Posted: Nov 10, 2019 8:53 pm
aufbahrung wrote:Obviously using a word like 'salad' to dismiss a credible alternative to the common mans inderstanding of reality is the top echelon in argument if it wasn't a nirvana fallacy built on kettle logic.
1) The word 'salad' was used in conjunction with your nonsensical writing style; whatever's motivating that appears also to affect your reading comprehension too.
2) What 'credible alternative'?
3) Alternative to what?
4) Quite literally all you've offered is an appeal to ignorance coupled with standard internet crackpot claptrap pretending you'll be shown right in the future. All this says is that you have no good reason for lending it credence today.
5) The simulation hypothesis is not actually an explanatory model - you've completely misunderstood it. Bostrum isn't arguing that the universe IS a simulation, he's a philosopher debating the nature of existence, not making metaphysical claims. If you're going to buy into something, at least try and understand it first.
6) If you want more coherent arguments a) come up with a better proposition and b) read all the other posts you've ignored.
7) If you want a nirvana fallacy, look no further than your wild assertion that the simulation hypothesis is going to overturn all knowledge. That's quite literally what the fallacy means.
8) Tossing out labels of fallacies doesn't establish that those fallacies actually are present. Show where I've presented arguments that are inconsistent with each other.
9) Keep deflecting. Absolutely no one here is remotely distracted by your failure to support your wild claims, but if you keep tossing out distractions, you might at least fool yourself that you're doing well.