
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Lack of evidence isn't proof of the counterpoint. It's a good indicator that it doesn't happen, but it's not solid proof.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 10:50, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

in that technically absence of proof is not proof of absence but at some point common sense must prevail.
I cannot prove emphatically that tomorrow I am not going to turn into a 15-foot bright blue gibbon....but let's face it, I'm not, am I?
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 10:56, Reply)

Hence I'm only questioning the use of 'demonstrably', not the bollocks quotient of karma.
Personally I don't fully put stock in any 'after-life' scenario (heaven, reincarnation, oblivion etc.), but am not intrigued/worried enough to take Pascal's Wager on my deathbed.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:01, Reply)

saying that something is "arguably bollocks" won't generate as much debate.
Aren't people odd.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:03, Reply)

"The notion that Labs is a handsome young gent is arguably bollocks"
"The notion that Monty is a short, fat, black lesbian hippy is demonstrably bollocks"
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:12, Reply)

means that next time I see you I will repeatedly kick you in the (arguable or demonstrable, take your pick...) bollocks.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:56, Reply)

Alternatively, if this were a Disney film, your daughter would now suggest playing a game which involved you pretending to be a 15ft blue gibbon, and you would be larking about like crazy and then suddenly catch sight of yourself in a mirror and have a "maybe I should try seeing the world differently" moment.
Fortunately this isn't a Disney film.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:06, Reply)

this is like a more saccharine and slightly less demented 'Gonz fantasy sequence' post.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:10, Reply)

( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:15, Reply)

Regarding common sense; you're right, absence of proof does not prove its absence, but there comes a point at which the pragmatist in you must recognise that the complete, overwhelming absence of proof is pretty damning and that if you believe in that then you might as well believe in your latent ability to transform into a 15-ft blue gibbon.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:11, Reply)

I'm a bit busy, otherwise I'd 'shop Monty as a massive blue gibbon ;)
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:16, Reply)

I do hope you have free time and inclination later on.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:17, Reply)

But in philosophical discussions you have to be very precise with language, just as you do in any kind of debate. It's one way my philosophy degree helps me in my job.
( , Fri 19 Nov 2010, 11:20, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread