To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith.
How so? If I accept that I can be wrong, I accept that my thoughts can never be shown to be absolute truth (that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths), so I must have faith that they are truths.
One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible.
I'm not saying that 'knowing' a truth is unreasonable. Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.
It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.
How so? As I have said, all evidence suggests that it will not. Around this evidence, we have modeled equations and laws and constants, through the relationship between various masses. But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have. Therefore new evidence could 'disprove' gravity (in our current understanding).
To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.
Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'faith'. To me, 'faith' means the difference between what evidence suggests, and the strength of your belief. Quite frankly, I do not see any chance of gravity giving out. But as I have said, there is a chance. Hence there is a difference between my belief, and the rational position. Hence I have faith. You can say the same for all other scientific beliefs - and all beliefs.
Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?
I don't thinks so. Philosophical/logical proofs are fundamentally different from scientific proofs, because they rely upon logic & reason & language & impossibilities, rather than evidence. Just as you could not disprove '1+1=2', you cannot disprove a philosophical proof (unless it is not a proof). However, science relies on inductive reasoning, which can show an absolute truth.
If someone claims they live without faith, then they have a gross misunderstanding of the idea of truth, validity of opinions and the scientific process by which we accumulate knowledge.
Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability states that something to be supported by evidence, it must also be possible for it to be falsified with evidence - all that which it is reasonable to believe, because we have evidence for it, may be potentially unreasonable if evidence arises which goes against it. From this, we can deduce that humans can never know any absolute truths about the universe, as anything which we can believe can also be disproven.
For example, we accept it as a fact that gravity is true - we experience it every single second of every single day, everywhere in the universe. But if tomorrow, we woke up and flew away from the earth, and we could no longer experience gravity, then we would begin to question whether gravity is a valid belief.
Essentially, every opinion/belief you have, which you believe is a fact, can be disproven, so requires faith. Science is dependent upon faith. But that's not to equate a religious faith & a scientific faith, rather to point out that the degree of proof is important in all instances. Only when I see as much proof in a God as I do in gravity, then I will allow someone to use the reasoning of that God in a debate.
are all separate parts of the overall argument for my conclusions.
You can disagree with him about it all you want.
It's exactly what the Constitution says.
I have no problem with you saying that the Constitution supports your argument - arguably it does. But that's not what you said. You completely disregarded the argument he put forward and used the Constitution as absolute truth. That's what I argued against.
I'm not even trying to argue on this debate with you - I have no wish to get involved with yet another abortion debate. But you most certainly did act as though you could not be wrong because a single piece of evidence supported you.
That's not the point. If there are any laws on morality, then they are true wherever someone lives. Simply because a bunch of people said that something should be a certain way does not make it that way.
If you want to argue a point, then you need to defend that point with logic and reasoning. Saying 'someone else said it so it must be true' does not fulfill those requirements (although it can be used as part of an argument).
Yes, I am fully aware of that. Were this a legal argument, specific to the United States, then I would not have made the point. But, this is a moral debate, in the general sense, so we are not debating with the assumption that the constitution is a binding document.
I'm pretty sure PRISM started under Bush (2007) - there's a big difference between continuing an existing program, and actively starting it.
I do agree that the government has overstepped the line here, and people do need to be held responsible. But why do you assume that Obama is the only one responsible? He didn't start the program, he didn't operate it, and he definitely wouldn't have the power to shut it down without informing the public about it. He was a bystander, to the best of my knowledge.
The ones that should be removed from power are those that headed the operations, the heads of the NSA & other governmental bodies which were part of the program, who knowingly broke the law.
Saying that, if my knowledge of Obama's involvement is incorrect, then I am open to some sort of action against him (within reason considering his quite considerable judicial freedoms). As long as those responsible are punished, and action taken to prevent similar things from occurring in the future, then I am satisfied.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Unless you can prove that the constitution is perfectly moral and must be accepted with absolute authority (you can't) you cannot use it in a debate and expect others to accept it as absolute truth.
I disagree strongly. There tends to be a great arrogance around many philosophers, that believe that their opinions, their ideas, their interests are more important than anyone elses. Their happinesses are greater, their depressions deeper, and their existence more meaningful, simply because they can look down on other people.
I have seen people who I have little respect for, that have little capacity for critical and reasonable thought (a 'small' mind) discuss philosophy, theism, and other similar ideas. I have seen very intelligent people (a 'great' mind) discuss other people, gossip and tease.
I am against any idea of ranking people in such absolute ways. People, their opinions and their minds are much more complex and varied and diverse than any simplistic comparison will be able to show. Most people are capable of so much more than they often demonstrate, if you only give them a chance and a prompt to express themselves properly.
Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.
That is a very different statement. You originally claimed that he believed in intelligent design (creation by a God). Now you say that he is saying that you cannot disprove the existent of a God (intelligent designer). Which do you claim he believes?
And if you managed to read his entire book, and not realise that he was an atheist, I honestly worry for you.
If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection?
Because I see pain and suffering in the world. I see people with so much pain and suffering that they would rather stop their existence. But I also see that things can be so much better. In a perfect world, everything would be better, but we do not live in a perfect world. That's quite indisputable really.
Richard Dawkins has been one of the most prominent atheist & anti-religious voices of the last twenty years. He does not believe in intelligent design - the quote I used should quite simply show that.
How do you know what perfection is?
I do not need to. I simply need to show that the current universe is imperfect (there is a single thing wrong with it) and I have shown that we do not live in a perfect universe. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
But some governments have and will.
But is it reasonable to say that there is a significant worry that the US government (I'm assuming this is a US gun control debate) will be any more able to systematically kill large numbers of US citizens if they enforce gun control laws? I do not see that as a reasonable position - both because there is no motive, and because the government would be able to devastate its populace, whether or not they are armed.
The more armed the populace, the more we can fight back if/when necessary.
But as you said, it doesn't matter, the government would win regardless. In the meantime, the prevalence of guns is having a very large negative effect. Fighting your own (more powerful) government does not justify this.
They also die from knives, automobile accidents, baseball bats, poisoning, bombings, etc.
Yes. But because guns are there, in irrational and emotional peoples hands, many more people are dead than otherwise.
In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
I see no evidence in the graphs you provided. For the first (DC), the change in murder rates is long after the legislation, and as it is such a massive change, there is obviously an alternate explanation. Secondly (UK & Wales), the individual gun laws passed in those times have had little effect on the long term trend of the graphs. It is worth noting that more comprehensive data (such as gun ownership levels over time v gun crimes) is not used, only these very simplistic graphs.
Either way, asking government to take guns away by using guns is elitist. You trust a few people with power over all people with equal power.
Having a government is elitist. But I would rather be an elitist when it comes to who holds power over me - who has the ability to kill me, to legislate my life, and so on - rather than give anyone this power. There is a distinct difference between power over yourself, and power over others. Gun ownership falls under the second category.
For women who are victims of sexual abuse, that is a reality regardless of gun laws. Access towards guns just makes it easier for them to level the playing field.
Even if a valid argument (not proof, just an argument against), that's a simplistic view. Guns are used for violent crime, and to stop violent crime. Eliminating the increased ability of individuals to be violent, logically, is likely to reduce violent crime overall, however.
You have a very misinformed POV of people who own guns. Trust me, they're not paranoid loons constantly looking over their shoulder. Part of that is because they already feel secure as a gun owner.
No, I have an informed POV of people who don't own guns. They're insecure about the gun owners. They don't want to have to be worried about the guy carrying a gun walking just next to them.
Yes, so I suppose we can trust the people in government aren't the same kind of people that you're speaking of.
Again, I would rather trust a (somewhat) accountable body of individuals, rather than everyone.
Yes, lots of cops and soldiers do that quite sufficiently when the civilians can't fight back.
And I completely agree that these people should be punished, and there does need to be a culture change. That is a different issue to gun control, however.
Having rights doesn't equate chaotic Anarchy. People don't just kill people because they have a right to own something.
But they do just kill people when they do own something (which they down in the US).
Tbh I tend to agree with what you're writing later on. My arguments there were a bit optimistic, I must admit. But you must also compare the actions of those in the US, which, while it can get away with many things, must still be legitimate enough to be democratically elected, to the actions of others with no democracy.
If life isn't perfect, then what's to say it wasn't just a random chance that we are how we are, that things just happen to work as they do?
