Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 08:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 07:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Tomasia - as far as unintentional actions go, I give you the earth rotating in orbit around the sun.

How is that unintentional? Do you mean because it's able to rotate on it's own, sustained by the laws that govern it, but needing no active tinkering?

We could create a sim world, in which a sim sun, rotates around a sim earth, without any further involvement from the sims programer. But it would be a mistake for the sim inhabitants of this world to assume unintentionality, based on their sim earth rotating in orbit around the sun, all on it's own, governed by the laws that sustain it.

A simulation isn't the thing it simulates. Don't go Full Heywood. No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-08-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  ----

Pro Tip: There is no thing called "unintentionality". There is either intention or not.

Quote:[*]Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any unintentionally.

No, "unintentionality" is simply the absence of intentionality. Your statement is just wrong.

Psssss... if Tomasia ever finally gets it ... you gonna go for how there's no such thing as "irregardless"? Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
08-08-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, "unintentionality" is simply the absence of intentionality. Your statement is just wrong.


The lack of evidence for intentionality doesn't equal unintentionality. Just as a lack of evidence to convict someone of a crime, doesn't mean that they are innocent.

The most obvious reason, is that we could come across an event in which we entirely uncertain one way or the other.

Claiming something was unintentional is a positive claim, just as claiming something is intentional. You're engaging in a great deal of confirmation bias to deny this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 08:29 AM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, the evidence of absence indicates that "intentionally" does not exist, and it is with this very same evidence that- since we only have 2 choices of intentionally or unintentionally- one must be the truth.

Since the evidence of absence indicates that intentionally cannot be the truth, then now perhaps you can understand why Chas suggests that unintentionally should be considered the default position.

What’s wrong with your reasoning and your analogy would be readily apparent if we used it in another situation of intention vs unintionality. Just because I have no evidence to support that Phil hit his wife intentionally, that doesn’t mean that we should assume he hit her unintentionally, in the same way that the lack of evidence to convict a man of a crime, doesn’t entail that he was innocent.

You can’t base the claim of unintentionality on the lack of evidence of intentionality. Claiming something is unintentional is a positive claim. If you wanted to prove to someone that something was unintentional, you’d have to show him the evidence for it. If you claim that you have no evidence for it, but since there’s no evidence for the alternative (intentionality) than we should believe it was unintentional, is not logical. How would it convince someone who lacks a belief either way?

Quote:Since it necessarily follows from the first premise that Alice will place the pie on her window-sill every time she bakes one, upon observing that there is in fact no pie on the window-sill, we can deduce that Alice did not bake a pie. This argument is called modus tollens in propositional logic, and is written in sequent notation in this manner

But you have evidence to believe that Alice did not bake a pie. You know that when Alice bakes pies she puts them on the window-sill, and because of this when you don’t see a pie on the window-sill you can assume she didn’t bake a pie. Where as if you looked at my window-sill, and seen it empty, you really couldn’t assume either way whether I baked a pie or not, because I might not put pies on the window-sill after I bake them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Possibility is evident = known.
Possibility is not evident = unknown.

There is a distinct difference between certainty and uncertainty.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can’t base the claim of unintentionality on the lack of evidence of intentionality.

We certainly can base such as claim due to the simple reason that if there are ONLY two choices, and intentionality has been eliminated, then the only other choice you have is unintentionality.

It's that simple.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, "unintentionality" is simply the absence of intentionality. Your statement is just wrong.


The lack of evidence for intentionality doesn't equal unintentionality. Just as a lack of evidence to convict someone of a crime, doesn't mean that they are innocent.

The most obvious reason, is that we could come across an event in which we entirely uncertain one way or the other.

Claiming something was unintentional is a positive claim, just as claiming something is intentional. You're engaging in a great deal of confirmation bias to deny this.

You keep using legal analogies. They are all irrelevant.

Tomasia, fill in the blanks :

Intentionality is : ______________________
Unintentionality is : ______________________

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 11:43 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  We certainly can base such as claim due to the simple reason that if there are ONLY two choices, and intentionality has been eliminated, then the only other choice you have is unintentionality.

It's that simple.

There's a third choice as well. That we don't have enough evidence to decide either way.

Your "simple reason" fails, when we consider the case of a man on trial for murder. There's only two option, he is either guilty or innocent. A lack of sufficient evidence to convict him doesn't mean he's innocent. It doesn't follow that because of a lack of evidence of ones guilt, that he's innocent. Anymore so than a lack of evidence of one's innocence, implies he is guilty.

Just as a lack of evidence of unintentionally, evidence that it was an accident, doesn't mean that it was intentional.

To move from that third choice, a lack of belief one way or the other, to confirming unintentionality requires evidence in support of it, not merely the absence of evidence for intentionality.

Also you can't eliminate intentionality, or guilt, based on the absence of evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's only two option, he is either guilty or innocent.

Wrong. There are all kinds of mitigating factors and degrees of guilt.
Glad you ain't no lawyer.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 10:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, "unintentionality" is simply the absence of intentionality. Your statement is just wrong.


The lack of evidence for intentionality doesn't equal unintentionality. Just as a lack of evidence to convict someone of a crime, doesn't mean that they are innocent.

Your point? Because no one said it did.

Quote:The most obvious reason, is that we could come across an event in which we entirely uncertain one way or the other.

Claiming something was unintentional is a positive claim, just as claiming something is intentional. You're engaging in a great deal of confirmation bias to deny this.

I have made no claims. You are engaging in a lot of projection to claim this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: