-->
@secularmerlin
All you need to do is pick a new word. Pasta is defined by its composition of physical characteristics.
free will
Posts
Total:
712
-->
@Fallaneze
Could you please think of another way of saying this the double negative makes my head swim.reject to be untrue.
I've said many times that I do not care about people's psychology of belief/disbelief. I care about that claims that they accept to be true and the claims they reject to be untrue.
That is why I am asking precisely how you separate one from the other. What is the difference between the brainstate that expresses a belief and the belief when expressed? Clearly this dustinction is very important to you but it seems like you are proposing nonphysical pasta to me. Sure its plausible if we accept a broader definition of consciousness/pasta than is supportable by science. My question is why apply this standard to one and not the other.
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok spiritpasta. It is identical to pasta in every way except that it is nonphysical. So essentially nonphysical pasta.All you need to do is pick a new word. Pasta is defined by its composition of physical characteristics.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well statedI haven't heard a refutation of my argument that it violates the law of identity but you are free to give your opinion on the matter.You just redefine the item with "special" properties. Like when someone says "god is love".Does this mean that god is a human emotion that facilitates the propagation of the species?Does love have any physical properties?Is love omnipotent and omniscient?No, of course not. In every example "god" is a "special case".The same is true for the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.
-->
@Fallaneze
Please explain how you can make decisions WITHOUT physics OR chemistry.I don't see how doing that would be relevant in avoiding the implication I talked about.
I think it's pretty clear that you can't make any decisions WITHOUT physics OR chemistry.
But I'm not sure you can provide compelling evidence that anyone REQUIRES magical fairy dust (or anything in addition to physics and chemistry) in order to make a decision.
-->
@secularmerlin
Spiritpasta sounds like another word for nothing.
-->
@secularmerlin
I say "reject to be untrue" because that's not what the atheist experience hosts mean when they say they "reject" the existence of God claims. By "reject" they mean to remain merely non-acceptant.
-->
@Fallaneze
I say "reject to be untrue" because that's not what the atheist experience hosts mean when they say they "reject" the existence of God claims. By "reject" they mean to remain merely non-acceptant.
Due to a lack of compelling evidence.
In the exact same way that you "reject" the existence of Zeus.
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, "consciousness" is defined as the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. There is no physical component indicated.
I mean, you are presumably talking about a human being. And aren't human beings generally comprised of physical components?
-->
@Fallaneze
"Pasta" is defined as "a dish originally from Italy consisting of dough made from durum wheat and water, extruded or stamped into various shapes and typically cooked in boiling water." There are physical components indicated by its definition.
All physical pasta is a manifestation of the one true, infinite, ultimate and glorious heavenly pasta which is The Ultimate REality.
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't think the number of false claims on a particular subject is indicative of whether a particular claim on that subject is true or false. That's a variation of the genetic fallacy.
Not at all. It is common sense, encapsulated in the story of the boy who cried wolf. Yes, I know the last time the boy cried wolf there actually was a wolf. But it was still reasonable for the villagers to disbelieve the claim based on the boy's history of false claims.
What makes a claim "fantastical"?
For a working definition we can go with the following: a claim is fantastical if nothing else like it is known to have ever existed or if it requires new physical laws.
What's interesting is that the example of the 10ft tall gold statue of Zeus is more likely false than true, yet your view is that this negative claim should be harder to justify than the positive claim.
Not harder to justify--harder to verify. Justifying belief in the absence of any such statue is straightforward. If no such statue has been observed or reported, that, along with knowing the difficulty of constructing such a statue and the rarity of gold, are enough justification for disbelief. Presumably this is how you determined it to be more likely false then true.
Verifying, however, is much harder for negative existential claims. That is why disbelief of positive claims should be the default position.
-->
@Stronn
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking its source."
So is the big bang singularity fantastical?
We shouldn't concern ourselves with verifiability. We should concern ourselves with which claim is more rational to believe. Whichever claim is more rational to believe depends on the preponderance of the underlying evidence. Mere non-belief is the default position, not disbelief. To disbelieve something based on lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you really contending that one should not evaluate the source when considering whether to believe a claim?
Fallacies are concerned with whether an argument logically supports an implication. I'm not saying that the fact that the boy is known to falsely cry wolf logically implies that there is no wolf. I'm saying that the fact that the boy is known to falsely cry wolf makes it less likely that the boy's next wolf-cry will be true. It's a subtle distinction.
Yes, the big bang singularity is a fantastical claim. If there were no evidence for it, it should be disbelieved. There is, however, evidence for it. In fact, unlike many other fantastical claims, evidence is what led to the big bang in the first place. That is an important distinction.
I disagree in regards to verifiability. Verifiability and rational belief go hand in hand. The more difficult something is to verify, the less inclined we should be to believe it, especially with respect to claims of existence.
-->
@Stronn
What's interesting is that the example of the 10ft tall gold statue of Zeus is more likely false than true, yet your view is that this negative claim should be harder to justify than the positive claim.Not harder to justify--harder to verify. Justifying belief in the absence of any such statue is straightforward. If no such statue has been observed or reported, that, along with knowing the difficulty of constructing such a statue and the rarity of gold, are enough justification for disbelief. Presumably this is how you determined it to be more likely false then true.
There is also the important difference between 'rigorous' and 'reasonable doubt' levels of proof. One can provide rigorous proof a gold statue of zeus exists simply by putting it on show, but you can only ever prove no such statue exists 'beyond reasonable doubt', never prove it absolutely.
-->
@Stronn
The claim should be evaluated on its own merits. That's the most rational approach.
