know God. (Just like he really does know that he's Napoleon).

No it doesn't, and I don't.

Look, how can I put this: declaring ridiculous things is not doing philosophy. Do you understand that?

:lol: :point:

I didn't need an essay. A yes or no, and perhaps a brief explanation, would have been fine. And you had already seemingly lost track of the subject, w...

We had a good time. We actually met a few members of the community who were absolutely fine with us being there, doing what we were doing. We weren't ...

What's the harm to the community which you asserted? And to what extent is the supposed harm? And why should the community take priority? I just want ...

Indeed. His argument is a great example of simplistic, black-and-white thinking.

No, not necessarily. That's your burden, not mine. If they were playing cards, would that matter? Would that be a harm to the community? You haven't r...

We don't need to challenge what hasn't been properly justified. A few friends sitting by a campfire in the woods or in their own home, minding their o...

Okay, so you can't reasonably support your own claims. Got it. You go from "highly likely" to "I prefer it". That's pretty ridiculous, and way below t...

But you've given me no reason to believe anything you just said. (Well, setting aside your first sentence about giving blood. And good on you, by the ...

It's not supported by any of the things which you assert support it, and you're just buying for time instead of getting on with it. Just turning up an...

Calling something as controversial as that "a fact" has no philosophical value. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't mean a thing. I can do that by ackn...

Yes, the explanation that we don't know enough to reach a conclusion. That beats a bad explanation.

Like I said, an argument from incredulity. Your incredulity, or bafflement, isn't reasonable grounds to reach your conclusions. You must argue the poi...

I can't believe you managed to misinterpret it so badly. What you said had no philosophical value. It was just bare assertion. Are you two going to st...

You don't know what you're talking about. Don't put too much into the "proof" part. Think of it as a burden of justification or a request to show your...

Lol, sorry. I submit comments too soon, then think of something I should've added.

You're lying. I accurately identified a fallacy in your argument. I also pointed out that you have a burden of proof, and that you've failed to meet i...

I think my head just exploded because the irony of what you just said is through the roof.

You still don't seem to understand how philosophy works. You don't get to just assert that the alternative possibility is just as good an inference. Y...

I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult.

It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so.

But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage...

I don't believe you're incapable of thinking up what that could mean. Are you just being lazy again? It could mean something like most plausible or le...

Yes, and that goes for you too, Daniel Cox.

Abductive inference is not a matter of preference. I shouldn't even have to explain something so obvious. It's a form of reasoning, not a matter of pr...

No it isn't. Your questions were wrong. I corrected you. The answer is that it isn't a matter of preference.

They're not.

It's not a matter of preference. Maybe it is for you, but that would mean that you don't care about the truth or being reasonable. I do. And you start...

You're also not forthcoming with any reasonable support for your bare assertions, and that's because you don't have any. You're just buying for time.

So you didn't read past the first sentence of the first link in the search results? Or click the second link, titled "Argument from incredulity"? Why?...

Why not just google it?

Weird. I didn't even mention the divine fallacy. I said that you'd commited the fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. And you're confusing wh...

Even if it's true that, historically, the feminist movement excluded black women, and even if it's true that a men's rights movement stems predominant...

Because it's often not a successful tactic. It's successful when you get away with it, but how often is that? There would likely be repercussions if w...

Hear, hear.

In cases like that, I'd say that it's a statement of wishful thinking. It's like saying that it's highly likely that a random stranger will come up to...

There's nothing wrong with being committed to the law of noncontradiction. It's a fundamental law of logic.

I'm wondering why you didn't answer my questions, but to answer yours: yes, psychology in particular.

Why have you changed the topic from Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you, to Anselm's argument? All I see is waffle, instead of a recognition that...

It looks like that to you because of confirmation bias.

Argument from incredulity. No, I don't find fallacious arguments compelling.