Christianity

[tillingborn]

So stupid can't even escape its own confirmation bias loop.

That's the sort of thing a whiney little pissant would say. It is not a confirmation bias loop when you keep providing evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

Mistakes cherry-picking for "evidence".

Well of course I'm going to show the most compelling examples, but having provided this particular cherry:

Then I shall set my purpose (and my only purpose) for interacting with you as "wasting as much of your time as possible".

How's that?

you have made it clear that everything you say is evidence that you are a whiney little pissant.

Lacks falsification criterion so his 'hypothesis" is not even wrong.

You are labouring under the misapprehension that Popper is a criterion of some scientific method. Newton's law of universal gravitation is false, for example, but it is literally rocket science.

Science is the cure to philosophy, my dear retard.

Any fool can set criteria such that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive, but if there is one thing that essential to science, it is empiricism, at least in my list of criteria. If you look at how what passes for science actually works, only an ignorant whiney little pissant would insist that any philosophical models have no place in science.

[Skepdick]

So stupid can't even escape its own confirmation bias loop.

That's the sort of thing a whiney little pissant would say. It is not a confirmation bias loop when you keep providing evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

That's the sort of thing a dumb phillosopher would say. About a hypothesis that's not even wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Well of course I'm going to show the most compelling examples

Obviously! Because you are a dumb, uncharitable philosopher who defaults to hypothesis confirmation, and not a smart charitable scientist who would've started with hypothesis disconfirmation.

, but having provided this particular cherry:

Then I shall set my purpose (and my only purpose) for interacting with you as "wasting as much of your time as possible".

How's that?

you have made it clear that everything you say is evidence that you are a whiney little pissant.

So incredibly fucking stupid it even admits to misinterpretation, then counts that as a win.

You are labouring under the misapprehension that Popper is a criterion of some scientific method.

I am not doing anything of that sort. I am pointing out that all knowledge is necessarily incomplete, all premises are obtained by inductive means so new information can always make us reject our own premises; and our hypotheses.

Being explicit about the kind of evidence that would sway us to reject our own hypothesis and seeking it out prior to any attempts at confirmation is the epitome of science. It's the cornerstone of intellectual honesty.

On the other hand - defending a premise/hypothesis to the death against any falsification is the cornerstore of religion/dogma/philosophy/intellectual dishonesty.

So... given all the evidence so far - that makes you a dogmatic, intellectually dishonest philosopher. No surprise there.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is false, for example, but it is literally rocket science.

Q.E.D Idiot-philosopher. Thinks in terms of "true" and "false"; not in terms of "domain of applicability for the chosen theory.

Scientific theories are instrumental. They either work or they don't.

Truth/falsity is for idiot-philosophers.

Any fool can set criteria such that science and philosophy are mutually exclusive,

Not just any fool.You! Fool.

In so far as science defaults to hypothesis disconfirmation and philosophy defaults to hypothesis confirmation they have mutually incompatible goals.

but if there is one thing that essential to science, it is empiricism, at least in my list of criteria. If you look at how what passes for science actually works, only an ignorant whiney little pissant would insist that any philosophical models have no place in science.

Empiricism isn't a criterion of any kind.

There's empiricism which confirms a hypothesis.
And there's empiricism which disconfirms a hypothesis.

You only seem interested in half of empiricism. The wrong half.

Because you are dumb philosopher who defaults to hypothesis confirmation, not hypothesis disconfirmation.

And this is not me saying it - this is all the evidence saying it. Look! I don't even have to cherry-pick it. It's all there for everyone to see. In this whole conversation.

[iambiguous]

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

It is a truism that where one starts from and the direction one goes determines where one ends up. This is no less true in philosophy than elsewhere, and certainly no less true in matters dealing with the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free actions.

Perhaps. But in regard to God where most of the faithful start is with the assumption that there is one. And that it is their God. And that their God is omniscient. Whereas while of course some philosophers start with the assumption that God installed an autonomous soul in them and that in living a righteous life they will end up in one or another rendition of Heaven, others do not.

In what follows I will argue that the incompatibilist view that [John Martin] Fischer and others stalwartly defend results from the particular starting point they choose, and that if one adopts a different starting point about divine knowledge the logical incompatibility they envision and philosophically anguish over evaporates.

Of course, that's always my own point as well. Only, again, with God we are talking about a "starting point" pertaining to an entity that is alleged to exist, that is alleged to be omniscient, but that, to the best of my knowledge, has never actually been demonstrated to exist at all. Omniscient or otherwise. So, obviously, your starting point here can simply be something that you think up or others have thought up for you that "in your head" you believe. Anguish subsumed in more or less blind faith.

I will also argue that the path Fischer and others tread has critical ambiguities that lead to conclusions that can be avoided if one clarifies the critical ambiguities. The result will be that choosing a proper starting point and clarifying the ambiguities will show that God’s foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom.

We'll see.

But what does not change is that the author's conclusions are still predicated on premises that he may or may not be able to demonstrate to be true regarding that which he construes to be God "in his head".

