Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:25 pm
What about it?
I already asked. What (or where) is it?
I am simply pointing out that you have found no evidence for morality.
You haven't found evidence for no morality.
Huh? There's a ton of evidence of/for morality.
You haven't examined the entire haystack, but you are claiming that there is no needle.
And that's evidence that there's no needle in a haystack. It's not PROOF that there's no needle in a haystack. No one is--or at least no one should be--talking about proof. Evidence of or against something is not proof of it. It's a reason to believe something versus not believing it.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
I already asked. What (or where) is it?
How do you expect an answer when you admit absence of evidence?!?!
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
Huh? There's a ton of evidence of/for morality.
So you opened the box and the ball was there?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
And that's evidence that there's no needle in a haystack. It's not PROOF that there's no needle in a haystack.
So what's the difference between evidence for a needle and proof for a needle?
Guess you don't understand Russel's inductivist turkey...
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
No one is--or at least no one should be--talking about proof. Evidence of or against something is not proof of it. It's a reason to believe something versus not believing it.
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
I already asked. What (or where) is it?
How do you expect an answer when you admit absence of evidence?!?!
I expect you to tell me what you have in mind.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
Huh? There's a ton of evidence of/for morality.
So you opened the box and the ball was there?
You really haven't the faintest understanding of my views if you think I'm saying anything even remotely in the vein of "there is no evidence of morality."
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
And that's evidence that there's no needle in a haystack. It's not PROOF that there's no needle in a haystack.
So what's the difference between evidence for a needle and proof for a needle?
Empirical claims can not be proved. So it's stupid to frame anything in terms of that. Instead focus on reasons to believe one possibility versus another possibility.
Guess you don't understand Russel's inductivist turkey...
Yeah, definitely I'd be bowing to someone else's views.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:38 pm
You really haven't the faintest understanding of views if you think I'm saying anything even remotely in the vein of "there is no evidence of morality."
Then you better examine your fucked up epistemology.
There is evidence for gravity. There's no proof for gravity.
Do you believe in gravity?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:38 pm
Empirical claims can not be proved. So it's stupid to frame anything in terms of that.
Then why did you bring PROOF into the discussion ?!?!?!
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:38 pm
Instead focus on reasons to believe one possibility versus another possibility.
Your entire conception of "belief" is incoherent.
Why the hell would a person who believes that there is no needle in the haystack keep looking for it?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:42 pm
Then you better examine your fucked up epistemology.
There is evidence for gravity. There's no proof for gravity.
Do you believe in gravity?
Again, proof has nothing to do with any of this. Yes, of course I believe that there is gravity.
Then why did you bring PROOF into the discussion ?!?!?!
You're thinking of this in terms of proof and your explanation of the "absence of evidence" nonsense alluded to proof.
Why the hell would a person who believes that there is no needle in the haystack keep looking for it?
Because belief that P doesn't entail that not-P is impossible. Belief that P doesn't imply that P has been proved. One believes that P simply because one feels there are better reasons in favor of P than not-P, but not-P is still always a possibility.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 pm
You're thinking of this in terms of proof and you're explanation of the "absence of evidence" nonsense alluded to proof.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 pm
Because belief that P doesn't entail that not-P is impossible. Belief that P doesn't imply that P has been proved. One believes that P simply because one feels there are better reasons in favor of P than not-P, but not-P is still always a possibility.
Why are you still harping on about proving things if nothing can be proven empirically?!?
Is finding a needle in the haystack proof or evidence for there being a needle in the haystack?
You continue avoiding the question. If you believe P more than you believe not-P, why are you still looking for a needle in the haystack?!? Why are you DOING the opposite of what you believe? Why are you performatively contradicting your beliefs?
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:49 pm
Holy moly. There can be no empirical proofs. It's only evidence for it.
Then why are YOU talking about proof, retard?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 pm
Because belief that P doesn't entail that not-P is impossible. Belief that P doesn't imply that P has been proved.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:30 pm
And that's evidence that there's no needle in a haystack. It's not PROOF that there's no needle in a haystack.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:54 pm
I already answered this. What are you doing instead of reading the replies?
You didn't answer it. That's why I am asking you again.
WHY are you looking for a needle if you believe not-P?
What state of mind is causing you to continue looking?
I wrote this above:
"Because belief that P doesn't entail that not-P is impossible. Belief that P doesn't imply that P has been proved. One believes that P simply because one feels there are better reasons in favor of P than not-P, but not-P is still always a possibility."
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:56 pm
I wrote this above:
"Because belief that P doesn't entail that not-P is impossible. Belief that P doesn't imply that P has been proved. One believes that P simply because one feels there are better reasons in favor of P than not-P, but not-P is still always a possibility."
Why are you still taking about proofs?!?!?!
This is empiricism!
What state of mind is causing you to continue looking for something that you don't believe is there?