"The boy who cried wolf" is disanalogous to claims about the existence of God.
I'm glad we agree that the Big Bang singularity is fantastical yet has evidence to support it, so it warrants acceptance. Is the claim "a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe exists" fantastical?
It is rational to want verifiability but the benchmark for whether a belief is rational doesn't begin with having 'verifiability', it begins with having evidence. This is especially true for non-empirical claims.
It's worth repeating that whichever claim is more rational to believe depends on the preponderance of the underlying evidence. Mere non-belief is the default position, not disbelief. To disbelieve something based on lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-->
@Fallaneze
It's worth repeating that whichever claim is more rational to believe depends on the preponderance of the underlying evidence.
So how do you pick between Vishnu, Nanabozho, Pangu, and "YHWH" using this "preponderance of underlying evidence" framework?
Mere non-belief is the default position, not disbelief.
This is a distinction without a difference. Do you non-believe in Nanabozho or do you disbelieve in Nanabozho? There is no practical difference.
To disbelieve something based on lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance.
Belief and disbelief are not equal. Existence and non-existence are not equal. UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIMS ARE ALWAYS SUSPECT.
Belief requires evidence.
Existence requires evidence.
Unfalsifiable claims are generally appeals to ignorance and the con-man's weapon of choice.
You can't prove reading this book won't make you a millionaire.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily conclusive evidence of absence, but it is most definitely evidence of absence.
Also, it is important to understand that "absence of evidence is not evidence of existence".
-->
@Fallaneze
The claim should be evaluated on its own merits. That's the most rational approach.
A notorious con-man offers to sell you a Rolex watch for cheap. You have taken the last ten Rolex watches he has offered to a jeweler to examine, and they were all fake. Is it reasonable to spend time on another trip to the jeweler to evaluate the current watch?
The boy who cried wolf makes the point that evaluating history and sources is often useful when considering claims.
Is the claim "a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe exists" fantastical?
Yes, of course.
For existential claims, non-belief is for all practical purposes identical to disbelief. If I lack belief in something, I act as though it does not exist.
It is not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It may not be conclusive evidence of absence, but it is evidence of absence, especially if something ought to have left evidence.
-->
@Fallaneze
Please restate the merits of your claim. I don't think anyone here is actually refusing to evaluate your claim.The claim should be evaluated on its own merits. That's the most rational approach.
-->
@Stronn
It is not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
I agree. That adage is downright misleading! I'd accept 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'.
-->
@keithprosser
If i were to make a claim without a supporting argument it would be playground standard for me to insist you prove me wrong. There is nothing to be gained by engaging in such faux-debates and a rapid bail out is in order! But you might (unwisely!) choose to prove the claim wrong, in which case you would aquire the BoP for some counter-claim.
"You Can't Prove Me Wrong" is the hallmark of an unfalsifiable claim and a Classic Appeal to Ignorance.
For example, Almost all the claims from the anti-science movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.
Proponents of the anti-science movement will usually pick some aspect of a currently accepted scientific theory and argue that it must be wrong because they do not believe it explains some aspect of the natural world. Common examples of this are such claims as "you can't prove global warming is caused by humans," "I don't see how evolution could increase the complexity of an organism," "material properties of the brain cannot presently explicitly explain consciousness so it must be caused by non-materialist processes," or "I don't know how this alternative medicine works, but it does." [LINK]
-->
@Fallaneze
There's no logical difference between rejecting "God exists" as untrue versus the positive claim that God does not exist.
Do you believe Zeus exists?
Can you prove Zeus does NOT exist?
-->
@Fallaneze
Non-physical sounds like another word for nothing. This includes non-physical beings, non-physical consciousnesses and non-physical pasta equally. If you are making am exception for your personal pet hypothesis why not make an exception for everyone personal pet hypothesis?Spiritpasta sounds like another word for nothing.
-->
@Fallaneze
In which way are you rejecting the flying spaghetti monster?I say "reject to be untrue" because that's not what the atheist experience hosts mean when they say they "reject" the existence of God claims. By "reject" they mean to remain merely non-acceptant.
Also could you still stop using that double negative and find a way of saying that that does not gramatically cancel itself?
-->
@keithprosser
It is not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceI agree. That adage is downright misleading! I'd accept 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'.
Incontrovertible proof is only available for tautological statements and logical necessities.
-->
@Fallaneze
Can you prove the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, and Space Aliens do not exist?I agree with your first sentence but disagree with your second sentence. If you claim X does not exist, all you have to do is show evidence that X does not exist.
Do you therefore believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, and Space Aliens?
-->
@Mopac
I find it amazing that you say there is no evidence for free will when the fact that you are choosing to post on this forum is clearly evidence, whether or not it constitutes proof to you.I think you really have to make an active effort to ignore reality to maintain that there is no evidence.
Please explain how your emotional response to decision making constitutes "evidence" of some magical force that is NEITHER caused NOR uncaused?
-->
@3RU7AL
Dismissing evidence does not negate it.
-->
@Mopac
Dismissing evidence does not negate it.
Is your "evidence" a feeling you get?
Is your "evidence" logically incoherent?
How can freewill be NEITHER caused (determined) NOR uncaused (random)?
All events (actions/decisions) must be either caused or uncaused (or some combination of the two).
There is no possible hypothetical alternative third option.
-->
@3RU7AL
I suggest the third alternative is to recognise free will as a cause in its own right.
-->
@keithprosser
Then freewill (the cause) is part either part of the causal chain (generated deterministicly) or indistinguishable from random (causless).you have not in any way contramanded 3RUTA7's SAAFW.