(July 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?
They are necessary presuppositions. You made them because you are having a discussion with me, and I presume you believe you exist and your senses aren't failing you as you attempt to post on this thread...
Quote:I explained my intention in my last post.
Your last post was a non sequitur about people's belief and goblins. What exactly, then, do you want?
Quote:Can you please define what an unrestricted negative is? And do you mean "unfalsifiable?" (instead of unprovable) I don't think God is by definition unprovable.
An unrestricted negative is a negative position that is definitionally past human measurement empiracally. We cannot test it in any way. God is (typically) defined as atemporal and amaterial, so he falls neatly into this category. This category is also home to anything you want to define into it. You could, for instance, have a timeless, spaceless, immeasureable cosmic crab king that couldn't be disproven.
Quote:Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?
Because we have no evidence there are extraterrestrials, it follows that we shouldn't believe there are such beings.
See:
Skepsis Wrote:Lack of evidence necesitates lack of belief. If you want to contest that then I would feel fine destroying your argument.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
