better, but just extending the time doesn't help much. holding on - after proved false or unreasonable is still better. The point being that unsupport...
before attacking the whole - there is a huge logic breakdown in your argument You agree that " supported" beliefs start as unsupported beliefs. This s...
you have done a lot of work here, and you deserve a proper, reasonable response, so here goes: p1 An unsupported belief leads to uninformed acts. p2 A...
all due respect, I am not going to spend any more time arguing the reasonability of an argument that has lasted over 700 years. Again, I am not saying...
proving what happened before the Big Bang is outside physics is the entire darn point of the argument. You are making no sense at all with this line o...
P3 is patently false, the entire point of the CA is the creation of the universe is outside physics, that it is supernatural. so then p4 is redundantl...
i would counter P3 is false, both the cosmological argument, and some design arguments are valid. Valid meaning the premises are true, and the conclus...
Can you actually make a formal argument that ends in a conclusion that states " therefor theism is unreasonable " - i am unaware of such an argument a...
OK - cool - now on to Russel I agree with Russel, that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. With a few caveats. The first is the inten...
i understand your point now, but that is again trying to get the argument you want, not the one I am making, I promise to get back to Russell My premi...
this is my proposition on a definition of what a "no-seemum" argument is. I am making no conclusion in the proposition at all. What I am saying is - p...
the actual conclusion is the actual conclusion I actually typed to actually conclude that argument I was trying to write a conclusion of - and for the...
not sure i could be any clearer - I am saying the no-seeum argument - SAYS NOTHING AT ALL about existence or non existence. here was my conclusion to ...
I did not conclude any such thing - i proposed that is what the no-seeum argument concludes - that i am arguing against !!!! that is twice now that yo...
the point of the virus has nothing at all to do with the point you are making above, all it is saying is, that until we are aware of such things - our...
this has nothing to do with P2 - put aside Russel for now - we can get to him. lets do no-seeum arguments first. The no seeum argumnet is " we looked ...
in syllogism form. p1. - people make no-seeum arguments p2. - these arguments basically say " we know what we are looking for, we have looked in lots ...
So i make a point, you get the point 180 degrees wrong, I point it out to you, and you say it doesn't matter you got it wrong - and then ask me why I ...
i did - but no need to address the rest, when you have misinterpreted the entire point I was making by 180 degrees. Lets get on the same page there fi...
NO, NO, NO - my whole point is they always existed. But they were not known to exist until they were. which is my whole argument against no seeum argu...
Surprisingly almost none of this is true. Each of those things that did not exist, until they existed began as a thought, an idea, a concept. And with...
sure, but just turns into a big game of what if. My favorite is, quantum mechanics would suggest that our perceived universe is not much more than a t...
i specifically said the technical definition of scientific theory which is, a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or...
Actually, multi universe while an alternative for the design argument other than God, does open an entire can of worms. If you allow for multi univers...
Once again - just one more iteration of the argument from evil. And the theist response remains the same - compensating goods. There are 2 type of evi...
beliefs , even irrational beliefs, are not inherently bad or good, the just are. Even specific ideological beliefs such as Christianity or communism a...
in my view, it is self evident that, as you say, science has no agenda. Science makes no truth claims that are not experimentally supported. And scien...
A few random thoughts, and up front, I plead guilty as charged to most of this. Often, I find there is an absence of epistemic humility on the board. ...
So the logic of the thread is you disprove of people arguing for the existence of God that they define in one way or another. You grant them that they...
the problem with "no-seeum" argument is an incredibly long line of times they were wrong. Until we find such a thing as a virus there is no reason to ...
there is a significant epistemic difference between the the existence of such a thing as God, and the existence of such a thing as a unicorn. While no...
have to say I am perplexed by the question. Not that that is hard to do. Firstly it seems you are not defining what this "god" is that you are grantin...
the point is, yet again all that may be, but it is not anything near science right now, so you can't use it as science to prove or disprove anything. ...
the point is, it is only a matter perspective, point of view, or a prejudice to one authority or another between what " many physicists " believe or a...
My point was based on a technical definition of scientific theory which is: "A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world...
by real, do you mean like a human form sitting in taverna in ios drinking coffee and staring at the fishing boats ?? or real as some being outside our...
well - faith based for sure - but because of that belief - i have been, with various degrees of limited effectiveness, been trying to live by this fir...
agree I would argue, that we all face situations continually that require our full commitment of something important, and have incomplete information ...
Comments