Hallucinogen

Prove that it's a jump. Asserting baseless skepticism about scientific findings isn't a response I see often. Conclusions tend to rely on the whole of...

? The conclusion of a deductive argument isn't a hypothesis, if that's what you mean. You didn't understand the argument. I dealt with the objection r...

Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binar...

You didn't. All you said regarding computers and minds was: This doesn't state that a computer does not read the way our mind reads, since it does not...

Yes, this is what's referred to in premise (1). This is an irrational jump. By "we", you mean our minds, but no reason to concluide that minds are sim...

Which hypothesis do you mean?

By speculation, you mean like random guessing which makes no indication about how cognition takes place?

All we're establishing here is a mind, hence the conclusion in (6). The grounds for that possibility aren't given. The scientific evidence is that phy...

The simulation is the world, the template is information processing in a mind.

I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points ar...

Towards Quantum Integrated Information Theory A quantum-like information processing model with memory noise for question order effect Quantum Cognitio...

OK, I agree.

I'd say that belief presupposes knowledge, rather than knowledge being some condition on belief. In order to believe in something, you have to know so...

According to Christian theology, the answer is 'humility'.

Form is what unifies some matter into a single object; it's how you can refer to something that has properties as a single thing. I didn't understand ...

Thanks, it seems to be a variant of exclusivism. Yes it's a form of reducible plurality, the view that I hold.

I agree. Indeed, but the implication we could take from this is that religions that aren't reconcilable, aren't so because they reject a feature of re...

They all believe in spirits and the afterlife.

By this, you mean atheism?

You agreed that atheism can be used to explain a particular state of affairs and you said theories are "explanations of how states of affairs change o...

But you said that theories are "explanations of how states of affairs change or formal abstractions work".

Someone could coherently use atheism to explain why there are (on their view) no spirits or afterlife.

But atheism would therefore seem to be, or reliant on, a theory about what is publicly accessible and about what qualifies as a sound argument. In oth...

What does the critique consist of, and does it hold any assumptions?

Accepting this definition of a theory, would you say that (your best interpretation of) atheism qualifies as a theory?

Would you say that religions qualify as theories? Would you say theories among scientific theories or theories among historical theories are incompati...

Would you say that they are all devoid to true content (in their claims)? But what about the claims of religions, are those incompatible, or are you u...

I think it's negative pluralism (about religons) specifically. Positive pluralism would be that they're all disjunct but they all contribute toward gr...

Interesting. Are you saying mythology itself holds this view or that the universe of each myth entails incompatability with all others?

Could you point to what the following definition, from the Oxford definition is lacking? Or the definition by Emile Durkheim? "A unified system of bel...

Thanks. What do you think the problem is with standard definitions of "religion"?

It's a view I've seen espoused in places. It also seems implicit in the "which God?" response. A watered-down version is espoused by Thunderf00t here....

If when you said "the greatest possible vampire" you ultimately didn't mean something uniquely vampiric, but just meant a non-contingent entity upon w...

It doesn't need one; the argument is still valid. Line 1 connects anything that fits the definition of TTWNGCBC (since you're allowing it to mean the ...

3 is not an axiom, just a definitional fact. 2. isn't necessary, I just left it there because you put it there. See: Oh right. But I was assuming that...

Actually it would be 1. If there exists something which is TTWNGCBC then this thing necessarily exists 2. If there exists something which is TTWNGCBC ...

Could you elaborate on what I'm misunderstanding? I see that quantifier being used in the article cited to argue for the existence of certain numbers....

No it doesn't, it asserts God fits the definition of X.

I don't think that's a non sequitur, it's just not a fully formed argument. It's just 3 axioms followed by a conclusion. You could have switched "God"...

It might be referred to as negative pluralism and irreducible plurality among religions.

Thanks. Although this could provide the link to finding what I meant, I actually meant the idea that view that is critical of all religion, specifical...

I think you are simplifying 1) too much. If TTWNGCBC existed contingently, then it would not exist necessarily, but something else would be TTWNGCBC. ...

Could you lay out how you arrived at this representation please? It does not begin with "if God exists", it begins with something equivalent to saying...

Because atheists believe that it is only for a limited time. Why is it a problem for believers? It should not make a believer feel powerless since phy...

Seems like another one of those questions which is only a problem for agnostics and atheists.

Yeah I think it is the strawman fallacy. It only seemed like it wasn't because normally strawmanning is so in-your-face and head-on, whereas this has ...

It's a distinction which is highly predictive of a bifurcation in ethical views. Each branch defines its subsequent ethical and political views largel...

Presumptuous/false distinction Given that the former is true, the latter isn't true. You seem to be ignoring how we define "points" and which field st...

I'd actually say the problem is we haven't agreed on what omnipresence is. We have already agreed that God needs to be omnipresent, and while I don't ...

No I am not saying that. Did you not read the comment directly above? I just said Hell is in God. I’m not using a definition of God that makes it inco...