Show Posts
661
A forum for incels who are normal people (no terrorists, no rapists, no racists, no pedophiles, no haters and so on) / Re: The reason why you should learn Buddhism philsophy
« on: January 15, 2024, 11:20:40 PM »
I follow the Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) principle (from philosophy and science). Also I don't blindly accept a religious concept which is without any science base/proof.
The effects and cause have good enough scientific dialectic explanation thus they don't need to imply some unproven reincarnation. The reincarnation isn't demonstrated (needless to say "repeated" as an experiment) anywhere till now.
About the "Inference to the best explanation", according to this: it "is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data." why we have to choose something from the mythology/religion when we have at least a few better natural explanations?! Following the logic of "Of course, reincarnation", the better one can be "Of course, Jesus!" or "Of course, Allah." So easy and "clear" explanations but without proves. This is not how the nowadays real science works. Before you put (suppose) some idea you must have enough experiments, knowledge, observations, etc. Otherwise, let's believe in that FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) /link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/, which also can be a "very good" cause-and-effect explanation.
The mistake is just this: the inference of the best explanation is not a bad method but the unproven and "just said" ideas like "karma" and "reincarnation" aren't "the best" explanations; they're even not close to a "good explanation" because they're just "many years ago some people said so".
The effects and cause have good enough scientific dialectic explanation thus they don't need to imply some unproven reincarnation. The reincarnation isn't demonstrated (needless to say "repeated" as an experiment) anywhere till now.
About the "Inference to the best explanation", according to this: it "is the procedure of choosing the hypothesis or theory that best explains the available data." why we have to choose something from the mythology/religion when we have at least a few better natural explanations?! Following the logic of "Of course, reincarnation", the better one can be "Of course, Jesus!" or "Of course, Allah." So easy and "clear" explanations but without proves. This is not how the nowadays real science works. Before you put (suppose) some idea you must have enough experiments, knowledge, observations, etc. Otherwise, let's believe in that FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) /link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/, which also can be a "very good" cause-and-effect explanation.
The mistake is just this: the inference of the best explanation is not a bad method but the unproven and "just said" ideas like "karma" and "reincarnation" aren't "the best" explanations; they're even not close to a "good explanation" because they're just "many years ago some people said so".
... Понеже то на мен не ми е никак "честито" тази година (и преди нея), заради 