Ok. Nuance. I’m not currently mad. I do think you were quick to find something wrong when I’m still not sold anything was there.
It is fair to say my replies to you have been on-topic but missed a few of your points. I do think you’d rather play at technicalities in some of your post. Let’s see where this goes.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Then why can’t you leave it be that another man may come to the opposite conclusion for the same reason, namely that he can’t prove the soul does exist but that he sees no need for any disbelief? An absence of evidence, after all, is not an evidence of absence.
[/QUOTE]
I thought I’d replied to this fully. While I was not the only one making certain points - in fact others made the points far better than I could… the case was made that fit with my thinking. Lekatt only used his site, a friend (I think, or cohort that “stumbled upon the topic”), and discussion of my “fear” to look at my immortal soul.
As a matter of style, I prefer a simpler, more parsimonious philosophy. If it’s not needed, why include it? (I ask myself.)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
It has nothing to with falsifiability, which is a concept of the philosophy of science. (Cite will be provided on request if necessary.) Proof is a property of logic, not of empiricism.
[/QUOTE]
I come at philosophy more from an armchair scientist than as a formally trained philosopher. I don’t feign anything more. If I’ve come across as more - then I’ve slipped up somewhere. I think I tend to know my limits. I may be using the wrong terms with generally the right ideas. I think the gist of what I said still works. Otherwise we’re headed down one of those heady philosophical discussions wherein various words will just have to be thrown around and someone will get to yell, “bingo!” after three sentences. That’s not a stab at you - I just disdain the sometimes excessively ornate communication style of philosophy. It renders it… inaccessible to average people, when the ideas, often, aren’t THAT hard to reach. As you can tell, I prefer a plainspoken way of communicating ideas to the philosophical narrowing of principles to their respective branches. Proof is proof. Science does incorporate logic. I think you are offering a false choice on this one.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Me neither, which is why I didn’t ask you for one. You’re really all over the place here, as though you’re reading and posting in a furious hurry.
[/QUOTE]
I was trying to figure out where the double standard is. So far it’s because Lekatt is being pitted and you think I’m as guilty as lekatt when it comes to why I believe what I believe. The point of the pitting is the STYLE of the argument and the insistence on posting to his site. Or misrepresenting what lies on the other side of a link (like the vid, or his most recent “cite”). I could be missing your point - still. I DO want to understand, and I am trusting that you are making a reasoned point… (insert segue to continuation of thought)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I don’t know how right you are. I don’t even care. My only concern has been about how fair and consistent you are. You’re making demands of others that you refuse to honor yourself. That may not be wrong per se, but it’s something that might merit some attention.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s what I get from the section I just quoted, at least. But my point is about the style of assert-evade, clickyclicky!, assert-evade, clickyclicky!.
I’d like to think that even now, I’ve shown more openness than lekatt did in the entire thread (at least so far). I’m being transparent, honest, and I think, non-combative. I’m trying a bit harder to make sure my non-defensive posture is coming through in what I am posting. This is the pit so it’s hard not to defend against anyone who may decide at a later date to jump one thing that I said. Defensive non-defensiveness in a text form… is an art I can’t profess to have mastered - or even close.
I at least hope that a conciliatory tone is being struck and rings true to you.
