• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Well, if a person believs this, what would you say about him?

You cannot say he is wrong, because you cannot know that. So, how can you say that his views are without merit, if you cannot know he is wrong?

Have you tried applying probability to your ideas, JetLag? I mean, I could think that God will answer my requests, but only if I hit myself over the head with a blue teapot of a particular hue, at exactly the right moment. If he doesn't answer, it's only because I haven't found the right shade of blue, or I was slightly off on my timing.

You can't disprove this, in the sense you tend to use the word 'disprove'.
but is it likely to be true? What's the probability? Is it worth my continued experimentation to get the right shade and timing? I mean, you can't disprove it, so I might be right.

If anyone's actually thinking of trying this out, you really need a green teapot.
 
No, JetLeg, logic decides.

That's the beauty of logic. It is objective.

If so, how come so many philosophers disagree on so many topics?



If that had been true, a single answer could simply be found.
 
What about the treatments that they say - work?

The actual evidence suggests that they don't. Witness the distressing tendency of "ex-gay" men to be found in the dark back rooms of clubs doing decidedly non-heterosexual things with other men.
 
The actual evidence suggests that they don't. Witness the distressing tendency of "ex-gay" men to be found in the dark back rooms of clubs doing decidedly non-heterosexual things with other men.

Hm... As you would say - anecdotal evidence, or studies?
 
Well, in body-mind problem, or in ethics - what is the disagreement about?
 
Something which cannot be proven wrong cannot be proven right. Therefore, there is no way to know if it is objective right or wrong.

Well, take the hypothesis that prayer works only for people that have true faith.

Then, imagine that god somehow reveals himself, wins the million dollar challenge, explains how he created the universe, provides some miracles under controlled settings, and so on.

Then he says "Yes, I did answer prayers, but only those that were prayed with true faith.

That would be a proof of that. So, no - I don't agree that if something cannot be proven wrong, there is no way to know objectively if it is right or wrong.
 
Well, take the hypothesis that prayer works only for people that have true faith.

No true scotsman fallacy.

Then, imagine that god somehow reveals himself, wins the million dollar challenge, explains how he created the universe, provides some miracles under controlled settings, and so on.

Then he says "Yes, I did answer prayers, but only those that were prayed with true faith.

That would be a proof of that. So, no - I don't agree that if something cannot be proven wrong, there is no way to know objectively if it is right or wrong.

If he can reveal himself, then he is falsifiable.
 
No, he can choose to reveal himself, but he doesn't have to.

And you won't know that your hypothesis is true until he does reveal himself. Until then, it is unfalsifiable, and cannot be proven correct or incorrect. The moment he reveals himself, he becomes falsifiable, JetLeg.
 

Back
Top Bottom