nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,622
Wibble said:For the last time. You have made assertions about things you believe to exist. The onus is therefore on you to prove existence since you insist they are rational things to believe in. As I must have said a hundred times you can’t use failure to prove the non-existance of the non-existant as proof of existence. That way lies insanity.
I believe that there is a small fat man called Nigel who lives on the moon and he is in fact God. Since I can’t prove that this isn’t so, it must be true. I have now proven that God is in fact a small fat man called Nigel who lives on the moon. Taadddaaaahhhhhh!
Surely even you can see the logical flaw in such an argument
Evidence, for the King, is what helps support a pre-existing belief. It is not the thing that 'causes' the belief in the first place. This means any evidence will be tweaked, shoehorned and fitted into the pre-existing belief structure, it will never be used to falsify the belief in the first place.
Take astrology: it may be that a reading from the stars predicts a person's personality. But what about readings that DON'T predict a person's personality? A pre-existing belief in astrology means the second data are disregarded, and that is deeply dishonest when it comes to establishing the objective truth of something.