Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

Sorry now..

Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2010 3:16:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I've compared it to the view that our universe arose by naturalistic causes and is the only such universe that really exists. Of the two hypotheses, I think I've clearly demonstrated that modal realism is more parsimonious."

Just for fun, here's your hypothesis again: "Well, see the chances of the universe unfolding like it did were actually 1 seeing as it had infinite attempts, so you see it actually all makes perfect sense afterall... lol". And here's the one that I presume you're claiming to be less parsimonious: "Well, see the chances of the universe arising like it did are exactly the same as they were for any other way it could have arisin, so you see it all makes perfect sense afterall... lol". Yeah, I know it's longer to say (and that was obviously a joke), but it's still a whole lot simpler what with not introducing an infinite number of alternate existing worlds.

And even still, just because something is more likely than something else to have occured does not necessarily mean that it has occured. Again, that doesn't follow.

"At this point, it is too late for Con to introduce a different theory. Since he also hasn't raised any salient objections to the law of parsimony, this contention, and thus the entire debate, should go to Pro by default."

LOL, you're not serious. First off all, I didn't waste my time stating alternate "possible" theories because I didn't have to. My only burden, as per your argument and mine, was to show that it is not reasonable to believe moral realism is true. Not reasonable meaning stupid, like when you believe something with zero evidence. To fulfill it, I could've stated other possible theories and called to question why yours was the most likely. But why bother when you'd already stated this: "Although there is no reason to prefer this theory over others, it is at least plausible and can't be readily disproved." You pretty much conceded the debate with that line. Second, it can be shown that something is unlikely without introducing something that is more likely, which I believe I have done, and thus won the debate :)

But I'll continue on for the craic :)

3. Pragmatism

"Con claims "mathematical sets are just things we make up, not real objects, and we know this because we make them up and they're just not even things." This is false. The things that mathematical sets represent (numbers, functions, lines, planes, etc.) don't exist in the sense that they take up space in the physical world, however, "impure" sets can be actualized whenever its constituent parts are represented -- for example, 4 apples, econometric modeling, and a chess board, respectively.[2]"

I'm not sure you understood my argument. Sets are just names. Even "impure" sets, which I take it are just sets that group objects rather than things that don't exist in a physical sense. The set doesn't exist in a physical sense, but what's inside it, so you're not really comparing apples to apples here.. and sets are helpful. Modal realism is not. But maybe I didn't understand your argument...?

"Con claims that by appealing to epistemic pragmatism, we open the door to believing in things like the boogie man, which is false. There are good reasons to doubt the existence of the boogieman; there is no good reason to doubt the existence of other worlds. If the boogie man existed, we would expect to see some evidence of this, yet no evidence is forthcoming. Where did the boogie man come from? What is his evolutionary history? What taxonomical group does he belong to? Note that unless positing the existence of he boogieman is somehow *logically* incoherent, this only rules out the existence of the boogie man in *our* world, not in some other possible world.

What a load of nonsense. Where're the good reasons to believe in the existence of other worlds? Where is the evidence of other worlds? Where did these other worlds come from? What're these other worlds' evolutionary histories? What taxonomical group do they belong to? No answers? Hmmm...

It's been fun :)

Merry Christmas!