Let us assume that creation has occurred (which has happened with or without a God existing). If there was a God guiding this creation, then it would be fair to say that a more perfect world than our own should be expected to occur. If it was nothing but chance, then you would expect some parts of the universe to be habitable and suitable for life, and the vast majority not to be (as the number of factors required for possible life are great). That is what we have seen. We would expect a combination of both positives and negatives within that life. That is what we have seen. We would expect certain rules, or laws, to arise, which stay constant throughout the universe. This is what we have seen.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. - Richard Dawkins
Just to confirm, you are arguing that because the universe is so great, it must have been created?
In that case, could you please explain the pain and suffering and sadness that humans go through every day? The struggle for life and wellness and recreation that every single living organism must go through their entire life? The simple fact that life needs certain things to survive, the imperfect nature of that fact, that God could create life that does not need the universe to be as it is to survive?
Life has adapted to its surroundings, giving the impression that our surroundings are perfect for life. Do you really think that things could not be better? That things are truly perfect? That our existence is nothing more than a minuscule probability, caused to be likely due to the simple immeasurable vastness and magnitude of space and existence?
There are many arguments which support an intelligent designer. But there are many more which do not. You should not ignore either side.
No she hasn't. She specifically claimed The only thing I was arguing for was the possibility of an intelligent designer like an eternal being is still possible to exist beyond our spacetime (or at least that's all I'm talking about, I haven't seen your entire discussion). That argument holds no burden of proof, as she isn't affirming anything - the initial assumption is that all things are possible until proven otherwise.
It would be like saying 'there is a possibility you may be a dangerous pedophile'. That is true, for both you and me and her.
Btw if you're referring to something that she claimed in a different chain of arguments, then that's a different case. I'm only talking about what I saw her say, which I quoted.
Seems like a generally nice and intelligent guy. Seen him around quite a bit but never really had any proper debates with him, I think we tend to have somewhat similar views.
No she isn't, they are very distinct, but similar, arguments.
God of the Gaps is the claim that, because we don't understand how science works, the only explanation is something beyond science - a God.
Lizzie is claiming that because we don't know how science works, we cannot claim that science says there is no God. That is a very valid claim - science will never be able to disprove God, and it certainly cannot from what we understand of it.
We can prove the redundancy of certain types of God (such as proving an alternate cause for the universe would disprove the current understanding of the Christian God) but you can never disprove all definitions of God, due to the inductive nature of science, as well as the ridiculous definitions some people have (God didn't create the world, doesn't do anything, just kind of sits there where you can't detect him, for example).
Nice guy, I generally seem to agree with him. Seem pretty well natured and liked. Haven't debated directly with him all that much though.
Understandable, it's this aspect of Dana's argument that most bothers me too. Just how you worded something 'I support everyone's freedom of speech, I don't care if someone's rape joke offends you, its no reason to attack them.') made it sound like you were against any criticism of the expression of freedom of speech.
The availability of adoption is argued to negate certain arguments for abortion, such as 'I'm not ready to raise a child', 'I can't afford a child' or similar.
Just a technical point I wanted your opinion on.
I support the idea of freedom to speech, but I also disagree with making very offensive jokes in certain situations. Do you not think it's possible to defend someones freedom of speech, whilst strongly attacking the content of that speech?
The availability of adoption is argued to negate certain arguments for abortion, such as 'I'm not ready to raise a child', 'I can't afford a child' or similar.
I have two problems this argument.
First of all, it ignores the slight inconvenience of childbirth. 9 months of growing a human being inside you is hardly a small matter, yet people just seem to ignore it as though it's nothing.
Secondly, it does not provide enough of an argument to justify a totalitarian position. While it can reduce the effectiveness of some argument for a pro-choice position, it cannot a) completely solve all of the problems it does address & b) it does not answer all arguments for being pro-choice. I have a strong suspicion that most people who use it would not change their positions on the issue were adoption to be ruled out of the equation.
(My argument appears to be underlined. Not really sure why ...)
Of course it is. Someone, or an organization, is taking away the possessions of other people, with no form of consent, and often no opt out clause (you need to leave the country or more).
But that's not to say that taxation is a bad thing - which seems to be what many non-libertarians seem to be arguing here. The intention for an action does not change the action itself, but it can justify it.
Good, just your follow up comments made me think otherwise. It was a weirdly extreme position :S
Wow I thought you were joking but then you weren't and I'm a little scared of your opinions now.
