W
- Status
J
jonfawkes
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I understand that you are publicly stating the validity of a demonstrated logical contradiction. Please explain to me how it is intellectually honest to hold a logical contradiction as valid? As I pointed out before, it is better to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. At least these these things are possible. A logical contradiction is not. You are choosing to believe something impossible in the process of claiming that what we believe is unlikely. See the problem with that?
H
honestquestions
Guest
You are playing semantics. Most people completely understand what is fully meant when we say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to play that game, fine, we don’t need to use the word, but it doesn’t change the ultimate message being conveyed.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
warpspeedpetey;7699392:
In post #83 you asked **Where is the shift in meaning? **. You just answered your own question. You just admitted to where the shift is. You just stated a shift in meaning from “unbelievable”, to “believable” occurs. Which is what the Fallacy of Equivocation is all about. It seems that we agree that a logical fallacy is occurring in ECREE, after all, you surely won’t deny your own words. Right?The production of the “unbelievable” makes it believable. There is a shift with the introduction of new evidence.
The claim that the coelacanth an extinct fish was found, was an unbelievable claim, the fish was produced, it is no longer an unbelievable claim.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
The ultimate message being conveyed doesn’t change based on the way phrase ECREE. This isn’t about semantics, this is about logical fallacies and logical contradictions, the epistemological validity of the claim ECREE. The same problems would occur if we were speaking an entirely different language. I didn’t make either of these logical rules up. I am only pointing out that the problems invalidate the idea. No matter how you phrase it, if you reject a claim because you cannot imagine how it might be true, then you commit the Fallacy of Incredulity. Atheists hate it when I point that out because the modern educational system teaches how to do things, it doesn’t teach one how to think. I bothered to learn how to think and then I lost my atheism, like a veil over my eyes just fell away. If you saw the world in terms of critical thinking, and logic, instead of being lost in specific empirical examples, you might agree with me. I am no one special, I am just a redneck in a trailer in Kansas. Hope I see you on the other side.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
It is an argument for belief. “You believe this improbable thing, why not this other one?” " it is illogical for you not to believe this, so it’s illogical for you not to believe this."
The lottery is not an extraordinarily improbable event. There are finite odds that are at play. Every number has a set odds for coming up
Here is a calculator - lottogenie.com/html/odds.html
So for 50 numbers that can be played, playing 5 numbers the odds for matching all 5 are 1 in 2118760.00. It has finite parameters. Every time you play, a specific day in March or otherwise. The odds are the same.
Every day a number is being drawn, so we have knowledge of that, so matching has 1 in 2118760.00 chance. (per the example above) - It is unlikely but not unfathomable.
If the announcement of a winner goes outside the parameters of the game, we would cry foul. Per our example 50 numbers being played (1-50) if they announced the winning numbers were 56, 100, 2000, 78, 1234 - we would have good reason not to believe it because it goes outside the expected parameters.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Not necessary unless you’re a fundamentalist - in which case you’re going to have a tough time in the face of scientific discoveries!
J
jonfawkes
Guest
H
honestquestions
Guest
Correct, playing this single number and winning on a given day would be improbable, and if you called me and claimed that you won the powerball, I wouldn’t believe you simply based on your phone call testimony unless you provided me with some great evidence.
By itself, probably correct. The first thing that immediately comes to a skeptic’s mind (especially if a friend got you the ticket) is that it is more likely that they recorded the previous week’s numbers so that it looks like you won. If you yourself bought the ticket and came up with the numbers yourself, it is more convincing.
Right, we couldn’t believe it, unless we had some convincing evidence other than testimony, LIKE: a documented winning powerball ticket indeed showing the exact time purchase with the actual correct numbers, and video surveillance that we did indeed fill out and buy the ticket. THAT IS GREAT EVIDENCE.
We can rationally believe something outside our present experience if it does not violate the laws of physics and it comes from a reputable source, such as oceanographers publishing a latest find on the bottom of the ocean floor. We cannot believe something outside our experience that conflicts with all known experiences and evidence, such as a human that also has two other magical senses. We believe if a claim is made that someone went to a concert last night, because we have many demonstrable proofs that show it is something that has occurred multiple times before.
You’re speak of something I have never heard or seen before, of seen viable evidence for. It very well may have happened like you said, but I am unjustified to believe you at this time.
Ironically though, there is something similar I believe and you should believe it to. Even though it is outside of your experience, you can’t dismiss the claims because of that…
Evidence that dead men don’t naturally rise is irrelevant to assessing the probability that Jupdio raised Bahamo from the dead, because they are two separate events: 1. dead men rise naturally 2. Jupido raised Bahamo.
1 is irrelevant to assessing the probability of event 2 because Freejupons don’t claim that Bahamo rose naturally, but that Jupido raised him. Event 1. in no way shows that it is improbable that Jupido raised Bahamo.
I’ll debate Lee Strobel in another thread.
H
honestquestions
Guest
There are four aliens watching us from the outside of our galaxy. Why do you reject this claim?
For the record, I didn’t reject the claim because I couldn’t imagine how it might be true. I concur it very well could be true. I rejected the claim because of the lack of evidence supporting your claim.
