> And by asking a question, you have no answer for mine?
Your line of questions seemed to be missing the point, which is why I tried to make things easier by asking you how you would understand language in this context.
> You seem to think that claims aren't true or false if we don't know whether they are true or false.
Nope.
> What your doing is equivocating the likelihood of the method to produce true claims with whether a stated claim is likely to be true.
No, I am not equivocating those, those just are the same thing, and I am almost certain that you also use language in this way, even though it seems like maybe you aren't aware of it. Which is why I asked you that one simple question, to see whether you actually do.
> So you are not certain if religion is incompatible with science?
I won't answer any further questions about whether I am certain about something until you show that there is anything anyone could possibly be certain about. Demanding a burden of proof that you don't apply to anything else is simply destructive behaviour, not something that could possibly lead to any insight.
> How do you know this with certainty?
Just remove "certainly". The point is: I haven't seen any, I doubt you have seen any, I doubt anyone has seen any. If you have some, feel free to share it.
> As far as you know everything you perceive could be illusion/simulation/whatever WRT "ultimate reality", so making that claim in the sense that our senses are not in any way reliable for detecting "ultimate reality" (i.e., "the programmer that wrote the simulation") is unwarranted, and there certainly is no evidence supporting such a claim.
Correct. Which is why I am not making that claim.
Your line of questions seemed to be missing the point, which is why I tried to make things easier by asking you how you would understand language in this context.
> You seem to think that claims aren't true or false if we don't know whether they are true or false.
Nope.
> What your doing is equivocating the likelihood of the method to produce true claims with whether a stated claim is likely to be true.
No, I am not equivocating those, those just are the same thing, and I am almost certain that you also use language in this way, even though it seems like maybe you aren't aware of it. Which is why I asked you that one simple question, to see whether you actually do.
> So you are not certain if religion is incompatible with science?
I won't answer any further questions about whether I am certain about something until you show that there is anything anyone could possibly be certain about. Demanding a burden of proof that you don't apply to anything else is simply destructive behaviour, not something that could possibly lead to any insight.
> How do you know this with certainty?
Just remove "certainly". The point is: I haven't seen any, I doubt you have seen any, I doubt anyone has seen any. If you have some, feel free to share it.
> As far as you know everything you perceive could be illusion/simulation/whatever WRT "ultimate reality", so making that claim in the sense that our senses are not in any way reliable for detecting "ultimate reality" (i.e., "the programmer that wrote the simulation") is unwarranted, and there certainly is no evidence supporting such a claim.
Correct. Which is why I am not making that claim.