Re: Definition of God

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:C6idnXjxtPl0pp_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>
>> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
>> > No one knows for certain.
>
>> That is not an argument.
>
> Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

And they'll say it's not an argument.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>
>> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
>> > No one knows for certain.
>
>> That is not an argument.
>
> Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion
called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called
premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and
inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of
communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a
conversation.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Virgil and friends argue that there might be consciousness outside the brain
because there is no proof there is not. That is argument from ignorance,
logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:q6adnXrv3Z8IoJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45022af3$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:bNqdnWDfePJbvZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Virgil" :
>> >
>> >> "Might" implies the possibility
>> >
>> > How will you establish that there is a possibility of consciousness
>> > outside
>> > the brain?
>>
>> What do you care?
>
> You mean why do I ask?

I mean why do you rush around trying to invent arguments where none
necessarily exist? Are you afflicted with a pernicious form of OCD where
you simply have to have an argument so that you can call it an argument from
ignorance and then quote from Copi?

Do you feel constrained to go into every used bookstore and buy multiple
copies of Copi's "Introduction to Logic"? Are you a victim of CIA mind
control techniques? Has Copi been used as a 'trigger' for you?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:E8OdnYcExsGko5_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45022b2e$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:r-edndil9MkIuJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> >> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
>> >> > No one knows for certain.
>> >
>> >> That is not an argument.
>> >
>> > Yes it is, knucklehead.
>>
>> No it's not
>
> Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

No, it's not an argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion
called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called
premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and
inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of
communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a
conversation.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-769195.21583308092006@news.usenetmonster.com...
> In article <r-edndil9MkIuJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >
>> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> > > dwell exclusively in the brain?
>> > > No one knows for certain.
>>
>> > That is not an argument.
>>
>> Yes it is, knucklehead.
>
> If anyone here is a knucklehead, it is he who claims that asking
> questions to which no one has conclusive answers is
> (1) an argument, and
> (2) fallacious.

Is Septic braindead? Whoops! Looks like I just made a fallacious argument.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Virgil and friends are trying to get away with the argument from ignorance,
"P because there is no proof P is false," where P is "There might be a god,
or there might be an immortal soul, anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence."

That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45024570$0$24204$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:E8OdnYcExsGko5_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:45022b2e$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:r-edndil9MkIuJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
> >> >> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
> >> >> > No one knows for certain.
> >> >
> >> >> That is not an argument.
> >> >
> >> > Yes it is, knucklehead.
> >>
> >> No it's not
> >
> > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.
>
> No, it's not an argument.

Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. It is
argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as
Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:TLfMg.1$C26.0@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mddblF5n7gbU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d5XLg.39946$y7.36098@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4mamp8F5433aU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> >><snip>
>> >> >> I certainly do understand the difference, having read both.
>> >> >> All you have done is dodge two perfectly reasonable questions.
>> >> >> So I'll try again.
>> >> >> 1. If your God is infallible, how can he misrepresent his own
> essence
>> > in
>> >> > his
>> >> >> own bible, as you suggest?
>> >> >> 2.Is Jesus, as part of the trinity, the same God as the God of the
> old
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> new testaments?
>> >> >> Please dodge them again if you feel it is necessary.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Ok, I answer your questions as best as I can. Response to questions:
>> >> > 1- God _is_ infallible, but man is not. God did not misrepresent
>> >> > himself, the fault lay with man.. Man failed to understand God. If I
>> >> > suggested God misrepresented himself, I was wrong. It certainly
>> >> > wasn't my intent. If it is difficult for humans to sometimes
> understand
>> >> > each other, it isn't very difficult to see how we can mistake the
> will
>> >> > of God.
>> >> > 2) Yes. Jesus is part if the Trinity. There is only one God, but in
>> >> > three distinct manifestations, God the Father, God the Son and
>> >> > Holy Ghost. Jesus was God made flesh. The same God is
>> >> > depicted in both the Old and the New Testaments, however, the
>> >> > N.T. gives a much better and more accurate presentation of God
>> >> > than the Old.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for answering.
>> >> At least you believe that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God.
>> >> People like that can be dangerous.
>> >>
>> >> > NOw please answer my questions.
>> >> >
>> >> > What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments,
>> >> > or why the New Testament was necessary?
>> >>
>> >> One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament
> was
>> >> necessary at all.
>> >> If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question.
>> >>
>> > Ok, so you have no idea! In all due respect, how then can you
>> > criticize that which you do not understand?
>> >
>> I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation.
>> I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted
>> in
>> the Old Testament is the same God that you worship.
>>
> Your observation doesn't take into account that people often
> misconstrue and fail to understand each other, to say nothing
> of misunderstanding the written word found within the pages
> of the Bible. There is often disagreement among dedicated
> Christians regarding the meaning of the messages contained
> within the Bible's pages.

Whether it is misconstrued or not - the message of the Old Testament is
clear- it's a bloodthirsty little book written by primitive people
describing a bloodthirsty God.
No matter how much you try to interpret it's meaning, that doesn't change.


>>
>> You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old
>> Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God,
>>
> Nowhere have I argued this. I do not accept this.

Perhaps it was someone else.

>>
> then later
>> weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's
>> misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem.
>> Jeez..... a slippery lot, aren't you?
>>
> This has been my position all along. The differenence is not different
> Gods, but different human impressions of God's nature . The
> New Testament does not depict God as vindictive, cruel, wrathful
> God demanding sacrifices as does the Old Testament: rather the
> N.T. pictures God as kind, loving giving and self-sacrificing.
> And this has been my view all along - no reason to weasel.

So, you've bought into a watered down version of the Old Testament God then.
Perhaps that's why the New Testament is so popular.
God Lite, as it were.

>
> You have shown that you have very little idea as to the difference
> where the Old and the New Testament is concerned.

I am fully aware of all of the differences between the Old Testament and the
New Testament.

> All you
> seem to know is that one was written before the other and the
> New Testament was unnecessary.
> It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible.
> But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can
> one take you seriously?

How many times have you read the entire bible?
If it is less than twice, then I am more qualified to comment on it than you
are.



--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45024552$0$24191$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:q6adnXrv3Z8IoJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:45022af3$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bNqdnWDfePJbvZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Virgil" :
> >> >
> >> >> "Might" implies the possibility
> >> >
> >> > How will you establish that there is a possibility of consciousness
> >> > outside
> >> > the brain?
> >>
> >> What do you care?
> >
> > You mean why do I ask?
>
> I mean ...

Evidently now you mean to try to change the subject, to try to evade the
issue. The issue is how will you establish there is a possibility of
consciousness outside the brain? You can't just take that for granted you
know. That would be begging the question.

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:I%fMg.8$C26.3@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mddeuF5lpdeU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> newstOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O"
> <sendspam@here.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not
> me.
>> > If
>> >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me,
> unless
>> > you
>> >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
>> > needs
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> read the Christian bible.
>> >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
>> >> >> >> wrathful
>> >> >> >> killer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>> >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
>> > innocent
>> >> >> >> >>people.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
>> > way,exactly?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
>> > named
>> >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>> >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New
> Testament,
>> > or
>> >> > did
>> >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>> >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No change then.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
>> >> > was made with man.
>> >> >
>> >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer.
>> >>
>> > Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the
>> > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as
>> > a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man.
>> >
>> > But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love,
>> > understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself
>> > on behalf of man.
>> >>
>> > Best Wishes,
>> > Dan
>>
>> So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong.
>> That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit
>> that.
>>
> The Old Testament concept of God was fundamentally wrong. I'm of
> the opinion, this was one reason for the coming of Christ and the
> New Testament - to correct the image of God created in the Old.
> Most mainline Churches claim to be a New Testament church.
>
> There is a reason for that. Do you have any idea as to why that is?

They don't want to be associated with the old, jealous and bloodthirsty
killer God of the Old Testament?

>
> I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around
> taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit.
> And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets.

I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on that.
Unless of course, you are claiming that Jesus Christ was not a prophet?

> John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets they had
> no purpose in the New Testament.

So there were at least two prophets mentioned in the New Testamant, right?
So why make the claim that the New Testament has no prophets?


--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Steve O]

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:45019f89.145075437@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty?
>
>>Pay attention
>
> Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it.
>
>>it is you old testament God which is depicted as a
>>bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood.
>
> Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself.

I see.
Please **** off and talk to someone else - you are a bit too weird for me.



--
Steve O
a.a. #2240
"Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way
that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?"

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qqudnfYF6c0-1p_YnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Virgil and friends are trying to get away with the argument from
> ignorance,

Where? Be explicit. Where are they trying to get away with anything? Cite
it in context.

All you've been able to do is come up with claims that simple statements are
"the argument from ignorance" and simple questions are "the argument from
ignorance." That having failed, you've now snipped EVERYTHING away and are
just coming out with the UNSUPPORTED charge that Virgil, et.al. are trying
to 'get away' with the 'argument from ignorance."

Where? I've rammed the actual definition down your throat several times.
Other than your misapplied quote from Copi, you've never ONCE even framed
the definition in your own words. There's no reason at this point for
anyone on this group to believe you even know what the argument from
ignorance is, since you claim that simple statements and simple questions
are the argument from ignorance.

Statements and questions ARE NOT EVEN ARGUMENTS, you moron. If they're not
arguments, how can they be the argument from ignorance?

Here's my prediction. You're not going to be able to answer this post.
You'll trot out your pasted Copi quotation or you'll snip most of this away
and come back with yet another mindless troll.

AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, everyone is going to know once and for all that you
don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:R7udnQW_x6Sh05_YnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45024570$0$24204$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:E8OdnYcExsGko5_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:45022b2e$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:r-edndil9MkIuJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>> >> >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
>> >> >> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
>> >> >> > No one knows for certain.
>> >> >
>> >> >> That is not an argument.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes it is, knucklehead.
>> >>
>> >> No it's not
>> >
>> > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

Done. You're wrong as usual.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion
called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called
premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and
inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of
communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a
conversation.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VrSdnS_6X9gX0p_YnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45024552$0$24191$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:q6adnXrv3Z8IoJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:45022af3$0$24183$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:bNqdnWDfePJbvZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Virgil" :
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Might" implies the possibility
>> >> >
>> >> > How will you establish that there is a possibility of consciousness
>> >> > outside
>> >> > the brain?
>> >>
>> >> What do you care?
>> >
>> > You mean why do I ask?
>>
>> I mean ...
>
> Evidently

I mean why do you rush around trying to invent arguments where none
necessarily exist? Are you afflicted with a pernicious form of OCD where
you simply have to have an argument so that you can call it an argument from
ignorance and then quote from Copi?

Do you feel constrained to go into every used bookstore and buy multiple
copies of Copi's "Introduction to Logic"? Are you a victim of CIA mind
control techniques? Has Copi been used as a 'trigger' for you?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45022a61$0$24200$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does
consciousness
> >> >> dwell
> >> >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain?
> >> >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain.
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It does
> >> >>
> >> >> [unsnip]
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the
> >> >> argument
> >> >
> >> > 1. If it's not an argument.
> >> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >> > 3. And it is not an argument.
> >> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >>
> >> It appears to be couched as a question.
> >
> > "No one knows for certain" is not a question,
>
> No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement

How do you figure it stands alone? Can't you read? It is directly connected
to the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) that there might be
consciousness outside the brain (an immortal soul independent of the body).

What Woodie doing is trying to get away with arguing from ignorance that
there might be a soul (consciousness outside the brain) because there is no
proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is false, logical
fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:


<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Virgil and friends are trying to get away with the argument from ignorance,
"P because there is no proof P is false," where P is "There might be a god,
or there might be an immortal soul, anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence."

That is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45024443$0$24202$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:C6idnXjxtPl0pp_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >>
> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
> >> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
> >> > No one knows for certain.
> >
> >> That is not an argument.
> >
> > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.
>
> And they'll say it's not an argument.

Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. It is
argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as
Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote

> You don't understand Copi.

Oh yes I do. It's very simple. Virgil and friends argue P, because there is
no proof that hypothesis is false. That is argument from ignorance, logical
fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4502449e$0$29445$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >>
> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness
> >> > dwell exclusively in the brain?
> >> > No one knows for certain.
> >
> >> That is not an argument.
> >
> > Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
>
> In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an
assertion

That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate
consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance there is no proof
the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture) is false ("No one knows
for certain there is no consciousness outside the brain.") That is logical
fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains:

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]