The Big Questions of the Universe

[Naryar]

Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do

you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !

[Pyromaniac605]

Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do

you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !

You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.

[Naryar]

Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do

you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !

You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.

Well that was a random counter... also a weak one.

[NFX]

Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do

you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !

You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.

Well that was a random counter... also a weak one.

Actually, it's perfectly valid. It's the same reason you get glitches in video games, you can't prove the non-existence of ANYTHING, because there will always be some things that you miss. If you find something physical, then that's proven it's existence, but if you don't find anything, then that doesn't prove it's non-existence. It could very easily mean you just haven't looked hard enough.

[martymidget]

Does the graviton exist?

[Meganerdbomb]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!

[Pyromaniac605]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!

You could say the same thing about anything, a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth's orbits, invisible flying unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster etc.

The burden of proof is on those making the unfalsifiable claims, not those denying them.

[Meganerdbomb]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!

You could say the same thing about anything, a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth's orbits, invisible flying unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster etc.

The burden of proof is on those making the unfalsifiable claims, not those denying them.

I don't have to prove jack. That's what faith is for. You're either gonna believe or you're not. And if you're not, you probably wouldn't believe even if Jesus Christ himself came down from heaven and kicked you in the balls.  And for your information, those flying unicorns are pretty awesome, and they're not really invisible; they just use optical camouflage.

[Pyromaniac605]

I don't have to prove jack. That's what faith is for.

And that's exactly the problem with having "faith", blindly following a load of nonsense without any supporting evidence just because you were brainwashed at a young age.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

Ever heard of the phrase "seeing is believing", MNB- Oh wait, didn't Thomas or whatever his name was get smited for wanting to see Jesus alive with his own eyes before believing it?

[Meganerdbomb]

No, he wasn't smited. Nothing bad happened to him at all.

Anyway, faith is not blind. I have logical reasons for believing what I believe, but at the same time I can acknowledge and accept that it's impossible to prove.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

I base my theories on what I can see, what has been proven and what I can reason through solid fact

[Meganerdbomb]

Solid fact? What is a solid fact? Everything you see is a result of your perception, and it is thus impossible to determine that what you perceive is in fact a reflection of reality. Thus, you have to have faith in your own perceptions if you are to believe anything at all is true.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

A solid fact is something that has been proven by many people

[Naryar]

Solid fact? What is a solid fact? Everything you see is a result of your perception, and it is thus impossible to determine that what you perceive is in fact a reflection of reality. Thus, you have to have faith in your own perceptions if you are to believe anything at all is true.

wait... are you just refuting all empirical experience and thought ?

[Meganerdbomb]

Yes, all empirical knowledge is merely the product of our unreliable perceptions.

[NFX]

I believe he is refuting everything that has ever been proven. Although one person's experience may differ from that of others. Synesthesia, for example, where you see colours when you hear sounds. I can't remember who it was that thought the lights went down before an orchestra played so you could see the colours better. But take, for example, mathematics. Physics. Chemistry. The majority of these can be classified as "facts". e.g., 1+2=3

[Meganerdbomb]

Mathematics is the one absolute truth in the universe because it's principles can be proven solely through logic. Thus, it is synthetic a priori knowledge. My main point however, is that you cannot prove the existence of the chair you sit in any more than you can prove the existence of a God, unless you have faith in your own perception. Yet to not believe in your own perception would be considered illogical.

[Fracture]

Mathematics is the one absolute truth in the universe because it's principles can be proven solely through logic. Thus, it is synthetic a priori knowledge. My main point however, is that you cannot prove the existence of the chair you sit in any more than you can prove the existence of a God, unless you have faith in your own perception. Yet to not believe in your own perception would be considered illogical.

You've seen The Matrix at some point, haven't you? :P

[Pyromaniac605]

Mathematics is the one absolute truth in the universe because it's principles can be proven solely through logic. Thus, it is synthetic a priori knowledge. My main point however, is that you cannot prove the existence of the chair you sit in any more than you can prove the existence of a God, unless you have faith in your own perception. Yet to not believe in your own perception would be considered illogical.

You've seen The Matrix at some point, haven't you? :P

Probably, MNB does seem to be using the "brain in a vat" argument to try and refute the entire knowledge of the human race.