Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Won't you be surprised when you reach Amsterdam and a unicorn picks you up at the airport? All you have is an experiment-description, no results 

That's more than I have, true, but still it's the same thing scientifically: no result == no result, merely having a theory and a means to prove it doesn't prove it.

MrWiggles takes the semantic approach. No, the case here is about actual unicorns existing, and being able to spout nonsense on the internet.

[Neruz]

Good question. I did alter my beliefs somewhat during this whole conversation, but based on what exactly, I don't know. But it's not about the right/wrong thing. It's through the "you see it that way, but I see it this way. Oh really I hadn't thought of that" debate that horizons can be expanded.

Neruz, you don't have that time or those resources. So the point is moot. I could say I could prove God exists given near unlimited time and resources, but I don't have them, so it's still a bluff.

I think I may agree with the Siquo on the unicorn part. Since unicorn don't exist, they can be anything. So you could define Siquo as a unicorn. Therefore a unicorn exists. The same thing applies for god in this case well (well for us atheist anyway).

Well ovbiously i do have to first define what i mean by "Unicorn". White Horse with a horn on it's head.

There we go, done. Now can we continue or would you like to wave some more logical fallacies around?

[Neruz]

Won't you be surprised when you reach Amsterdam and a unicorn picks you up at the airport? All you have is an experiment-description, no results 

That's more than I have, true, but still it's the same thing scientifically: no result == no result, merely having a theory and a means to prove it doesn't prove it.

MrWiggles takes the semantic approach. No, the case here is about actual unicorns existing, and being able to spout nonsense on the internet.

Of course not, i cannot definitively prove you are not a unicorn without conducting the experiment. But i have an experiment i can conduct that you have just admitted will give me accurate results.

That is substantially more than any God hypothesis has.


Or, if you like, new theory; I am a Unicorn.

One second, i have a way of determining the truth of this theory.



Just looked in the mirror, i'm not a Unicorn. That theory was wrong.

[MrWiggles]

What logical fallacy did I invoke on the unicorn then?

[Neruz]

What logical fallacy did I invoke on the unicorn then?

Guilt by Association (i think that's what it's called). You stated that because i had forgotten to define what a Unicorn was in my theory that therefore the hypothesis that God exists was just as valid, as God is also undefined. This is a logical fallacy.

[Siquo]

Substantially more is still not the same as "proven to be true"
You're entering string-theory land here. Yes, theory A might be a bit better than theory B, but neither has done anything yet.

What has this thread come to...
God still exists and I'm still a unicorn 

[Neruz]

Substantially more is still not the same as "proven to be true"
You're entering string-theory land here. Yes, theory A might be a bit better than theory B, but neither has done anything yet.

What has this thread come to...
God still exists and I'm still a unicorn 

What, i just proved that I am not a Unicorn.

And stop calling God a theory, he's not, he's a hypothesis at best.

[MrWiggles]

What logical fallacy did I invoke on the unicorn then?

Guilt by Association (i think that's what it's called). You stated that because i had forgotten to define what a Unicorn was in my theory that therefore the hypothesis that God exists was just as valid, as God is also undefined. This is a logical fallacy.

Oh, alright. I can see that. It wasn't my intent I was trying to poke fun at god concept. And neither party define unicorn at the time.

[Siquo]

What, i just proved that I am not a Unicorn.

And stop calling God a theory, he's not, he's a hypothesis at best.

You haven't proved I am not a unicorn.

Neither God or the unicorn is a theory, it was an analogy.

I'll make it better: I'm a unicorn that can shapeshift into a man. Undetectable unicorns FTW!

[Neruz]

What, i just proved that I am not a Unicorn.

And stop calling God a theory, he's not, he's a hypothesis at best.

You haven't proved I am not a unicorn.

Neither God or the unicorn is a theory, it was an analogy.

I'll make it better: I'm a unicorn that can shapeshift into a man. Undetectable unicorns FTW!

So why is you being a unicorn a more important theory than me being a unicorn?

[Siquo]

It's not, but it's different. Also, it's not a theory



Music for this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0guEBnfk9cs

[Areyar]

I am near Amsterdam, so I can provide eyewitness account of the unicorn event. (And make a photo with recent newspaper and ID showing as proof)

I'll label Siquo as a confused agnostic.

In general people don't convert to other viewpoints from arguing with equals, they do so because they want to please someone they admire. (say a girlfriend, buddy, teacher or priest) At least, the decision to review personal ideas is.
I wonder, did Siquo's re-conversion involve probability quasi-science? e.g. even if there the chances of the bible being true are tiny, the punishment for being wrong in the case of atheism is nothing while the otherway around would equal eternal punishment.
Now, this is actually one of the arguments that turned me atheist... I react badly to extortion.
Human reasoning ability fails whenever infinity (or absolutes) is involved. devide by zero and you get madness.

atheism should not be confused with agnosticism, which is openmindedness to a fault, atheism is a weighed belief system that disregards any claims below a (personal) credability threshold.

[Siquo]

atheism is a weighed belief system that disregards any claims below a (personal) credability threshold.

But doesn't the place of the threshold determine what you are? An agnostic weighs and disregards as well...

Also, the eternal damnation part of the bible can be disregarded, as I do. You don't have to accept or disregard the entire set of documents, you can just pick and choose. Especially since there are numerous contradictions.

Also, what did you mean by quasi-science? I tend to review my personal ideas continuously. I've got a few probabilities now, of which the existence of God-The-Primal-Mover is just one. There's another in which we are all incarnations of God, sent here to experience. There's another where we are all just random coincidences, and the only reason why the universe creates life is because otherwise we wouldn't exist to wonder about it (anthropic principle). Confused agnostic sounds about right

[dreiche2]

I think this discussion is going nowhere because people need to differentiate between personal beliefs about what might be true about the nature of the universe and concrete beliefs on which actual decisions and actions are based.

Every time we ask Siquo what he would do in this or that situation, or how he would evaluate whether an action would be immoral or not, he's using criteria external to his religious beliefs. As long as he's doing that, it's pointless to argue with him. He can believe that god exists and that he might be a unicorn all he wants, as long as his interactions with the world are based on other things.

Plus, apparently he's not even sure what he believes.

Thus, I would suggest ending this argument, unless we find an example where Siquo's belief would actually matter outside of his head.

I wonder, did Siquo's re-conversion involve probability quasi-science? e.g. even if there the chances of the bible being true are tiny, the punishment for being wrong in the case of atheism is nothing while the otherway around would equal eternal punishment.

The standard argument against this kind of thinking would of course be that you do not know which of the various conflicting statements about rules to follow given by different religions are true. So even if I wanted to play it safe and play by the rules just to avoid the risk of eternal punishment, I wouldn't know which rules to play by anyway.

[Ampersand]

If he's a unicorn, how is he typing with hooves? Ever think about that?