sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Um, where did I do this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Design of Torture
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
[Last sentence of post #97 here]
And an argument from ignorance is "I can't understand it, therefore it can't be." You haven't suggested anything to understand yet.
And an argument from ignorance is "I can't understand it, therefore it can't be." You haven't suggested anything to understand yet.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Um, post #97 is yours.
And, from the site I offered:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)" which applies to your sentence, "Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva has no known benefit, and so no apparent purpose."
Now, if you don't have a clear reason for believing what you believe just say so, otherwise I need to know why you believe what you believe before I can address your position. Sitting on, "because I said so," just doesn't cut it. Now, buck up and make this a real debate.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
What are you asking for? The statement "There is no known X" is by definition true until someone finds an X. That's what the statement means. If you have a reason why FOP exists, please provide it, since it would be a perfectly valid refutation.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You know, if I'm going to have to educate all along the way this is going to become quite tedious. That there is "no known x" is a true statement. That does not make "therefore, there is no x" true. Ergo your asking to provide a known x is irrelevant. I haven't posited that position. I am attempting to argue against your position Until you make your position clear I can say nothing other than, "You are wrong."
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
OK, fine, I'll step through the logic far more throughly:
Axiom: There is no known X. (True for the case of "reason for FOP to exist")
Occam's Razor says that accurate theories should invoke as few entities as possible.
Therefore, X can be considered not to exist. (Except if other logic dictates that X must exist, and other such reasoning.)
Therefore, if your argument rests on X existing, and there is no known X, your argument is only valid if an X can be provided.
Axiom: There is no known X. (True for the case of "reason for FOP to exist")
Occam's Razor says that accurate theories should invoke as few entities as possible.
Therefore, X can be considered not to exist. (Except if other logic dictates that X must exist, and other such reasoning.)
Therefore, if your argument rests on X existing, and there is no known X, your argument is only valid if an X can be provided.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You are now positing that "Occam's razor" is true? Ok, then let's leave God out of the argument. Isn't that, "invok[ing] as few entities as possible?"
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I think you start running into logical paradoxes if you assume it's not, and although you can leave God out, (and the vast majority of scientists DO!) AFAIK He was being assumed for the sake of argument.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok then, why is it more simple to believe that there is no good reason for "X" than God has a reason for "X?"
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It isn't, but assuming God has a reason for X then prompts the question, in the case of FOP and similar, "What is God's reason for X?" And "We can't know" isn't an intellectually honest answer.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, good, we've eliminated your bunny trail. Now can you make your point as to why the suffering is needless, since after all, you posited the point without any backing other than, "I said so!"
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
You'll have to answer what the need is before I can do that, though. (And "God has one, because I say so" isn't a valid answer.)
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
So, it's back to the bunny trail? Just admit that you don't know why it's needless and let somebody else make your point for you.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, let's try this; you say there is either a need or it (can we reduce this to human sufferring instead of a few specific diseases?) is needless (or perhaps that it is good or bad?). Why do you think this must apply. Why can't it just be without some form of value judgement?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
So you're asking why I think that a need must exist or it must not? Because that doesn't make any sense.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Is it? Why? Why must there be a value system attached to it?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
You've got to have one of the two because it's logically impossible for the question "Does a need exist?" to be neither "yes" or "no."
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, maybe we are now getting somewhere. So you will agree that we exist in a dualistic universe where we understand things by contrasting them to other things, ie. need vs. needless.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Where are you going with this? Because I'd agree that we understand things by contrast, I think.
The universe is not dualistic; our understanding of the universe is dualistic.