Re: Definition of God

In article <R7udnQW_x6Sh05_YnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> "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.

All experts in logic will say, as I do, that Septic lies about
everything, in particular about what Danwood has said being an argument
at all , much less a fallacious one.
 
In article <DfidnVq43_0-zp_YnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45022a61$0$24200$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >

> > > "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 more to the point to ask whether Septic can read.
 
In article <cqOdnfQXv5kwyJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@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,"

Wrong! What we are saying is that "P" might be either true or false in
the absence of proof either way.

That Septic will not accept that truth is because he is trying to
disguise his own argumentum ad ignorantiam claiming that gods cannot
exist because there is no proof they do.
 
In article <UKmdnVij8ZTky5_YnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> 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, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic.

Gandalf and I, both more expert at logic that the illiterate Septic,
both agree that what Septic claims to be an argument is not, that what
Sep[tic claims to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam is not, that Septic
himself commits both argumenta ad ignorantiam and argumenta ad hominem
continually, and generally, that Septic is not a nice person.
 
In article <eZWdnYlN29NNxZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
>
> > You don't understand Copi.
>
> Oh yes I do.

Then why misinterpret him so repeatedly?

To perhaps is it just that Septic cannot discern any difference between
"might (or might not) be" and "must be".
 
In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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

No one has asserted that, so that Septic's STRAW MAN dies a deserved
death.

What we assert is that no one knows that a naked brain is sufficient.

if Septic wants to volunteer as a subject to prove that it is...
 
In article <GOGdnQZVvfigwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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"

Wrong! We have said that P might or might not be the case, in part
because it has not been proved not to be the case, but Septic is
creating a STRAW MAN to say anything more.

It is Septic's hidden agenda indirectly to support his faith that gods
are impossible that he is trying to hide under all these false
accusations against agnostics.
 
In article <EoOdncOEGOpCwp_YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> The issue is how will you establish there is a possibility of
> consciousness outside the brain?

No one has claimed that. What has been questioned is whether a naked
brain with no ancilliary suppport is sufficient.

Does Septic wish to volunteer to test the issue?
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com...
> 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

What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here?

> ><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" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
<SNIP!!>

<unsnip>

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.]
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-5E32F5.14154309092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "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
>
> No one has asserted that

You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_:

> Does consciousness dwell
> exclusively in the brain?
> No one knows for certain.


And you all are pissing your pants trying to prop up his argument _ad
ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which you theists are famous, as Copi
explains.

<unsnip>

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.]
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> 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.

Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_, but as you know
that is logical fallacy and it will not help your side establish that there
might be consciousness outside the brain.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> <SNIP!!>
>
> <unsnip>
>
> That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate
> consciousness outside the brain by arguing from ignorance

I'm not trying to 'demonstrate' anything, and I'm not aware of anyone else
demonstrating anything either. So far as I'm aware, and I'm pretty sure
I've read more on the subject than you have, the Mind/Body problem is still
being actively researched and debated by experts from several fields.

The question is whether or not making a statement such as 'no one knows for
sure where consciousness originates' or asking a question such as 'does
anyone know where consciousness originates?' is an argument from ignorance.

Since neither simple statements nor simple questions are arguments, they
cannot be arguments from ignorance.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly with citations from appropriate
authorities.

Why do you continue to hold to such an ignorant position?

As to my arguing anything, I've made only one argument:

1. The Argument from Ignorance is an argument that is logically invalid for
specific reasons.
2. A question is not an argument.
3. A simple statement is not an argument.
4. In order to be an argument from ignorance, there must be an argument.
5. Therefore neither questions nor simple statements can be arguments from
ignorance.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eek:rmdnTx5mcT68Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-5E32F5.14154309092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <npOdnUt0-sfix5_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "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
>>
>> No one has asserted that
>
> You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_:
>
>> Does consciousness dwell
>> exclusively in the brain?
>> No one knows for certain.

The statement above consists of a question and a statement. The question
can be neither true nor false. The statement might be either. Neither the
question nor the statement are arguments. Taken together, they are not an
argument. Since they are neither an argument separately nor an argument
collectively they cannot be an argument from ignorance.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nv-dneCbyJU28J7YnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> 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.
>
> Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_,

Actually, the argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily a logical flaw. If
an ad hom actually describes a fact necessary to a more complete
understanding of an issue, the ad hom is quite permissable. In this case,
considering your enormous spamming of Copi's quote and the tragic way in
which you misapply it, it is in fact a waste of space.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vcWdnYb9gsjc-p7YnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
> What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here?

The conclusion you keep accusing everyone of, Septic.

You seem to believe that simply asking questions or offering critiques are
examples of the argument from ignorance. If that is what you truly believe,
you have zero understanding of the argument from ignorance, and you have
clearly never understood what Copi wrote on the subject.
 
In article <ormdnTx5mcT68Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > > That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to
> demonstrate
> > > consciousness outside the brain
> >
> > No one has asserted that
>
> You are mistaken, Woodie has. Here again is his argument _ad ignorantiam_:
>
> > Does consciousness dwell
> > exclusively in the brain?
> > No one knows for certain.
>
Septic deliberately misinterprets the above, as usual.

To falsify that consciousness dwells exclusively in the brain, it would
be quite sufficient to show that a brain in isolation cannot be
conscious.

This in no way requires or implies existence of any consciousness
independent of any brain, as Septic tries to imply. it merely says that
a brain cannot maintain consciousness entirely on its own.

Which is quite possibly the case. At least I can see no way for a brain
in total isolation to remain conscious.



So that we may separate things into Septic's thesis that brains in total
isolation from everything else are still capable of maintaining
consciousness, versus Woodie's questioning of that thesis.

Septic would no doubt be glad to supply his brain to g to settle the
issue, at least if he could prove that it could be conscious even with
help.
 
In article <vcWdnYb9gsjc-p7YnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:2vn5g2l7nv9fqbsjgu1d34t31mfr2lc674@4ax.com...
> > 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.

Septic misquotes, or deliberately elides. We agnostics admit that there
might or might not be any gods because there is not proof either way.
Septic ignores the parts of that admission of ignorance that do not suit
his lies.



> >
> > 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
>
> What "final false conclusion" are you talking about here?

The distinction between "might" and "must", between possibility and
necessity.

The Copi argument deals with a claim of necessity.
Our agnostic admission deals with possibility.

Only someone as willfully blind to the truth of that difference would
continue to maintain the lie that Septic repeats.
 
In article <N8OdnbQAFqLP9Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> <SNIP!!>
>
> <unsnip>
>
> That is the issue. You and Woodie and Virgil are not going to demonstrate
> consciousness outside the brain

Septic is the only one asserting consciousness ouotside the brain. The
rest of us concede that the brain is necessary, but question whether
there is any evidence proving it sufficient.

If ever Septic could bring himself to understand the real question,
instead if his lies about it, he would not have to lie about it any
longer.
 
In article <nv-dneCbyJU28J7YnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:edtuv1$e3t$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...

> > You, Skeptic, are nothing more than a tragic waste of space.
>
> Thank you for the nice example of argument _ad hominem_

Septic presumes that what it is "ad" is "homo".
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
Back
Top