Kw-logo-smaller

School science projects & children's book reviews

posts from the Random forums

Alois_Trancy_
Do you mind if I ask more questions?
reply 26 minutes
AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
"Teh_Skittlez" wrote:It is unreasonable to believe a proposition for which there is no evidence in support of, irrespective of the presentation of evidence against said proposition. Also, what kind of evidence would you expect to see of something that isn't there? I mean really this is childish, if I told you I had a flower, and when you ask to see it, instead of showing you I ask you to give me evidence that I don't have a flower, wouldn't you shake your head and walk away?I apologize, I made a mistake and was using implausible in place of impossible. You're not wrong that having no reason to consider something true is not an argument against the truth of something in and of itself, but I've provided other evidence based in neurology that to me suggests that the statement is untrue; so I see no evidence for a claim, and valid arguments to be made against that claim, and I am lead to the conclusion that it is probably not true that any conscious part of the self 'survives' death.  I'm running mad with replies at the moment... Unreasonable does by definition fit the proposition at hand, yes, so let's use it under the common understanding that it only refers to the proposition not being based in evidence.  I would say that, if the proposition is detectable or has an expectation or event, that we can judge the findings from these detections and expectations as evidence against the proposition. Again, this is only if the proposition can be made false. If it cannot, there is simply no good reasoning for it to be entertained with logical debate. Apology accepted I do not see how evidence for conscious experience being of nature would imply the non existence of a transcendent agent capable of preserving a version of oneself through biological death. 
reply 28 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"Nothingtoseehere" wrote: Then where do you suspect YOU came from my friend? Where I came from seems to have little to do with where I'm going, in this respect. 
reply 34 minutes
Teh_Skittlez
Teh_Skittlez posted in Debating:
"AlphaT" wrote: "Teh_Skittlez" wrote: It's not implausible, just unreasonable.  Then can it really even be said to be "you" that survives after death?  "I don't know" is an important preface, but you can go farther. I don't relegate myself to a mere "I dont know" in regards to Russel's Teapot, I take it a step further and say that because there is no evidence to suggest that it is real, and it is unlikely to be real based on the evidence available, that it is probably not real. I make a similar evaluation here, I don't know if there's life after death, but it seems unlikely based on the evidence available.   I prefer areasonable, in light that no evidence is for or against it. It is unfalsifiable, definitely, and it cannot be validated...so ultimately you have to acknowledge that we can never know.  I would say that we have good evidence that no such piece of china has ever been launched into space, or that extraterrestrial beings have put it there. See, I think you just contradicted yourself. You say that it is not implausible, but  you also say that we have good evidence to suggest that it's not the case. So we can say that there is no good reason to consider it true, and this is  no evidence to the contrary due to no set event.  It is unreasonable to believe a proposition for which there is no evidence in support of, irrespective of the presentation of evidence against said proposition. Also, what kind of evidence would you expect to see of something that isn't there? I mean really this is childish, if I told you I had a flower, and when you ask to see it, instead of showing you I ask you to give me evidence that I don't have a flower, wouldn't you shake your head and walk away? I'd sincerely hope you would, it would be the appropriate response.  I apologize, I made a mistake and was using implausible in place of impossible.  You're not wrong that having no reason to consider something true is not an argument against the truth of something in and of itself, but I've provided other evidence based in neurology that to me suggests that the statement is untrue; so I see no evidence for a claim, and valid arguments to be made against that claim, and I am lead to the conclusion that it is probably not true that any conscious part of the self 'survives' death. 
reply 38 minutes

latest videos

play online games

A friend you met in a chat room wants to meet up and go to the mall. You:
  • Tell them you're sorry but you can't meet them in person since you don't know them
  • Say yes and then double-check with your parents that it's OK
  • Say yes as long as you can bring your BFF along
  • Say yes and head out the door to meet them