| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » If You Have Morality and Reason on Your Side . . . .
Page 41 of 42 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 40, 41, 42 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Geoff |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DanielSan wrote:
Quote: Zanthius wrote:
On 29 Apr, 15:16, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
(I love this tactic, by the way. The "I have an anecdote" tactic. Of
course, no one can prove this anecdote happened so we're just
going to have to believe them.
I didn't ask you to believe me. In fact, I don't want people to
believe anything unless they have strong inductive reasons or can
prove it to themselves.
Okay, then, I don't believe in God.
Ditto.
I also don't believe that aliens have visited Earth, that peanut butter is
conscious, or that everything that happens is completely
deterministic...just some of the fantastical claims that Zippy has come up
with. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 01:17, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
Quote: Your god is manifestly non-existent.
Is the objective truth manifestly non-existent? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Smiler |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6cf7d41-5fb5-464b-892d-2dda0d9e15ab@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On 29 Apr, 17:51, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
You can't even support your claim for the existence of this imaginary
being
let alone what would be "in harmony" with it.
We could just as well define God to be what the objective truth is in
harmony with.
Define 'in harmony with'.
Quote: While we could define God to be a manifestation of the objective
truth.
Define 'manifestation', or did you mean 'infestation'?
Your god is manifestly non-existent.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 03:56, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Simple. It is statistically extremely unlikely.
Yes, but that is strong inductive reasons, not proof. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zanthius wrote:
Quote: On 29 Apr, 15:37, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything that you've quoted has evidence for them.
What evidence do I have that I am not going to crash and die, if I
drive to work today?
Simple. It is statistically extremely unlikely.
In the year 2000, there were 37,409 fatal crashes. That means that, per
day, there are about 102 fatal crashes across 191 million drivers in the
United States.
(Sources: Naval Safety Center and the Bureau of Transportation)
That means that the likelihood that you will be involved in a fatal
accident today is:
0.000053%
Notice I didn't say "killed". I said "involved in". The likelihood
that you'll die yourself is statistically LESS than that.
That means that, today, you have a 99.999947% chance of NOT getting
involved in an accident that causes fatalities today.
Quote:
What evidence do I have that it is not going to snow in Norway during
this summer?
What part of Norway? It's a pretty big country with vastly different
climate.
Quote:
What evidence do I have that all people are going to die?
The fact that there are no immortal people. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 13:06, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: There is no such thing as "proof" in this context.
Yes? Exactly what I have been trying to tell you. You asked me for
examples of things we believe in for strong inductive reasons without
having any evidence for them.
I gave you such examples. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
If you don't have any evidence, it is not inductive reasoning, strong or
otherwise. It is conjecture.
What the fuck are you talking about? Strong inductive reasoning
doesn't give you proof, deductive reasoning is used to generate proof
in mathematics, not inductive reasoning.
Maybe there is a white crow you haven't seen, and therefore you don't
have any proof that all crows are black. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zanthius |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30 Apr, 14:46, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Quote: It's not even that. It's wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is about your death.
All I long for is the death of stupid little infidels! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zanthius wrote:
Quote: On 30 Apr, 03:56, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Simple. It is statistically extremely unlikely.
Yes, but that is strong inductive reasons, not proof.
There is no such thing as "proof" in this context. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zanthius wrote:
Quote: On 30 Apr, 13:06, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as "proof" in this context.
Yes? Exactly what I have been trying to tell you. You asked me for
examples of things we believe in for strong inductive reasons without
having any evidence for them.
I gave you such examples.
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
If you don't have any evidence, it is not inductive reasoning, strong or
otherwise. It is conjecture. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Christopher A. Lee |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:47:45 -0700, DanielSan
<danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Zanthius wrote:
On 30 Apr, 13:06, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as "proof" in this context.
Yes? Exactly what I have been trying to tell you. You asked me for
examples of things we believe in for strong inductive reasons without
having any evidence for them.
I gave you such examples.
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
And it's falsifiable.
The methodology for dealing with this sort of thing.
All it would take to falsify it, is to show a crow that isn't black.
Everybody uses this for almost everything, but theists imagine their
god is exempt.
Quote: If you don't have any evidence, it is not inductive reasoning, strong or
otherwise. It is conjecture.
It's not even that. It's wishful thinking. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Smiler |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c993870-3c6f-4ddd-a6a2-2eeaee5107f4@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On 30 Apr, 01:17, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
Your god is manifestly non-existent.
Is the objective truth manifestly non-existent?
The objective evidence for the existence of your god IS manifestly
non-existent.
Unless, of course, you can show us some objective evidence.
Space below left for you to insert excuses why you cannot, or you will not.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
We know you haven't got ANY such evidence as, if you did, you'd be happy to
show us it.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Smiler |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bbe4643-8c56-49d9-96ee-ca8a7c115506@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On 30 Apr, 13:47, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but inductive reasoning requires evidence. "All crows I've seen
are black, therefore all crows are black" is strong inductive reasoning.
All the times I have driven to work I didn't crash and die, therefore
I will not crash and die when I drive to work today.
Can't you see that this is inductive reasoning, just like with the
crows?
But it is falsifiable.
If, tomorrow, on your way to work, you crash and die, it will have been
falsified.
Can you apply the same test to your god?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Smiler |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zanthius" <zanthius_of_dxun@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c1287d1-6c50-426f-9bf3-52e6ef5923e6@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On 30 Apr, 14:46, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
It's not even that. It's wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is about your death.
All I long for is the death of stupid little infidels!
No answer, I see.
You've lost.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 41 of 42 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 40, 41, 42 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:44 pm
|
|