Cheshire

It supposes you would know the difference between the two.

The intention of the argument is to prove that guided evolution is the case.

It implies there is a thing such as guided evolution.

You know exactly what I am talking about. You qualified the word guided with the prefix -un. You know what un means.

It supposes there is a thing called guided evolution which would include knowledge of a mechanism and agency of which there is no evidence.

Is that some how different than secular evolution?

Mostly this one. What is an unguided evolutionary force? Secular evolution?

The same rationale is why they exist. If a person has a legitimate argument then they wouldn't need to use a logical fallacy to convey it. Instead of ...

You have implied there exist such a thing as or guided evolutionary forces which is implied. Then supposed you could know the difference one or the ot...

Sounds like this started off as a counter-point, and a lightbulb came on. Either way, it's honest commentary. To me this sounds like false victimizati...

A flying horse or species?

Reporting from Southeastern United States: Yes, clearly. Black people couldn't even eat lunch at the same place without a constitutional amendment. Th...

This made my Friday worthwhile. Thank you.

Does your "theory" take into account the most recent discovery of a human species more closely related to humanity than Neanderthals? No, it was relea...

Yes, and for this reason. cheers

Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum against secular scientific evolution. Saying that if it was unguided, then it would be otherwise. Which suppose...

Until recently I was under the assumption God intended for us to have to claim to be atheist if we are honest. However, after seeing undeniable proof ...

The running debate is kind of keeping the thread alive, because most of the post don't necessitate a response. By all means keep rolling.

It will also determine whether or not your GPS system works.

:cool:

I enjoy and agree with Popper's 3 worlds interpretation of metaphysics.

Bell rings. There is something fundamentally wrong with defining knowledge with the requirement that it must always be true. The only thing that is al...

It's funny I read Popper first(20 years ago), so most philosophy has seemed very strange as a result. As much as he seems to want to dismiss a lot of ...

Thanks for directly addressing the matter. I found this defense of the premise to be much more coherent and informative. I think what you are trying t...

I think you have something there; the majority of responses have been over usefulness. Interesting.

After I reviewed the two I came to the same conclusion. It isn't entirely clear. The rant about clouds and pie? Yeah, lets say I'm missing the correct...

My understanding is that when you need a decision to be supported by a moral theory you just utter the phrase "because of social contract theory" and ...

I thought I addressed your first premise verbatim. And noted that it was false. I edited it for added clarity.

I figured throw a wide net and look for any common threads. It seems a few people changed their metaphysical frameworks. One nearly escaped nihilism. ...

Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. The trouble we have now with everyone who ...

It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate othe...

Well, you are demonstrating my point to a degree. We start talking of evidence and it moves to an "unsupported claim". Taking the existence of unicorn...

Actually, that was Greg. I would have qualified it differently. My point was not to play both sides. If it's simply an irrational belief, then leave i...

You don't really know what that suffering is like, but it seems to be a serious matter so why not show some humanity and let them do what they need to...

How do you explain the lack of a threat it poses to other people? No one is trying to change your gender against your will I hope.

I was thinking more just in principle; if a position is going to lean on an irrational belief then evidence supporting it doesn't seem to have any pur...

Interesting. Thank you.

Ok

IIF a belief can be true or false, then a true belief is not a belief, because a belief can be true or false.

A belief can be true or false Knowledge is a belief Knowledge can only be true I couldn't figure out how to apply the account. I'll look again and rep...

Thanks for the responses. Very interesting.

It is certainly interesting. Considering there are literal pieces of paper called degrees which denote a level of knowledge. If the JTB is a conceptua...

You can charge them again if they start presenting you with evidence as if they had a rational belief. An irrational belief doesn't require evidence. ...

Done properly, one's awareness of vast ignorance keeps the tendency toward intellectual narcissism at bay.

I think it's related to the degree of suffering that is caused by the mismatch and the seriousness in regards to what people will do to over come it; ...

I would add we also give meaning to what we see based on the fleeting perspectives which adds a metaphysical dimension that wouldn't otherwise exist.

This would better fit the second half of my definition.

1. The environment we develop in and our education effect awareness. 2. Hence the word awareness. 3. I see what you did there. This is an either/or fa...

Not entirely true, Schema Therapy, Talk Therapy, CBT, and arguably studies with psychedelic's show a way to rewrite the software by gaining chemical i...

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication; with the presupposition that logical continuity validates an idea. Or an E...