No huge plastic jewels on thier turbans?
Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!
- Thread starter Calderaro
- Start date
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
We're not the ones making claims.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Because it's unreliable.
Axxman300
Philosopher
I've been dead. No bright light, no dead relatives. Just nothing. And there is a peace to be found in this. No heaven, no hell, just done. No more bills, no more taxes, no more having to visit the restroom, no more getting sick, no more getting hungry. Do get me wrong, I'm happy to postpone my return to that state as long as possible, my love of tacos and pizza keep me going. But as I hit old age there is comfort in not having to worry about eternal life. I like the idea of the universe letting me go.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Because it's not proof. If I told you while I was at the wharf the other day I saw a fish smoking a cigarette, you shouldn't believe me without further evidence. Only a fool would believe such a claim without evidence.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Did you have to spend a lot of time going in and out of doorways?
I don't know English, which makes it difficult to debate with you!What should I do?
or I think you are using the fallacy of extraordinary evidence! it is a fallacy of pathological skepticism!
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
artificial intelligence says:
The Bible contains several passages that mention communication with spirits. A significant example is the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, where Saul consults the spirit of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:1-25). This account is seen as evidence of the belief in the possibility of communication with the dead within the Jewish tradition.
historical evidence of the existence of spirits
The Bible contains several passages that mention communication with spirits. A significant example is the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor, where Saul consults the spirit of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:1-25). This account is seen as evidence of the belief in the possibility of communication with the dead within the Jewish tradition.
historical evidence of the existence of spirits
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
So what?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
Bronze Age folk tales from the eastern end of the Mediterranean basin are not evidence of anything, especially as they have been translated, re-translated, re-re-translated, re-re-re -you get the picture, so many times that no-one can have a real clue what was originally written, let alone any pre-existing oral tradition.
And many of us here were brought up in some variety of christianity and had that gibberish force fed to us as children.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing of the sort. It's just a story in an old book. It is no more scientific proof of spirits than Harry Potter stories are proof of witchcraft.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,325
I think the bible also contains several mentions of the existence of God. That does not persuade me that God exists either. Claims are not evidence.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Obviously if you don't speak English you need to use a translator, but I don't see why you also need to use AI.
Just use your own words to explain and defend your beliefs, then translate and post them. Then translate our responses, and try to understand our counterarguments. Then respond to those counterarguments, and so on. That is how you have a debate. Not by getting an AI to produce an argument which you yourself are unable to defend.
It's fine to post links to sites which you think contain convincing arguments and evidence for your beliefs, but when we explain why we find them unconvincing you need to try to understand why, and respond to those criticisms.
The debate will not begin until you actually start to respond to the points we are making. If you are never going to do that, then there will be no debate.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The artificial intelligence you're using is not some magical oracle. It's just creatively repeating what information is available without evaluating its truth or credibility.
That's because the people who wrote the Bible believed in spirits. It doesn't mean that spirits were real then or are real now. It doesn't mean those people had more or better evidence than we do that spirits exist. The Bible is considered an authoritative reference by those who decide to believe in it, but it has no probative value otherwise. Just because something is stated in the Bible doesn't make it factually true, even if an AI program says so.
Thermal
August Member
You don't need to use AI at all. You need to use translating software. AI gives opinions from others, not you.
And if you want to have a debate in another language that you don't speak, that's a pretty difficult position that you put yourself in. It has nothing to do with us or AI.
Eta: I've tried engaging with online communities in Spanish (that I am socially conversant in) and French (that I had a few years of schooling in). Half the Google assisted translations are incomprehensible, and i politely excused myself early on. What made you want to give it a try?
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, trying to debate nuanced subjects in a language you can't speak is legitimately difficult. You might consider looking around for skeptics who speak your language.
You don't need generative artificial intelligence in order to translate text between languages. There are several competent translation mechanisms available to you that will simply translate the expressed meaning as best they can without attempting to apply any sort of analytical transformation to it.
You can do whatever you want within the boundaries of the rules. However if you choose to continue the debate, you should change your approach if you want meaningful responses.
You need to engage with the responses you're receiving. If you can't do that because of the language barrier, say so. Otherwise people will justifiably assume you don't have good answers.
You need to stop accusing people of being "pseudo skeptics" every time they say something you don't like or disagree with. That's just name-calling that has nothing to do with a language problem. It's rude in any language. Similarly, instead of just offering conclusory slogans, you need to explain why they apply. You can't just say, "This post commits this fallacy" without explaining why you think it does. You may be right. But either way, your single-sentence, knee-jerk statements provide no argument for other people to evaluate and possibly rebut.
You need to do your own thinking. Artificial intelligence (as you're using it) is merely a software technique for organizing and selecting from large amounts of information, employing a limited ability to transform that information. You cannot rely on it to provide more or better insight into a controversial topic. When you do, you get such absurdities as an AI-generated statement insinuating that the Bible provides reliable, testable evidence.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. I get that this is the new rallying cry among fringe theorists, but disregarding the assumptive attribution in anecdotal evidence is not a case of prematurely rejecting adequate evidence. Just because someone says, "I observed Y and I believe X caused Y," does not mean there is witness evidence of X, or of the purported causation, or that any example of Y is evidence of X. Barring evidence of the causation per se, that's simple circular reasoning, and no quibble over the sufficiency of evidence saves it.
The newfound critical response to Sagan's Razor (or whatever you want to call it) is not what fringe claimants hope it to be. It is not a rejection of the notion that we should apply a standard of proof that is consistent with the scope of the claim. It is not a rejection of a priori reasoning. It is not a rebuttal to Occam's Razor.
It does say you need to have a reasoned explanation for your standard of proof—you can't just wave your hands vaguely at "extraordinary" and then say categorically that the evidence provided is insufficient. We've given you the reason why we don't accept anecdotal evidence in the way you want us to. No matter how badly a fringe claimant wants to lower the standard of proof to accept his shaky evidence, a well-reasoned standard of proof must be addressed.
It does say that a priori credibility—especially a consideration of contravening evidence against a hypothesis—is still part of the process. But it properly limits that contribution to actual parsimony, not ideological barriers. In short, if the evidence shows hypothesis to be the best explanation for an observation, one may not artificially raise the standard of proof to compensate for some ideological objection to the claim. No matter how badly fringe claimants want to dismiss criticism as ideological, if the rebuttal offered is a proper evidentiary argument, then that must be engaged with.