Login

~~fr0d0~~ · July 4, 2010 at 5:34 am

(July 4, 2010 at 2:00 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

You did learn to read, didn't you?

1) It says "we can't rule out" in there doesn't it? Any idea why it is in there? Anyway, no assumption there.

2) I have no shred of evidence for the natural, so there is no assumption there. If you have a shred like that please bring it forward any time so we can evaluate it.

3) Because I have no shred on X, I do not make assumptions about X. Not on how X might affect reality. Not on the existence or non-existence of X. This is quite straightforward too. From the principle of parsimony I derive that it would be redundant to make any assumption if I have no shred of evidence of X. Bottom line: no assumption being made there.

Compare this to how science deals with god: there is no single statement about god in science. Not a statement about his non-existence, not a statement about his existence. There is simply no god in the equations. If you have a better proposal on how to not make assumption on something please bring it forward.

4) the natural does not equal the material, the supernatural does not equal the non-material.

And this is not a position from materialism???

Purple Rabbit · July 4, 2010 at 5:49 am

(July 4, 2010 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And this is not a position from materialism???

Indeed. It might be interpreted as a statement about evidentialism and epistemic justification though.

If you think otherwise, please point it out to me.

~~fr0d0~~ · July 4, 2010 at 6:04 am

You're just splitting hairs Rabbit. You know what I'm saying.

Purple Rabbit · July 4, 2010 at 6:12 am

(July 4, 2010 at 6:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You're just splitting hairs Rabbit. You know what I'm saying.

Nice try, but a little sloppy. Do your homework next time.

~~fr0d0~~ · July 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

If you can't answer, obfuscate. It always gets circular with you Rabbit huh?

Purple Rabbit · July 4, 2010 at 6:58 am

Where's that fr0d0? What point didn't you understand? Please let me know and I'll be glad to again explain my position for you.

~~fr0d0~~ · July 4, 2010 at 7:19 am

I'm bored Rabbit. You've successfully dodged the question enough times to get away with it. Congratulations on another successful foray.

Purple Rabbit · July 4, 2010 at 8:37 am

I'm bored with you to fr0d0. Again you have shown to lack any argumentative power on false accusations.

~~fr0d0~~ · July 4, 2010 at 8:48 am

Because I can't be bothered to chase you around to answer a question you mean? You certainly seem to put a lot of effort into your obfuscation.

Purple Rabbit · July 4, 2010 at 8:50 am

(July 4, 2010 at 8:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Because I can't be bothered to chase you around to answer a question you mean? You certainly seem to put a lot of effort into your obfuscation.

You are obfuscated? What of the following still is not clear to you:

Quote:1) It says "we can't rule out" in there doesn't it? Any idea why it is in there? Anyway, no assumption there.

2) I have no shred of evidence for the natural, so there is no assumption there. If you have a shred like that please bring it forward any time so we can evaluate it.

3) Because I have no shred on X, I do not make assumptions about X. Not on how X might affect reality. Not on the existence or non-existence of X. This is quite straightforward too. From the principle of parsimony I derive that it would be redundant to make any assumption if I have no shred of evidence of X. Bottom line: no assumption being made there.

Compare this to how science deals with god: there is no single statement about god in science. Not a statement about his non-existence, not a statement about his existence. There is simply no god in the equations. If you have a better proposal on how to not make assumption on something please bring it forward.

4) the natural does not equal the material, the supernatural does not equal the non-material.

Come on, don't be shy now.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	[Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism	SenseMaker007	25	3928	June 19, 2019 at 7:21 am Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	Argument against Intelligent Design	Jrouche	27	4308	June 2, 2019 at 5:04 pm Last Post: Pat Mustard
	Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural	Bahana	103	19374	June 18, 2018 at 2:47 pm Last Post: SteveII
	The Argument Against God's Existence From God's Imperfect Choice	Edwardo Piet	53	10051	June 4, 2018 at 2:06 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God	Edwardo Piet	58	15813	May 2, 2018 at 2:06 pm Last Post: Amarok
	The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.	Mystic	158	73108	December 29, 2017 at 7:21 pm Last Post: Minimalist
	Supernatural isn't a useful concept	Rhizomorph13	85	14266	November 12, 2016 at 3:15 am Last Post: Ignorant
	If a supernatural intelligence did create the universe.....	maestroanth	12	2376	April 20, 2016 at 8:36 pm Last Post: bennyboy
	Let's play with the concept of 'Supernatural'	ErGingerbreadMandude	13	2456	March 22, 2016 at 4:01 am Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
	2 Birds, 1 Stone: An argument against free will and Aquinas' First Way	Mudhammam	1	1244	February 20, 2016 at 8:02 am Last Post: ignoramus