Philosophy Now Forum

agnostic weak atheist Only if you drop the "atheist" tag. Be a pure "agnostic," and we've got no issues. Otherwise, it's dead on. As uwot points out, agnosticism is perfectly compatible with both atheism and theism. Dostoevsky, for example, appears to have been an agnostic theis...

Well, I'll play along, even though you're being gratuitously insulting again. You gratuitously insult everyone with your slippery-eel "arguments." My answer is as follows: I'm going to say, "That's not God." And my reason for saying so is that I know who God is, and that isn't H...

The OP is just silly rhetoric full of presuppositions. It took an atheist like me to pinpoint the flaw in the OP, rather than do what you do — just throw out an unsupported rhetorical one-liner and call it a day. It’s not clear that God can be an infinite number of ways, if he exists. If he can be ...

First, I never claimed, nor even implied, that they did not mean what they said -- this is just you putting words into my mouth, a not uncommon tactic for you. Misdirection. What is your evidence? ...someone who claims to have met God has the burden of proof to substantiate his claim. Which is exac...

Right. They all "thought" that they did. Doesn't mean they actually did. Maybe. But it doesn't prove the opposite either. And after all, even in a court of law or a matter of historical verification, human testimony is considered one form of datum. It is not all we have, but when it is of...

Maybe you are talking about Ken's denial of empirical findings? Yes that. He calls it being open minded. Maybe all the scientists bias their findings about this relativity thing and faking the evidence. OK that's what I thought. *whew* For a moment I thought you were going all rogue on us, :) Very ...

And sadly, the subject is turning away from the part I was interested in, the bit about why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue. Well I would like to hear more about that. Why would denial of empirical findings be a virtue? This seems to be a repudiation of epistemology going back to Hum...

But then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the u...

I think I figured out a plausible model. It is the Copenhagen interpretation of the age of twins. Relativity says that when the twins part company, it is ambiguous which one is older. It is frame dependent. But they're twins which (as ken pointed out) are known to be the same age when their age can...

Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both. I think I see where you've gone wrong. But I want to be sure. So give me any specific values for x and y, in the situation you suggest. This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%. If "God" means &...

Think of two possible worlds, X and Y. God could be x or y but not both. I think I see where you've gone wrong. But I want to be sure. So give me any specific values for x and y, in the situation you suggest. This means the chance of having God in a possible world is 50%. If "God" means &...

This is not possible with God, whom no one has ever met. Not so fast. Moses thought He did. Isaiah thought he did. The disciples of Christ thought they did. John thought he did. Paul thought he did. And others claimed they did. But you say that none of them actually did. What is your data justifyin...

I'm referring to this moron, "Nope, doesn’t work." You acting as though your understanding of anothers "theories" are so necessarily correct that you can say such a thing, without even understanding what I meant! I do understand what you meant. It's wrong. I explained why it was...

However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not. Why not? Zero probability is the same as impossibility. Impossible means there is zero chance of happening. But zero chance of happening does not mean impossible. T...

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:29 am

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:28 am However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

Why not? Zero probability is the same as impossibility.

It is not.