Underlying Philosophy

They're an abstraction. What I have observed is that logic works: correct application of logic to correct premises leads to correct conclusion. Except that, as I have pointed out, many people do not have that ability, or have it imperfectly. There are simple questions in logic which over 90% of people get wrong.Nice going, God.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What do you mean: "Precisely"? You imagine a materialist saying: "It's not me, it's just my brain", I point out the reason why no materialist could say that, and you answer: "Precisely"? Really? Then it's the wrong question. It would make as much sense to ask that of a mental materialist as it would to ask a mental immaterialist: who controls the action of the soul? To the immaterialist, the soul is the who that controls things. Apparently. I'm not an philosophical materialist, but I am a mental materialist. After all, an injury to my brain would injure my mental faculties, whether it be my short-term memory, my sense of morality, or my ability to recognize fruit (depending on which part of the brain was injured). If I have an immaterial soul, what's it doing?

But our memory is not reliable. Can we therefore conclude that there is no God? You are wrong.In message #338 I wrote: See? I assume no such thing. I also haven't given a reason why pigs have wings. But that is not a failing of my philosophy, because they don't.

It's funny how no atheist ever claims that. Perhaps you also believe them to be infinitely modest?

Apart from the fact that the Big Bang was not an explosion, you are equivocating on the word "cause". You might as well ask how a painting of sunflowers was caused by Vincent Van Gogh's father ejaculating.P.S: On what grounds do you claim that animals have no aesthetic sense?

Quite so. I say "I don't know" much more often than once a year; I am an atheist; and my philosophy remains intact.

Is not believing in the Tooth Fairy also a philosophy?

No, that doesn't make a philosophy any more than the answer to the question "Why don't I believe in the tooth fairy?"

Seriously, you'd call that a "philosophy"?Well, by convention on this forum we communicate in the English language. And the assertion of the existence of a single entity, whether it's the Tooth Fairy or the Eiffel Tower, is not a "philosophy" in the English language as it is spoken.

If you are really unable to answer Straggler's question, then this is a fact that you could have communicated more concisely by writing: "I am unable to answer your question".

That's a curious way to use the word "philosophy". Apparently according to your usage I have a philosophy with regards to walruses, a philosophy with regards to unicorns, a philosophy with regards to teacups, a philosophy with regards to tomato ketchup ...... and so, of course, do you. Tell me, what is your philosophy with regards to tomato ketchup? And you are of course wrong: I do have reasons for doing the things that I do. For example, right now I'm going to eat some cheese and pickled onions. The reason is because I'm hungry and I like the taste. See, an atheist doing something for a reason!So this is as easily refuted as your claim that atheists can't use logic. I guess it's logical in the sense that it is not mutually self-contradictory (which hardly requires a God) but what do you mean by "orderly"? Yeah, you keep saying that. I presume that if you had anything that you thought was a good argument for it you'd have mentioned it by now.

That's not an argument, that's an assertion. Have you ever noticed that those two proverbs tell you to do two mutually incompatible things? Why not? We know so much more about the nature of reality today than he knew in the fourteenth century. So although he grasped the principle of looking for a parsimonious explanation, we have a much better idea than he did of what we're looking for a parsimonious explanation for. You are wrong. He was not a renowned theologian, but a secret theologian. Because he was a closet Unitarian.See here: And, though for different reasons, I guess that you find his theology about as important as I do. After all, I just think he was wasting his time, whereas you presumably think he was damning his immortal soul. But this is like saying: "I think that an account of the world that includes the existence of fairy-dust is more parsimonious because if we could ever find some fairy-dust and sprinkle ourselves with it, then we'd be able to walk through walls."It is not parsimonious to invoke the existence of an entity which we cannot observe (God, fairy-dust) to explain an observation which has never been made (perfect understanding, being able to walk through walls).This is the very opposite of parsimony, since if we allow ourselves to do that sort of thing, then we can "multiply entities" under no "necessity" at all (since it is not necessary to explain observations which have not been made).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, that's just not one of the things that can be a philosophy. A belief that the Eiffel Tower exists cannot be someone's philosophy any more than it can be their pet or their favorite food. That is not my philosophy. That's just a crude misstatement of a fact. A priori, yes. A posterori, no. No, my "dismay" is an imaginary thing in your head. I am not, in fact, dismayed. Speak for yourself.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just because I know some things that you don't know doesn't mean that I know things that no-one else knows. For that to follow, I would have to be the smartest person in the world and you would have to be the second smartest.You overestimate yourself.

If you were really unable to understand my post, then I can only suggest that you read it again. It was very simple, and rather shorter than your expression of incomprehension.If you remain unable to understand it, I suggest that you take up some less intellectually demanding hobby than participating on these forums.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.