Hope,
Oh dear. The comparison was between a naturalistic answer (the lift) and a non-naturalistic one (the window). Just substituting the latter for a naturalistic alternative misses the point entirely.
Yet jumping out of a window is no less naturalistic than using a lift - possibly more so in the case of a fire when the lift is not usable, or if from the 2nd floor when it'll be quicker than using the lift. I'm afraid that your use of the natuarlistic/non-naturalistic dichotomy doesn't work here.
But as so often your belief here is flat wrong. The explanation of the NPF is perfectly straightforward - and "solid". Why you can't grasp it is a matter for you, not for others.
Whereas the instant falling back on 'NFP' as some here like to use as their argument suggests a shallowness of argument.
Halle-flippin'-llujah!
I'm glad you acknowledge your faulty reasoning.
NOOOOOOOOOO! You haven't understood it at all. Dear god but you're obtuse. It's a point in logic regardless of the examples that populate it.
A logic which, of course, relies on a purely naturalistic understanding of existence.
Not being able to falsify something says nothing whatsoever to whether that thing is true.
But nor does it say anything about that thing being false. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions before, reality has a vast number of elements and different levels; your reliance on the naturalisic alone ignores many of those levels and elements.
Orbiting teapots are a daft idea too - does that invalidate the force of Russell's analogy do you think?
You're the one who keeps introducing such ideas; so its for you to answer your own questions.
Whether true or epistemically useful or not, THAT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE NPF.
You're the one with the NPF hang-ups; you need to deal with those yourself. I'm dealing in far broader terms.
