Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
78 online now:
nwr, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,306 Year: 4,952/14,102 Month: 550/707 Week: 105/176 Day: 14/20 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ontological arguments - where's the beef?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 74 (632402)
09-07-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Bolder-dash
09-07-2011 9:14 PM


Re: possible=shown?
By your terms, NOTHING is possible unless it is shown.

Well, imagine it from the contrary perspective. How do you propose to tell the difference between the things that are possible but haven't happened yet, and the things that haven't yet happened because they're impossible and will therefore never happen?

You can make reference to a wider body of knowledge, say physics, and conclude that a certain thing is likely not possible because it would mean that all our physics knowledge is wrong. But it's likely that our physics is wrong, at least partially, so what does that prove?

Epistemological modesty means making the minimal, most defensible conclusions.

Edited by crashfrog, : Autocorrect error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-07-2011 9:14 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2011 9:43 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 58 of 74 (632405)
09-07-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
09-07-2011 9:43 PM


Re: possible=shown?
Please decipher the connection for us.

Epistemological modesty means not concluding any more than what there is evidence for.

I realize you don't understand it. It gets back to your problem with evidence: you don't understand what it means when a proposition is supported by evidence. That's a connection you simply have no capacity to understand. (For instance, when asked to open a thread about what sorts of evidence would support propositions about the supernatural, you opened a thread that was nothing but a list of people who didn't believe you had presented evidence. When it was pointed out to you that that's not the same thing, you made accusations of oppression and fled.) That's because you're not a person who arrives at positions based on the evidence; you're a person who arrives at a position on the basis of what the other people in your tribe seem to think.

Prediction: you'll respond to this post by accusing me of oppressing you in some way.

Edited by crashfrog, : Autocorrect error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2011 9:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2011 11:11 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2011 11:58 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 74 (632508)
09-08-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
09-07-2011 11:11 PM


Re: possible=shown?
Goddamn autocorrect. I swear I've been typing in "epistemological."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-07-2011 11:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 74 (632509)
09-08-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
09-07-2011 11:58 PM


Re: possible=shown?
My prediction, before I submitted my question, was that you'd eat crow on this one. I looked it up.

Eat crow on what? What did you look up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2011 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021