-->
@Mopac
I accept that some truth probably exists. Your point is therefore based on a faulty premise and therefore invalid.
There are no good arguments for atheism
Posts
Total:
178
-->
@secularmerlin
Some truth probably exists =/= not an admission that truth definitely exists.
The nihilist is too cool to actually believe anything.
-->
@Mopac
Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.
-->
@secularmerlin
Whover invented that adage shouldhave been strangled at birth!It is impossible to prove a negative
There are unprovable statements, but being negative or positive has nothing to with it. Consider 'Unicorns exist' and 'unicorns don't exist'.
-->
@keithprosser
You are correct of course. I should be more how I put things.
-->
@Mopac
I do not identify as a nihilist. Merely a hard skeptic.
-->
@Fallaneze
Forgive me some negatives can be proven let me rephrase. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is certainly not evidence for existence.
-->
@secularmerlin
No need to be forgiven - we respectfully have our disagreements. And I can agree that absence of evidence is not evidence for existence.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, you can call yourself a hard skeptic.
I will call you a nihilist.
You, after all, can't admit that there is truth. You give this wishy washy assertion, "The truth probably exists.". Which is really your backdoor to revert to full on nihilism whenever it is convenient for you to do so.
The Truth exists, and if you don't "know" this to be the case, it cannot be explained away by "There is a difference between belief and knowledge " because it is only your belief that causes you to doubt what is the evident truth.
The Truth obviously exists, and nothing else makes sense. No amount of sophistry, rhetoric, or semantic perversion is going to overthrow REALITY, which is what you are doubting in the existence of.
There is nothing reasonable about your epistemological nihilism.
-->
@Fallaneze
Then skepticism is the default position.
-->
@Mopac
I accept that truth exists other same way that I accept that physical reality is real. Provisionally.
-->
@secularmerlin
Skepticism isn't a state of belief though. If you agree that having no state of belief (mere non-belief) is the default position then I'd agree with that.
-->
@secularmerlin
A double minded man is unstable in all of his ways.
-->
@Fallaneze
Then we agree.
-->
@secularmerlin
Merely a hard skeptic.
You often remind me of the tortoise in this very short story by Lewis Carroll...
-->
@Mopac
I am of a single mind and my standards are my own. They have not shifted since we bagan talking mopac.
-->
@keithprosser
Someone my dear Achilles must be the tortoise.
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe you should take that in context with your inability to admit that truth exists.
-->
@Mopac
How many times have I told you that I accept many truths provisionally.
-->
@secularmerlin
Definition of provisional
"serving for the time being : temporary"
Yes, I understand that you don't actually believe in absolute truth.
Which, as I have maintained, really means that you don't really believe in truth. Reality is whatever you can get away with.
-->
@Mopac
He has just told you that he isn't but in your unbelief in truth you will ignore the truth and lie.I will call you a nihilist.
You reject The Truth.
-->
@secularmerlin
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Another bugbear! I say absence of evidence often is evidence of absence. It's not proof, but it can be evidence.
But "absence of evidence is not proof of absence" doesn't zing!
-->
@keithprosser
Can we really prove that unicorns don't exist?It is impossible to prove a negativeWhover invented that adage shouldhave been strangled at birth!There are unprovable statements, but being negative or positive has nothing to with it. Consider 'Unicorns exist' and 'unicorns don't exist'.
-->
@Castin
Can we really prove that unicorns don't exist?
Don't fret - they do exist, i promise.
-->
@Castin
proper answer;
No, we can't.
But not because 'it's a negative' as we can't prove the positive either!
As there are an infinity of negatives that can be proved, why the adage survives is a total mystery, except it sounds good.
-->
@keithprosser
RE: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
I agree with this statement but you disagree. Whether this statement is true or not wholly depends on the defintion of evidence you're using. Here is the defintion of evidence from Oxford handbook (Google):
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Now substitute this defintion with the word "evidence" in the slogan.
ABSENCE OF any available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid IS [an] available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
This is false. The slogan, using this definition of evidence, is therefore true.
-->
@Fallaneze
It hangs on the distiction (if any) between 'proof' and 'evidence'.
A video of me shooting you is pretty near proof of my guilt. A receipt for the murder weapon in my desk drawer is evidence but nowhere near proof.
-->
@keithprosser
That seems correct. Proof is just a strong a form of evidence.
Having no information to indicate anything cannot mean that this is information that indicates the absence of something.
-->
@Mopac
What is the difference between what is true and ultimate truth? If they are the same thing then I'm not sure what your argumentbhere is.
Is the ultimate truth not what is true?