@mrdecepticonleader said:
Well that is why it is important to base our views and whatnot around evidence. I mean I go by the evidence of what we currently know and understand (on a scientific basis). The claim may well be possible just like the thousands of other unsound. Which is why it is both more reasonable and productive to base what we think and understand around our current knowledge and evidence. And speaking for myself now really regarding the topic of the thread regarding as to weather or not a god exists (I am talking about the infamous deistic, can't prove disprove kind of god) Based on my current knowledge and understanding I don't believe in god and as I have said before in the religion thread the general concept of god is a made up one, something we have fabricated. So what we know and understand can and does change. But claims of a god is in the same area as the many other empty claims. I think though the reason the "god one" is debated so much is due to the number of people that believe in said claim, we talked about this a while back on the religion thread. And that if Santa Claus was in the "god seat" we would be approaching that the same way.
Ha ha. See I thought I may not have made that much sense with that analogy. But then if someone like a solipsists made a similar claim that our world is not the real one. Would they not have to define and prove what the real world actually is? True about not knowing. I am agnostic about aliens and other life out there based on my current knowledge and understanding ( you haven't got back to me on that thread too, but I am not sure if you have forgot or if you will later or if you won't whichever one :) was just a reminder in case you were going to but forgot)
Ha it is. And glad I did make sense ha.
Yes I agree - yet that is also why science approaches things from a position of evidence and falsification, as opposed to proof and absolutes. I find thats a funny reason some seem to not like science either, because it can change, isn't absolutely certain, so on. Oh yes I remember the comparison to Santa Clause, and if Santa could exist outside time and space heh heh. Ultra Santa. Santa with a capital G.
Yes solipsist also have to deal with definitions but they don't actually have to prove much, since they aren't the ones making any claims that need to be proven. Well, arguably they have to prove they exist, and that reality exists, but the ability to question, affirm, deny, so on arguable provides another basis for anyone to demonstrate that they exist and if they exist some type of reality exists. We could consider that two axioms. They also exist in each other. I exist because I know I exist, and all reality is my existence. An actual solipsist can somewhat justify that and wouldn't have to try that hard to prove that there are external things because they would consider the burden of proof on us trying to demonstrate things contrary to their beliefs, but everything we could reason and give as evidence could be said by the solipsist as being of their own creation. Very potentially frustrating. Sort of like trying to reason a mentally unwell person better when they probably better off with medication, time and rest and therapy. Oh! I my apologies, I will get to that thread - aliens eventually - I do not like the current notification system because its really easy to lose track off notifications because they couple it with peoples reviews, blogs and just yeah -_- , wish we had the old system. Sorry again.
Oh nods nods but I am near bed now too so not sure if I make sense either heh heh - Oh and see that is a great point with aliens and agnosticism. Good knowledge is demonstrable, things can be hard and impractical when people use terms like know, and believe too loosely. Also disclaimers can be good, like I am a skeptic so if someone was to say that they think they believe they saw Bigfoot, but they aren't sure, I would be more curious and open to their reasoning. Would still be skeptical of their claim but curious. Yet if someone told me they are certain that they know Bigfoot definitely exists because they know they saw him, all my alarm bells would go off, because that would be way too much emphasis and consequently would seem like overcompensation and thus exaggeration to attempt to validate the claim by virtue of the eyewitness perceived certainty, and that lack of admission of doubt would be something to be skeptical of too.
Log in to comment