Re: Definition of God

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mf1gjF5sq9eU1@individual.net...
>
> "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?
>
No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
than 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?
>
I make no claim at being an authority on the Bible, but as I understand it
no christian church today believes in modern day prophets. There is no
need for prophets or prophesying in the N. T.
According to the Bible , "the law and the prophets were
_until_ John, since that time the kingdom is preached....." Luke 16:16.
So based upon this maybe I was wrong John was not a prophet.

Best Wishes,
Dan Wood, DDS
> --
> 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?"
>
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mf18jF5p26uU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TLfMg.1$C26.0@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Steve O" <

<snip> >> >>
> >> >> > 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.
>
Yes, I have seen where the Jewish people enlist God wrath upon
their enemies and when misfortune overtakes themselves or their
enemies they attributed this to God. But as you said these were
"primitive people" who jealously guarded God and claimed exclusive
right to him. Even to the point of reversing the claim, i.e. He claims
them - they (the Jews) are Gods chosen people.
>
> >>
> >> 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.
>
Yes, it wasn't me!
> >>
> > 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.
>
The Good News is _not_ contained in the Old Testament. Consequently,
the Christian looks to the N.T. for the Story of Jesus: his comming; his
mission; his life; his sacrifice; his teachings the promise of Christ. This
is the New Covenant. This is not found in the O.T. .
> >
> > 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.
>
Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can
safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made
a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself.
>
>
> --
> 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?"
>
This is wrong. (imho)

Best Wishes,
Dan
>
>

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AdNMg.2546$726.64@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mf1gjF5sq9eU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:I%fMg.8$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?
>>
> No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
> believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
> than a prophet.

Of course Jesus was a prophet.
He prophesied the "end of days"
He also prophesied that it would happen"within the generation of those
around him at the time", which makes him a prophet, albeit a pretty crap
one.



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

Nope, Jesus was allegedly the last prophet.

>>
>> 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?
>>
> I make no claim at being an authority on the Bible, but as I understand it
> no christian church today believes in modern day prophets. There is no
> need for prophets or prophesying in the N. T.

And yet there are still prophecies contained within it.
If you don't believe me, look for them.


> According to the Bible , "the law and the prophets were
> _until_ John, since that time the kingdom is preached....." Luke 16:16.
> So based upon this maybe I was wrong John was not a prophet.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Dan Wood, DDS
>> --
>> 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:4502b200.29069187@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>
>>> 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.
>
I beg to differ.


--
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]

>> 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.
>>
> Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can
> safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made
> a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself.

What would be the point?
It's a jumbled up contradictory mess full of fanciful ideas, myths and
legends which don't mean anything at all in a modern world.
If you want to fully understand all of the contradictions and faults, and
the complete silliness of the whole thing, I would suggest you visit
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

It will tell you all you need to know about the bible.
It's the best bible study tool available.


--
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]

>> 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.
>>
> Only twice? I dont know how many times I read it, but I can
> safely say more than twice. At one point in kmy life I made
> a study of the Bible. Perhaps you should study it for yourself.

What would be the point?
It's a jumbled up contradictory mess full of fanciful ideas, myths and
legends which don't mean anything at all in a modern world.
If you want to fully understand all of the contradictions and faults, and
the complete silliness of the whole thing, I would suggest you visit
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

It will tell you all you need to know about the bible.
It's the best bible study tool available.


--
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]

>> > 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?
>>
> No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
> believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
> than a prophet.
>>
According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days would
come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming.
The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet.
Check your bible out if you don't believe me.
However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would
occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made
him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point.


--
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?"

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "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.

You cannot distinguish between what is and what is not an argument, let
alone what is or is not an ad hominem argument.



>
>
>

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net...
> >> > 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?
> >>
> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
> > than a prophet.
> >>
> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days would
> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming.
> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet.
> Check your bible out if you don't believe me.
>
I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the prophet;
or
Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc.

But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets
are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old Testament
prophets.

But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my
wife
when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When
General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would
not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would
> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made
> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point.
>
No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a
prophet. In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men
say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough
he had ample opportunity to do so. He wasn't satisfied with these answers
He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of
the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself
as a prophet.

Regards,
Dan


> --
> 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]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> Copi deals with a claim of necessity.

The gullible might believe what you say, were it not for the theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture]
Galileo could not prove false!"

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "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.

No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no
God" is a rebuttal. Atheists are not the ones making the hypothesis [the
'might be' conjecture] in this case, it is the theists who are, and "There
is no proof the hypothesis is false" is an integral part of the theist
argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness independent of
the brain because there is no proof this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist
conjecture] is false, logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi
explains. Get it now?

 

[Virgil]

In article <2aOdnVgSFdD83pnYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Copi deals with a claim of necessity.
>
> The gullible might believe what you say

The gullible might as easily believe what Septic says, or anyone else,
but those than less gullible will believe the truth, that Septic lies
about what consttitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Septic's fallacy is to to conflate uncertainty about the truth of an
hypothesis with uncertainty in the statement of that hypothesis.

