You couldn't rationally believe what they said if you had no knowledge it was possible, e.g., if you don't know what snow is or don't know that it can...
By dependency, I mean logical dependency. So believing X requires having knowledge about the concept of X. Our beliefs have a structure, so in order t...
You're misrepresenting what I said. I said: "And you believe it because you know something". The thing you are unsure about is the thing you believe, ...
But this isn't a case of you not believing that oxygen is needed to survive. You believe it because of what you know. And you believe it because you k...
Because you're talking about an object in that case, not a being. The kind of opposition indicated by the "anti-" prefix is moral. See: https://www.di...
Antitheism means opposition to the existence of a God. Other definitions even say opposition to religion. Opposition shouldn't be read to mean "denial...
Certainty in X cannot coincide with uncertainty in X, so suggesting that they're not disjoint is a fallacy. Belief and knowledge don't coincide to you...
The relationship is not temporal but one of dependency. If we're rational, belief depends on knowledge. But those are irrational beliefs. Beliefs that...
There's a binary distinction between certainty and uncertainty. But not between belief and knowledge (they can coincide, and they do if we're rational...
If you're claiming to know that no God exists because to you, lack of evidence is indistinguishable with, or indicates, lack of existence, then you ar...
If it is faith alone then it is believing without knowledge which is irrational. Belief/faith as a function of knowledge is rational. We are trying to...
You're doing the opposite. Atheism has always meant denial of God's existence and it's only recently that new atheists began to popularise the "lack o...
Knowledge is the mental representation of truth. Then it's not knowledge, and this definition you're offering means you need a term for information th...
Then you have a burden to explain why that's the case. Insisting on your own definitions isn't reason-giving. ? I did -- I gave the Oxford definition ...
But the Lorentz transformations, which are what constrains matter to travelling below the speed of light, aren't derived from empirical evidence or su...
All of this was proven wrong in the OP. What's your reason for thinking atheists do not assert God does not exist? And what do you call someone who do...
If you lack knowledge of something, then it's rational to lack belief in it. If you know something doesn't exist, then it's rational to believe it doe...
Yes. This seems like equivocation. I'm not talking about "believing in" in the sense of trusting their character. If you know something, it is rationa...
Neither do agnostics, so you need more reason than that to call yourself an atheist. But the rest of what you're saying -- that we don't invent labels...
Belief and knowledge are coupled, if we're being rational. So if by "goes to belief" you mean "is about lacking belief", then you're defining atheism ...
As long as you don't know, you are an agnostic, because you lack knowledge. There aren't degrees of knowledge in a thing; it takes only a binary value...
"a bit of belief" still means uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Don't cross lacking belief in something with belief in the nonexistence of something....
Everything that quantum computing allegedly does is mathematical. If by physical you mean something more generic than existing at a point, then you'd ...
It has to be, since mathematical concepts are more general than physical entities, which only exist at a given coordinate in space. Mathematical truth...
The structure you are looking for is an identity - a mathematical space/expression/set of operations that is always true. Counting numbers originate f...
It seems logically possible for syntax to be sufficient for semantics. It just turns out when we investigate with thought experiments like the Chinese...
It's logically possible for reductionism to be the case, but not metaphysically possible. There has to be a whole binding all the parts of something f...
I think I've only ever seen one kind of argument for it, and it is fallacious. They all depend entirely on setting up definitions about the world so a...
What I said to you above, was: A set of objects in a space that is not emergent from information processing is a non-simulated world. A set of objects...
But I just did this? A world is a set of objects in a space. The question is whether it emerges from information processing or not. That's not the con...
The conclusion of Cosmological or DPA arguments doesn't specifically identify Spinoza's God. Neither entail that God has infinite properties, for exam...
But this assumes its own conclusion. If it's true, it's true. The question is if it's true in reality. The observer effect seems to imply otherwise --...
It doesn't follow it because I didn't put the two into a syllogism. If you meant though, that the two contradict, then give a reason. Bear in mind the...
A world is a set of objects in a space. The decision of whether something is simulated versus non-simulated would rest on whether something emerges fr...
OP is valid. All I can do is nitpick at semantics like this: Of course the Alpha does have prior reasoning why it came into existence: itself. Inferen...
An X of the gaps fallacy is when there's an unknown connection between 2 things and someone makes an inference from the unknown to some 3rd entity. Th...
You claimed that a statement I made was a jump. Your claim is about the reasoning of my statemen, and you have that reasoning in front of you, so the ...
Points (3), (4) and (5) should tell you why. The information processing from which space emerges is indistinguishable from the information processing ...
Comments