RE: I can feel your anger
July 9, 2012 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2012 at 9:43 am by CliveStaples.)
(July 9, 2012 at 3:31 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: That may well be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
What you've just said there is "Oh well you think a proposition requires evidence so that constitutes a belief and you can't prove it isn't because you need evidence to justify that system which would be circular! :-D"
You've taken that and stretched it into a paragraph and tried to make it sound like a more plausible idea and the people who have given it kudos should feel very silly.
...and that whole paragraph basically amounts to, "RaphielDrake doesn't think 'For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p' is a belief."
The rest of the paragraph is just extraneous insults.
Quote:Ok, lets test that theory of yours:
I'm going to make a proposition without any evidence and see if it turns out to be true. Ok, I propose that an invisible man is in my room right now and will give me money in 3, 2, 1... nope. Nothing. But then I suppose that money would constitute evidence wouldn't it? Hm, well I suppose in that case we should just say all propositions are true now that they don't require any evidence. Well this is going to make bank robberies alot easier. Just walk into the bank and claim you're Donald Trump, no evidence needed.
*Or*... now this is an idea... how about we go by the same system to prove somethings real through evidence thats worked for centuries, which in itself is evidence the system works, and ignore the completely fallace and moronic theory you just came up with! :-)
You're not even reading what I'm writing.
First, I'm not saying that evidentialism is wrong, or that it's a bad theory of justification. I'm just asking how you guys know it's true.
Second, all you did was look at a particular non-evidentialist system and showed that it was stupid. Your system seemed to be, "Every proposition should be believed." Are you saying that this is the only alternative to evidentialism?
Third, how do you know that evidentialism has worked? You believe it that it's worked, but how can you prove it (without simply assuming that it works)?
This isn't facetious. I'd actually like to see the proof.
(July 9, 2012 at 9:12 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster(PBUHNA) and you know what?
Christians refuse to believe me.
I can't imagine why.
They don't believe that FSM could choose not to insert itself into its creation? What's their reasoning?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
