52560b3f   
   XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.consciousness, alt.magick   
   XPost: uk.rec.psychic   
   From: crazy.div.patok@gmail.com   
      
   Tom wrote:   
   > On May 5, 10:47 am, Patok  wrote:   
   >> Tom wrote:   
   >>> On May 3, 11:04 pm, Patok  wrote:   
   >>>>      That's an easy deduction, given that there're no angels to begin   
   >>>> with. Simple metaphysics.   
   >>> An assumption is not a deduction.   
   >>       There was no assumption in the statement.   
   >   
   > A "given" is a statement that is simply accepted as true without   
   > question.  Any statement that begins "Given that..." is making an   
   > assumption.   
   >   
   > You wrote, "Given that there're no angels to begin with."   
   >   
   >> We start with a fact - there're no angels.   
   >   
   > Just as religious people do, you are confusing your article of faith   
   > with fact.  A statement that angels don't exist is undemonstrable and   
   > therefore cannot be accepted as a fact any more than the equally   
   > undemonstrable assertion that angels do exist.   
      
        OK, you have a point. The non-existence of angels is not a fact,   
   just as the non-existence of pink flying elephants is not a fact. Both   
   are scientific theories, that are most likely true. On the other hand,   
   the theory that angels exist is not scientific, since it cannot be   
   falsified (I hope you are familiar with this epistemological basis of   
   science). The two theories are not equivalent in their demonstrability,   
   contrary to what you say.   
        I don't see anything wrong with basing my assumption on a   
   scientific theory that is true at this point in time.   
      
   --   
   You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)