(May 10, 2025 at 2:51 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(May 10, 2025 at 2:16 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Since it is "evidence" for both the thesis and the antithesis, it is evidence for neither. That's what we call "equivocal".
...
ETA: Isn't "God ---> Life on Earth. And we observe life on Earth" affirming the consequent? Asking for a fellow doctoral student.
Yes, it's affirming the consequent, that's been my entire argument against evidence. And all you've done is restate the problem of underdetermination. In other words, you've reinforced my case against evidence.
(That said, I do reject your exclusivity argument, that X only be possible under Y, or else X doesn't corroborate Y. I don't think such exclusivity exists anywhere in the universe.)
The evidence against evidence brought to you by the philosophically illiterate. Nice to see that you reject your own argument against god.
