Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Do you even understand what probality after the fact IS? It's becoming clearer and clearer that you don't.
|
Actually, you don't seem to understand "probability after the fact". The "probability after the fact" fallacy is one made by creationists when they claim life is so complex etc. that it couldn't have developed by itself, in much the same way that someone who got struck by lightning could claim that chances of that happening are so small that it didn't.
However, Hume's arguments against are separate from and prior to this whole issue, and refute the entire basis of design.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
I also find it amusing that you keep referencing Hume, when the conclusion he drews is that bottom up reasoning (emperical science) can't prove anything. What was it you said earlier?
|
Contrary to what you seem to believe, Hume had more than one single point in his entire body of work. You single out the one about the fallacy of inductive reasoning (which is fairly famous), and fail to realize that his
"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" treats exactly this issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Ironic that even one of the great empirisists concludes that nothing can be proven via the very route you're trying to repudate.
|
Ironic that someone who can spell neither "empiricist" nor "repudiate" entirely misses the point and completely randomly inserts the notion of "proof" where it doesn't belong.
Oh, wait. That isn't ironic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
You still haven't provided an example.
|
Yes, I have. See below. But regardless, READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE YOU DIPSHIT:
You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.
The very question is a nonsensical one, since contemporary philosophy has largely abandoned the concept of "foundations".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Congrats. You do realise that this was Descarte's fundamental assumption yes? He build all of his latter reasoning on this buidling block. Once again, you have still yet to find a philosophy that doesn't begin with an assumption, and draws any real conclusion.
|
Wrong. His entire aim is to start without any assumptions, and then to build a philosophy from the logically undeniable. The logically undeniable isn't an "unfounded assumption".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Might I add he came to the conclusion a higher power must exist.
|
Yes. He was a dualist, too. What's your point? He was wrong on just about all of his philosophical statements.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
Following Ockham's Razor there's no reason to assume there isn't either.
You're trying to apply his model out of context. I take it you also never read the part where even he acknowledges that his theory doesn't not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct. (we are of course assuming atheism is the simplest theory, something that is somewhat subjective when taken this far into the abstract)
We have two opposing theories:
A higher power exists
A higher power does not exist
Ockhams Razor is meerly ment to stop us from making more assumptions then we have to. The point that you are missing is that both of these points of view are fundamental assumptions. One could even argue that OR supports creationism, as it is the much simpler of the two theories.
|
Your sheer stupidity is starting to piss me off.
(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?
(3)Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.
(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?
The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. It is logically impossible to prove a negative claim, therefore it is unreasonable (and a commonly recognized logical fallacy) to insist on proof of negative claims.