| MontanaHatchet said:
|
Well although I know that is a argument from a lot of people against this, it is a very poor one and it is easy to show why. I could reconstruct that using a different example.
"Also I'd love it if all the nations were able to communicate over long distances at enormous speeds which would help the spread of communication and information. That is called a fantasy world. This is the real Earth, and we live in it."
What's the problem with the argument? Well you pretend to exhaust all options when indeed that isn't true. Obviously it's not impossible to have the ability to communicate across the world. Hell we do it today with the telephones and the internet. It's called a false dichotomy, which as I explained, is where someone states the possible options and attempts to exhaust them when clearly that is not the case. Thus that argument isn't a good one at all, because obviously a fanstasy world is not impossible. Now probability is a different thing, but you talk to someone 2000 years ago about the same thing I Just stated there and well you'd get the same reply.
The point is, we need to be conscious of our arguments. I'm not trying to criticize you in particular, but just showing people common mistakes in logic. Obviously this is a fairly popular one which I see all the time. Now, of course, my original argument I stated was an idealist view, but that doesn't make it impossible. Now you could argue against the impossibility of my proposal by getting into a discussion of human nature. However, that is a brutal discussion which will definitely lead to a "nature vs. nurture" argument, and quite frankly I'm not sure if many people are able or willing to discuss it haha. But hey this is a discussion eh.
