RE: Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.
April 23, 2018 at 7:52 am
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2018 at 8:00 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 22, 2018 at 9:09 pm)Hammy Wrote: Because you keep ignoring me. I asked you: Do you not believe that fire-breathing dragons are improbable?
If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.
So basically you're still unwilling to answer the question. I rest my case.
You don't have any positive evidence that fire-breathing dragons exist, and yet you rightfully consider them improbable. It's exactly the same case with me and God. You are not going to pretend that fire-breathing dragons have a 50% or unknown probability existing, we both rightfully agree that such a creature existing on earth without us ever finding any is improbable. And that fire-breathing such as that is an improbable ability.
To me, God seems the same way, only even more so. Not only are his abilities highly improbable but in some conceptions of God they're actually self-contradictory.
1) You are disingenuous when you avoid my question repeatedly and pretend you are not doing exactly the same thing with fire-breathing dragons.
2) The improbability of God depends on the defintion. And it is your job to tell me what conception of God you think I'm denying. If God is the universe, then I'm a pantheist. So obviously not all conceptions of God are improbable. What God are we talking about?
The shoe is on your foot and I answer your questions but you dodge mine. I don't care if you outright say "fire-breathing dragons are improbable" or not, we both know you think they are, so you are simply being disingenuous. My analogy succeeds because in both cases we're not believing in something that is absurd because there's no evidence of it... it doesn't fail simply because you're too disingenuous to admit it. If you were not disingenuous you wouldn't constantly dodge the question and avoid the burden of proof. And the alternative is literally that you're so crazy that you think fire-breathing dragons are probable. You have claimed I am denying God, but you haven't even told me what God I am supposedly denying. That isn't my job. Obviously not all kinds of god are highly improbable, some are more improbable than others... some are impossible... and some obviously must exist because they have no real content and are just labellings of things we already know to exist ("God is the universe" and shit like that).
Which God are we talking about?
Because God with a capital G, is improbable for its characteristics. Just like a fire-breathing dragon is. And when there's literally no evidence of something, of course it's improbable. That's why unicorns are improbable, that's why pixes are improbable.
Once again, you fail to understand the argument of ignorance. Absence of evidence doesn't mean positive evidence that something definitely doesn't exist, but a lack of evidence for the absurd certainly implies that that absurd thing probably doesn't exist. That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is all about. Saying that an extraordinary claim is improbable without evidence is not an extraordinary claim. It's occam's razor, it's the principle of parsimony. You don't seem to understand parsimony or the argument from ignorance at all. But it's no surprise, because if you did, you probably wouldn't be a theist.
The burden of proof isn't on all claims when no one is claiming any knowledge of anything. The principle of parsimony matters. All other things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. You are the one who postulates unnecessary entities... so I'm saying you're probably wrong, because I understand parsimony. Checkmate doofus-face.
(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.
That's because you don't understand the principle of parsimony.
(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable.
So you think they are probable.... don't pretend you have no opinion on the matter.
(April 22, 2018 at 10:53 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(April 22, 2018 at 9:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.
I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.
In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable. I don’t think that would be the correct word, or could lead people to be confused by what I meant. I just stick with I do not have sufficient reason, testimony or other evidence to believe that they exists.
There is probably a reason that I find no one saying that there is.
What's wrong with the belief in the existence of fairies, then? People, after all, have seen them, or so they say? While we're at it, how about alien abductions? Do you believe in those, also? If not, why not?
Oh hey hey he didn't outright say that fairies or unicorns or dragons are improbable so he's off the hook!
It doesn't work like that RR. You can't just hide behind disingenuousness. We know that there are many crazy things you don't believe in and that you consider improbable, including many other kinds of gods, and all the mythological gods.
You're an atheist just like I am with regards to all the other gods... I just go one god further.
So don't pretend otherwise. It won't cut it with a supremely honest person such as myself.
