(July 14, 2013 at 8:45 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If we're strictly linking it back to the OP now, then the above fails to establish anything against the OP. The circumstance I set up in the OP was that, whether true or false, the believer claims they have experiential justification for their belief, just like someone who got dealt a royal flush has the ongoing experiential justification before their eyes, just like the original krakener who, according to your story, has experiential justification for the claim that they have seen such a beast. So to say"the improbability of the royal flush[/god/the kraken] is given as a starting point for better evaluation" is *exactly* what I'm suggesting shouldn't be done. Alternate routes need to be found which undermine the very concept of a royal flush/god/the kraken, which then undeniably leads to the conclusion that experiential instances are impossible.
And here I thought we were finally coming to an agreement. Well, if you don't think "improbability" is a good enough argument to start a discussion with, then you don't. Arguably, there could be both better and worse arguments to be made. Still, here's how I think the conversation would go.
Royal Flush Holder: Woohoo, I got a royal flush. I'm gonna win this pot, bitches.
Me: Really? You have a royal flush? You know that the chances of that are like a billion to one.
RFH: Yeah, so? Doesn't change the fact that I have a royal flush.
Me: So, you say. In fact, that's what the other five guys are saying too. That's not just improbable, that's just impossible.
RFH: Maybe they're lying. Or just drunk and wrong about the cards they actually have.
Me: Aren't you drunk too?
RFH: Yeah, so?
Me: So, maybe you are seeing things too.
RFH: No, I have the real royal flush.
(I put five cards on the table)
Me: Say, do you think I put a royal flush on the table just now?
RFH: Yes, that's right. That's a royal flush too.
Me: Wrong. That's not a royal flush, its a straight flush.
RFH: That little trick doesn't prove that I don't have the royal flush.
(I look through the deck)
Me: Well, would you look at that? Wouldn't you say that if you have the royal flush then atleast one Queen would be missing from the deck.
RFH: I do have the Royal Flush and a Queen is missing.
Me: Nope. See? All 4 queens - present and correct.
RFH: Well, I still have the royal flush.
Me: So, let me get this straight. You keep saying that you have the royal flush - something highly improbable to begin with - while others claim the same thing, while we know that you are drunk and therefore possibly seeing hings, while we also know that you can't tell the difference between a royal flush and a non-royal flush and while we also know that the cards necessarily missing from the deck for you to have one are not missing at all - and you expect us to believe you? How can even you believe yourself?
RFH: Well, when you put it like that.....