W
Warrenton
Guest
H
honestquestions
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Then its not the same statement. You are now talking about a different statement. If you are claiming that they are the same then you are saying A=notA, ECREE=OCROE. (The O stands for “ordinary”). But that would be a logical contradiction. So I know you aren’t doing that.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No, our understanding of the context changes. The definition of unbelievable doesn’t change.
Like the coelacanth. Science believed that the coelacanth was extinct for 65 million years. To claim that you were in possession of a live one or a recently dead one would be an extraordinary claim. “How can you have one, they went extinct 65 million years ago!?!”
Yet, a fisherman caught one - That was extraordinary evidence. The understanding of the claim now shifts. Being in possession of a coelacanth is no longer an extraordinary claim, having one is no longer extraordinary evidence.
Both sides of the equation have changed not just one. I’m not changing the definition. Extraordinary means outside the ordinary in both sides of the equation.
Like the coelacanth. Science believed that the coelacanth was extinct for 65 million years. To claim that you were in possession of a live one or a recently dead one would be an extraordinary claim. “How can you have one, they went extinct 65 million years ago!?!”
Yet, a fisherman caught one - That was extraordinary evidence. The understanding of the claim now shifts. Being in possession of a coelacanth is no longer an extraordinary claim, having one is no longer extraordinary evidence.
Both sides of the equation have changed not just one. I’m not changing the definition. Extraordinary means outside the ordinary in both sides of the equation.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I don’t, I am an admitted agnostic to all known iterations of Russell’s Teapot.
Which claim are you referring to?
K
Keeler
Guest
Hmmm. On what ground would you assert that some parts of physical existence might be beyond our senses and / or the extension of our senses? I hope you do not claim that you experienced something that you claim cannot be experienced?
It depends. If there is absolutely no interaction between the physical and the alleged supernatural realms, if neither of them can affect the other, then (obviously) there can be no physical evidence for the claim.
Fortunately for you, this is not the case (or maybe unfortunately.
). This immaterial realm is supposed to interact with our physical existence (miracles, guardian angels, demons, etc…). Moreover, we can influence the supernatural realm via our prayers (according to the believers). So you (the believers) can set up a proper, double blind experiment, which will give you the opportunity to substantiate your claim. Go for it and share the results.Who mentioned a telescope? If you actually experience “God”, then you should be able to give out the “method” of how to do it. We can do the same, and see if we can experience God, too. If we can, all is well. If we cannot, then your alleged method is useless, and we can draw the conclusion that your “experience” was very likely just a delusion.
The claim that there is an “immaterial” aspect of reality, is just another unsubstantiated claim. You cannot expect anyone to take your claim seriously if it only rests on your word. Or the word of a few million of like minded people. Millions of people attested that the Earth is flat, and their testimony turned out to be incorrect. (And no, they were not lunatics, they were simply mistaken.) But I gave you the wherewithal how to substantiate your claim.Nor, when I am dead, can you extract my soul and examine it on a petri dish to see if it truly exists.
K
Keeler
Guest
How deluded can you be? No one argues that claim “X” is too improbable, therefore claim “X” is false. That would be a fallacy, but this claim only exists in your brain. All we say is that claim “X” is contradicted by the KNOWN laws of nature, therefore claim “X” is extraordinary. Which part of “contradicted” and “known laws of nature” can’t you understand?
No, you only fail to understand them. As your incorrect application of the “fallacy of incredulity” so clearly demonstrated.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Keeler
*
Who mentioned a telescope? If you actually experience “God”, then you should be able to give out the “method” of how to do it. We can do the same, and see if we can experience God, too. If we can, all is well. If we cannot, then your alleged method is useless, and we can draw the conclusion that your “experience” was very likely just a delusion. *
This is excessively juvenile on your part. One can give out the method (Christ gave it out a long time ago). That you refuse to learn it is a pathetic reason to deny it works.
*Millions of people attested that the Earth is flat, and their testimony turned out to be incorrect. (And no, they were not lunatics, they were simply mistaken.) But I gave you the wherewithal how to substantiate your claim. *
Democritus by himself attested to the existence of atoms. He could not prove it by the kind of evidence you would require. But it was still true. How do you know you won’t be surprised by truth at the hour of your death?
Are you so stubborn as to wait so long?
*
Who mentioned a telescope? If you actually experience “God”, then you should be able to give out the “method” of how to do it. We can do the same, and see if we can experience God, too. If we can, all is well. If we cannot, then your alleged method is useless, and we can draw the conclusion that your “experience” was very likely just a delusion. *
This is excessively juvenile on your part. One can give out the method (Christ gave it out a long time ago). That you refuse to learn it is a pathetic reason to deny it works.
*Millions of people attested that the Earth is flat, and their testimony turned out to be incorrect. (And no, they were not lunatics, they were simply mistaken.) But I gave you the wherewithal how to substantiate your claim. *
Democritus by himself attested to the existence of atoms. He could not prove it by the kind of evidence you would require. But it was still true. How do you know you won’t be surprised by truth at the hour of your death?
Are you so stubborn as to wait so long?
K
Keeler
Guest
This “contradiction” only appears in your delusions. I will explain it once, and only once.
No one says that only those claims should be accepted that can be verified empirically. If someone would make that claim, then he would commit a logical fallacy, since that claim cannot be verified empirically. But since no one says that, your “contradiction” is nothing but a huge red herring.
Do you understand this simple, logical line of thought?
- Status