Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="triqui" data-source="post: 5526772" data-attributes="member: 57948">By the proper definition of confirm, you are right. However, it's pointless as far as the prediction is 100% safe. I'm 100% certain that tomorrow the sun will rise in the morning, as I'm 100% certain that if I drop an apple, it'll fall to soil and not fly to sky.No, we believe that there's a God, we know when the next solar eclipse would be. You have your right to doubt the prediction, but that does not mean we don't know it, just mean you are in doubt. We know things for sure. We don't know all things for sure, but that's another issue. As I said, Hume is just one example of philosophist. There are a ton of others, and quite a lot of them oppose Hume, with rethoric as proper or better.  Inmanuel Kant, for example, disagree with Hume in several aspects, agree in others, and go beyond him in others. So does Descartes, Wittgestain or Popper. I know the apple will fall. I don't believe it'll do.No, all of those statements are exactly the same, a logical assumption derived from the rules of math, logic, and science. To make the comparisson true with superstition and post hoc ergo propter hoc, it should go like:2+2=4I made some numbers while wearing a red shirt=4.That's unconnected logic. The superstition after that would be "when I make some numbers while wearing a red shirt, the result is 4", which is faulty logic.That's an oversimplification of Occam's Razor. What Occam said is "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" which means you don't need to continue adding complexities once you have an explanation that works. If an explanation is sufficient for a phenomena, and the explanation is found true, you don't need to keep adding extra layers of complexity to make the model work. For example: Newton showed how gravity works: a mass attract another mass. It's shown true, and it is sufficient to explain things. So you don't need to add extra layers of complexity, asking things such as "does God want the mass be attracted by the mass, or does it happens against His will?". This layer is unnecessarelly (whatever the answer is) to explain the event, so you don't really need to get involved into it. Just as you don't need to get involved asking "is there a God over God? Who created God? Can God's Will go against natural law, and make an apple not fall? If so, can it go against the will of the god who created God, in the case God was created by a God of Gods?" and so on. You could keep yourself asking metaphysical questions forever, none of which will add nothing to your already explained event of apple's fall, becouse the explanation is already sufficient and true.</blockquote>

Verification