[tillingborn]

So stupid can't even escape its own confirmation bias loop.

That's the sort of thing a whiney little pissant would say. It is not a confirmation bias loop when you keep providing evidence that the hypothesis is correct.

That's the sort of thing a dumb phillosopher would say. About a hypothesis that's not even wrong.

Congratulations for at least getting your hypothesis that my hypothesis isn't even wrong wrong.

Well of course I'm going to show the most compelling examples

Obviously! Because you are a dumb, uncharitable philosopher who defaults to hypothesis confirmation, and not a smart charitable scientist who would've started with hypothesis disconfirmation.

You say things like these:

You dumb, dismissive, uncharitable sophist!

You are supposed to shut the fuck up...

You want to suck the cock while getting fucked by it too, eh? OK.. spread them cheeks at both ends.

Then I shall set my purpose (and my only purpose) for interacting with you as "wasting as much of your time as possible".

How's that?

I abandoned my use to adopt yours. On purpose.

Just to fuck up your shit and waste your time.

But there's always the pleasant and enjoyable time-wasting and the unpleasant and regretful time-wasting.

I promise you the latter. And then some.

...even calling you a pig might be a compliment...

No, that's how I speak to dumb, dismissive, uncharitable sophists who don't know when to shut up while sucking Socrates' cock.

and complain that I don't try to find examples of you being pleasant? What a whiney little pissant. Besides; it is complete nonsense. Aspirin doesn't have to cure every headache to be a useful analgesic. By the same token, not everything you say has to be explicitly whiney to demonstrate that you are a whiney little pissant.

Being explicit about the kind of evidence that would sway us to reject our own hypothesis and seeking it out prior to any attempts at confirmation is the epitome of science. It's the cornerstone of intellectual honesty.

You mean that your criteria for intellectual honesty includes that one should aim to prove a hypothesis false, before trying to find evidence that it is true:

Q.E.D Idiot-philosopher. Thinks in terms of "true" and "false"; not in terms of "domain of applicability for the chosen theory.

Scientific theories are instrumental. They either work or they don't.

Not everyone has the same domain of applicability. Given that you have stated your domain of applicability for your engagement in this exchange, I won't waste my time taking anything you say seriously. Suffice to say that your analyses of science and philosophy, perhaps deliberately so, are bollocks.

[Skepdick]

Suffice to say that your analyses of science and philosophy, perhaps deliberately so, are bollocks.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of my hypothesis.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the confirmation for your hypothesis.

Sure looks like evidence that a double standard is being applied. Not surprising for an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias.

[attofishpi]

Suffice to say that your analyses of science and philosophy, perhaps deliberately so, are bollocks.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of my hypothesis.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the confirmation for your hypothesis.

Sure looks like evidence that a double standard is being applied. Not surprising for an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias.

== https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiyJI5Kmcro

[Harbal]

Suffice to say that your analyses of science and philosophy, perhaps deliberately so, are bollocks.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of my hypothesis.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the confirmation for your hypothesis.

Sure looks like evidence that a double standard is being applied. Not surprising for an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias.

== https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiyJI5Kmcro

[attofishpi]

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of my hypothesis.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the confirmation for your hypothesis.

Sure looks like evidence that a double standard is being applied. Not surprising for an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias.

== https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiyJI5Kmcro

https://youtu.be/sRrZ4mW7bV0

[tillingborn]

Suffice to say that your analyses of science and philosophy, perhaps deliberately so, are bollocks.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of my hypothesis.

Funny how your intuition defaults towards the confirmation for your hypothesis.

Sure looks like evidence that a double standard is being applied. Not surprising for an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias.

Unless you are an idiot-philosopher who can't shed their own confirmation bias, you will have plenty of evidence that your intuition defaults towards the disconfirmation of your own hypothesis. However that may be, could you provide an example of the sort of preliminary reasoning you believe

a smart charitable scientist who would've started with hypothesis disconfirmation

might have done?

[tillingborn]

Blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah.

== https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiyJI5Kmcro

Yeah but Brian, I haven't forgotten what I'm fighting about.

[Skepdick]

Yeah but Brian, I haven't forgotten what I'm fighting about.

smart.jpg

[attofishpi]

Blah, blah, blah.

== https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiyJI5Kmcro

Yeah but Brian, I haven't forgotten what I'm fighting about.

..well then, I suppose the dinner is off..and to think you could have nailed Skeppy's wife and possibly make the final checkmate move (his Mum)

[attofishpi]

This one has the last supper involved (more appropriate) *(to the thread) **(just in case people are getting off topic) ***(in other words, I don't think anyone knows what you blokes are arguing about) **** (a coupon?)

https://youtu.be/9N4qshk7GT8

[Gary Childress]

All I know about Christianity can be summed up by the following: All I want is for God to grant me a peaceful death in my sleep. The sooner, the better. I can't take his world anymore. Just get it over with.

[Gary Childress]

And I think when God tested Abraham on whether or not he would sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said, "no" to God. But what do I know about anything???