Search:

Again, this line of questioning is irrelevant to whether it's an argument from ignorance to say that something is X just because it hasn't been proven to be Not-X.
Either make your point which I'm...

No, I don't get the point you're making here, but it doesn't seem relevant to the question of whether it's an argument from ignorance to say that something is X just because it hasn't been proven to...

This has nothing to do with coherence. Something is either X or not-X, based on your own statements, and the lack of evidence for not-X is not evidence for X.

The OP makes no comparison of different fallacies. Here is the first sentence from the OP:
The lack of evidence that something is impossible does not constitute evidence that it is possible.

The...

That's all well and good, but when one wants to involve such rigorous standards as truisms based on our core logical foundations, "given what I know I think" just doesn't make the cut.

None of this refutes the fact that it's an argument from ignorance to say that X is true because not-X is not proven.

None of this supports that the "truism" offered is actually a truism.

When you said that I misunderstand what a truism is, you provided the following explanation in support of Mican's "truism":...

But just calling it a "free will model", and claiming that people are "creating" choices, doesn't magically avoid the very real issue of apparent determinism. If you say people are creating choices,...

You supported the "truism" by claiming it adheres to the logic that "all things are A which are ~(~A)", which is based on the law of excluded middle and that A/~A is a true dichotomy. I pointed out...

Your response was about the difference between formal and informal fallacies, which is irrelevant to the argument that something is not X just because it hasn't been proven to be not-X. For a...

The argument from the OP is "something isn't possible just because it hasn't been proven that it's impossible". Nothing from your post supports the claim that if something is not proven to be...

He wasn't?

I don't see how this is the case. "One would never choose freely X" implies a limitation on will (ie.: it's not free). All you're doing is calling it free will which is limiting what...

Yes, that helps, although I'm not clear on how that means that determinism is being smuggled in. I'm merely describing the facts. Doesn't the deity choose to create the reality which it creates?

Mican, since the issue we're discussing has been escalated to red and purple text, I'm going to hold off on responding to your entire post for now until Squatch responds to the issue I've pointed out...

MT, before I move on to responding to the rest of your post, I want to get clarity from you on this:
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by smuggling in the idea of determinism and provide...

Please explain how any of this supports the claim that if something is not proven to be impossible, it therefore is or can be considered possible.

I understand that "that which is not impossible is possible" is a truism. But that's not the truism which was offered here, which stated that all things are possible which are not proven impossible....

P1 is not a truism, it's an argument from ignorance. Something is not possible just because it hasn't been demonstrated that it's impossible. The lack of a demonstration of impossibility is not...

While "exists" and "does not exist" is a true dichotomy, your syllogism isn't about the dichotomy of whether OBEs exist, it's about whether OBEs are possible. Again, a dichotomy is X or NOT-X, and...

Well in the dialogue, they do find out what's in the bag, which is why the dialogue serves as a demonstration of the skeptical principle behind not claiming to know whether it's possible or...

The lack of evidence that something is impossible does not constitute evidence that it is possible. This also means that it is incorrect to consider something possible just because there is a lack of...

In both scenarios, was it your free will to have the memory pop up vs. not? It could be argued that, since memories popping up are often described as out of the control of the person having them and,...

Then you are admitting that your logic isn't support for one over the other.

As I explained, the words themselves are irrelevant - it's the core logical concepts you need to be able to translate...

Again, you have it completely backwards. The argument for why something is true is the rational basis for why we should conclude that it is true, not the other way around. This isn't quite relevant...

So the problem I see here is that you're just asserting that they could choose differently - I don't know how you'd go about demonstrating that they could. The problem is compounded by you saying...

Yeah, no. There is a difference, both in fact, and also in a debate. If you want to make the claim that something should be considered possible, then make & support that claim. If you want to make...

So you are retracting your statement from post #169: "My position is that OBEs are possible."
Your position/claim is actually X must be considered possible, regardless of whether it actually is...

There is a difference, however, when you try to claim that "possible" vs. "not proven to be impossible" is a valid dichotomy, which it isn't, as I already explained. Again, your "logic" leads to...

This does bring up the question of whether the deity exerted complete (omnipotent?) control over the system when choosing to create it instead of other systems. However, from what I understand of...

Well I guess I should be glad you at least tried to correct your flawed logic, but it's still flawed. Here you've gone from the true dichotomy of possible vs. impossible to the false dichotomy of...