Is believing in magic terrible?
Fnord wrote:
a. There is no valid empirical evidence to support the claim that magic exists.
b. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
: : It is reasonable to doubt any claim for the existence of magic.

b. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
: : It is reasonable to doubt any claim for the existence of magic.
Russell's Teapot basically?
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?
As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?
As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.
It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?
As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.
It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?
No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?
As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.
It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?
No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.
So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.
If you can think about it, does it exist?
As long as you can provide conclusive evidence.
It doesn't exist without evidence, or as far as we know it doesn't?
No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.
So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?
How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?
I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.
Of course, the people who make Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't have too hard a time believing in a teapot floating in space. ![]()
donnie_darko wrote:
I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.
Of course, the people who make Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't have too hard a time believing in a teapot floating in space.
Of course, the people who make Ancient Aliens probably wouldn't have too hard a time believing in a teapot floating in space.
Translation:
"Somebody made up a story about it; therefore it has to be true."
JWC wrote:
No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.
So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?[/quote]
How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?[/quote]
If you think that evidence is needed to prove something existed, think of all the things that didn't until the past few millennia. I doubt it just popped out of nowhere.
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
snapcap wrote:
JWC wrote:
No. It doesn't. There is a causal relationship between existence and evidence.
So how do you explain something that suddenly exists when there is no evidence for it?
How would you know something suddenly exists if there is no evidence for it?[/quote]
If you think that evidence is needed to prove something existed, think of all the things that didn't until the past few millennia. I doubt it just popped out of nowhere.[/quote]
It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.
JWC wrote:
artrat wrote:
iceveela wrote:
I don't believe in magic but I have no proof that it does not exsist..
Common fallacy. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence. Only existence can be proven.Unless it exists already, then not outside of your mind.
donnie_darko wrote:
Fnord wrote:
a. There is no valid empirical evidence to support the claim that magic exists.
b. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
: : It is reasonable to doubt any claim for the existence of magic.
Russell's Teapot basically?b. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
: : It is reasonable to doubt any claim for the existence of magic.
Syllogistic form, basically. Fnord's Logic, always.
donnie_darko wrote:
I don't really accept Russell's Teapot as a valid argument for rejecting the possibility of things like God, ET, and bigfoot because imo the fact there are legends about all three of those things alone makes them more likely than a human artifact floating around in space randomly.
Acceptance, or lack thereof - either of which is subjective opinion - prove nothing.
JWC wrote:
It doesn't matter how it came to be. The moment something comes into existence there is evidence of it's existence, even if that evidence goes unrecognized.
I think so, but you said if you can't provide conclusive evidence, it can't exist. If it goes unrecognized, you can't provide it.
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Believing that life is fair might make you a terrible person |
09 Feb 2015, 3:14 pm |
| Terrible Terrible sunburn |
01 Sep 2009, 9:46 pm |
| Believing in what I cannot do |
24 Sep 2009, 4:18 pm |
|
Believing something crazy...
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
25 Apr 2011, 7:41 am |

