Timeline for Is belief in abiogenesis justified under evidentialism and process reliabilism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 1 at 20:50 | history | edited | Nikos M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
Jun 1 at 20:37 | history | edited | Nikos M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 519 characters in body
|
Jun 1 at 20:31 | history | edited | Nikos M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 519 characters in body
|
Jun 1 at 20:07 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Or maybe d) All of the above. Or just to round things out: e) None of the above (including d). Perhaps f) It doesn't really matter. I'm still searching for Terrestrial Intelligence :-) | |
Jun 1 at 18:44 | comment | added | Nikos M. | @ScottRowe still another option c) is when the various definitions are not that different eventually but related from different relative perspectives. Then it can be said that, in a sense, state the same thing. | |
May 29 at 16:49 | comment | added | Nikos M. | @ScottRowe if the problem is in how to define something it means : either a) we don't yet know the correct definition else b) we have freedom in defining something as this or that. In both cases we don't have an absolute truth to claim. | |
May 29 at 16:20 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Well, it is comforting to know that we can define problems away by changing definitions. Unfortunately, we can also define problems in to existence that way. We have to be careful with words. We could redefine 'supernatural' to something innocuous and everyone could then agree. | |
May 29 at 14:56 | comment | added | Nikos M. | @ScottRowe we had this discussion in the "Big Bang" post, remember? | |
May 29 at 14:40 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Yes, we could solve the problem by saying that everything is alive. People have tried that. So then the question becomes, how did everything gain life? Through a natural or supernatural process? | |
May 29 at 13:38 | history | answered | Nikos M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |