Re: Definition of God

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

> You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes I do. I am talking about your side trying to get away with arguing from
ignorance "P, because there is no proof that hypothesis is false" where P is
some theist conjecture (some 'might be' theist speculation). That is logical
fallacy for which you 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:45024ffa$0$24195$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "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 ...

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.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>
>> It is not an argument.
>
> Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that
> there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof
> that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for
> which you 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.]
>

You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor 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. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

E.g., me, perhaps?

The only argument that might be said to be explicitly in the above is
the following one:

Premise: "No one knows for certain [that consciousness dwells
exclusively in the brain]"

Conclusion: "That is really quite besides the point." (where "That"
contextually refers to some other proposition.)

In any case, since argumentum ad ignorantium is when someone draws (or
is invited to draw) the conclusion that P on the basis of not-P (or vice
versa: not-P on the basis of P) the above is not such a fallacy, because
the conclusion and premise in the above are not negations of each other.

M.

 

[Bob]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 06:25:30 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:

>> 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.

You are the weird one.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[jientho@aol.com]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "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,

No it isn't. It is quite obviously a question followed by a true
statement (answer), with no logical inference made nor implied atall
atall. Thus not an argument. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

Jeff

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsfidnVq43_0-zp_YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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?

Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone. In a back and forth, all sorts
of questions and comments might be made, and each one of them might give the
impression that the respondent is leaning more toward one side of an issue
than the other. That doesn't make them "arguments" in and of themselves.

For example, creationists often make the argument from ignorance that gaps
in the fossil record 'prove' that god created the world because science
can't offer empirical evidence to fill in the gaps....actual fossil forms
that show each particular transition through evolution. Nevertheless,
asking the question "why are there so many gaps in the fossil record?" is
NOT the argument from ignorance. It's a question.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cqOdnfQXv5kwyJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@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:UKmdnVij8ZTky5_YnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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.

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:npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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.

Stop snipping.

To continue.

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:GOGdnQZVvfigwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>
>> You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Yes I do.

You snipped my entire response minus one claus of one sentence, just as I
predicted.

"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."

You're a troll, Septic. You actually do not know what you're talking about
and arguing with you is pointless.


"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:EoOdncOEGOpCwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45024ffa$0$24195$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "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 ...
>
> 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?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
>
>> You don't understand Copi.
>
> Oh yes I do.

Prove it. Restate the definition in logical form and explain how a simple
question or a simple statement could be an argument from ignorance.

 

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:01:50 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in
<eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
>
>"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:

I have read this many times. What I am stating is that you do not
understand what Copi has written. Your argument does not apply to the
situation at hand. It is NOT argument from ignorance, because no one is
arguing the final false conclusion -- you are the one who dishonestly
asserts that we are, but cannot provide any evidence that you have ever
seen any of us say that. Stop putting words in our mouths and you will
see why you have been unremittingly wrong.

><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.]
>
>
>

 

[Virgil]

In article <VrSdnS_6X9gX0p_YnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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.

Septic is, of course, overlooking the problem of how one establishes
that consciousness IS entirely in the brain. Anything else is also
begging the question.

To do so would require that someone be deprived of not only the use
of, but also the presence of, everything but their brain and still
somehow be able to convince others of his/her continuing consciousness,
at least as long as life lasted.

Does Septic volunteer?

 

[Virgil]

In article <C6idnXjxtPl0pp_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@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. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

I am certainly more of an expert at logic than Septic, local or
otherwise, and I say it is not.

And Septic's gratuitous argumentum ad hominem makes him even more wrong.

 

[Virgil]

In article <IuudnUBLVLKZoZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@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. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

Septic is so short of arguments that he is now resorting to double
posting. But as his arguments are all fallacious, and his conclusions
all false, even that will not win them for him.

 

[Virgil]

In article <q6adnXrv3Z8IoJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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?

He means why do you care?

Septic always thinks he knows better that we do what we really mean when
we post, but he doesn't even know what he means most of the time.

If he did he would stop posting all those horribly stupid fallacious
arguments supporting his anti-agnostic faith.

 

[Virgil]

In article <y5ydnQs3feE525_YnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Virgil and friends argue that there might be consciousness outside the brain

No we don't. What we do say is that we do not know that it is
restricted to the brain. Until someone stripped of all but his brain can
testify the he is still has consciousness, there can be no certainty
that no more than a brain is required.

Septic, as usual, argues in ignorance, because he has not the wits to
think about what he says.

 

[Virgil]

In article <qqudnfYF6c0-1p_YnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Virgil and friends are trying to get away with the argument from ignorance,
> "P because there is no proof P is false,

Septic is trying to get away with the phony argument in his ignorance
that "P might or might not be because neither P nor not P have been
proven" is some sort of fallacy.