All you did was show that your argumentative skills were better. His intial belief mentioned souls, and i dont think you ever did. I’d like to see some sort of testability for souls :)
As to your reply of possibly proving his religion false, if he was better at arguing, he may have replied that at the least it might prove his understanding of religion false.
And of course its not as if you have created an AI.
“Eh, maybe because of the heat conduction and so?”
should give you at least 1⁄3 of a point, after all, one side of the plate is hot :)
and there’s always the prisoners dilemna to consider.
there are always the empirical observation of prior situations that really didnt match the appropriate system 1. to always believe that system 1 is infallible is perhaps contradictory of the system itself.
yes thats why we read the bible ;P lol
i seem to recall a link on another page entitled “hindsight bias”.
a rationalist should acknowledge their irrationality, to do otherwise would be to irrational.