If one hypothesizes that something MUST be true, that is a different
hypothesis than if one hypothesizes that, as far as is known, something
MIGHT be true.

And the second form may be quite true, and even provable, when the first
is not known to be true, and may eventually prove false.


And any weakening of part (1) to less that "must be" will not produce an
argumentum ad ignorantiam.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)


Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven
false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume
that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
(This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all
propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As
Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
i. Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must
exist.
ii. Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur,
it probably won't.
iii. Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove
it, so it must be false.

 

[Steve O]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net...
>> >> > 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?
>> >>
>> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
>> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
>> > than a prophet.
>> >>
>> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days
>> would
>> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming.
>> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet.
>> Check your bible out if you don't believe me.
>>
> I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the
> prophet;
> or
> Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc.
>
> But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets
> are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old
> Testament
> prophets.
>
> But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my
> wife
> when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When
> General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would
> not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now you're just being plain silly.
It's a bloody prophecy.
I should know, I've seen a few.

>>
>> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would
>> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made
>> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point.
>>
> No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a
> prophet.

Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in order
to be considered a prophet?

> In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men
> say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough
> he had ample opportunity to do so.

Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations.

> He wasn't satisfied with these answers
> He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of
> the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself
> as a prophet.

Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a prophet,
but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen the
way he said they would, right?


--
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]

"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net...
>> >> > 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?
>> >>
>> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
>> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
>> > than a prophet.
>> >>
>> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days
>> would
>> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming.
>> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet.
>> Check your bible out if you don't believe me.
>>
> I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the
> prophet;
> or
> Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc.
>
> But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets
> are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old
> Testament
> prophets.
>
> But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my
> wife
> when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy. When
> General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would
> not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Now you're just being plain silly.
It's a bloody prophecy.
I should know, I've seen a few.

>>
>> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming would
>> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much made
>> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point.
>>
> No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as a
> prophet.

Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in order
to be considered a prophet?

> In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men
> say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough
> he had ample opportunity to do so.

Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations.

> He wasn't satisfied with these answers
> He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of
> the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of himself
> as a prophet.

Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a prophet,
but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen the
way he said they would, right?


--
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]

Virgil, if you want to discuss this, then don't try to evade the issue here.
You say, "Copi deals with a claim of necessity." That is not true, and you
know it, as indicated by the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that Copi
quotes, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' theist conjecture] Galileo
could not prove false!"

Now don't just snip this again, try to face up to your error like a man.

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mj6epF6fv71U1@individual.net...
>
> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3LUMg.52609$e9.14939@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:4mhoomF68mfeU1@individual.net...
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >>
> >> > No, Jesus was not a prophet, unless one is a Moslem. I think they
> >> > believe Jesus was one of the prophets. I believe he was much more
> >> > than a prophet.
> >> >>
> >> According to the new testament, Jesus PROHESIED that the end of days
> >> would
> >> come, and PROHESIED his return in the Second Coming.
> >> The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as a prophet.
> >> Check your bible out if you don't believe me.
> >>
> > I have, in the O.T it identifies them as prophets, i.e. Isaiah the
> > prophet;
> > or
> > Daniel the Prophet; or Jeremy the prophet or the prophet Moses etc.
> >
> > But no such appellation is given for a N.T. personality. When peophets
> > are mentioned in the N.T. It is prophets from the past that is Old
> > Testament
> > prophets.
> >
> > But Maybe you are right. I considered these to be promises. If I told my
> > wife
> > when I leave I will be back at 5: 00. This is not exactly a prophesy.
When
> > General Macarthur left the Philippines stated "I will return". I would
> > not think he considered this a prophesy. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> Now you're just being plain silly.
> It's a bloody prophecy.
> I should know, I've seen a few.
>
So you are saying that Macarthur prophesied and therefore was a prophet?
> >>
> >> However, as he prohesied that the end of days and the Second Coming
would
> >> occur within the lifetime of those around him, then that pretty much
made
> >> him a really crap prophet, so I might concede your point.
> >>
> > No, I disagree with this, no where in the N.T. Is Christ referred to as
a
> > prophet.
>
> Why do you assume one has to be referred to in a book as a prophet in
order
> to be considered a prophet?
>
Because it was always seemed to be the case. If I'm not mistaken the O.T.
identified the men considered prophets at one time another as Moses (or
whoever) the prophet.

>
> > In fact in Matt. 16:14 in response to his question who do men
> > say that I am? He did not identify himself as a prophet, eventhough
> > he had ample opportunity to do so.
>
> Derrr, no... but he made prophetic observations.
>
Here again he was much more.
>
> > He wasn't satisfied with these answers
> > He only accepted Peters response. that he was the Christ, the son of
> > the living God. There is no reason to think that Christ thought of
himself
> > as a prophet.
>
> Ooookaaaaaay..... he was a person who didn't think of himself as a
prophet,
> but nevertheless made prophesies anyway... which didn't actually happen
the
> way he said they would, right?
>
There is a verse which states, "God, who at different times and different
manners spoke _in_ the _past_ to the fathers by the fathers has in these
last days spoken to us by his son....". Not an exact quote.

This to me strongly implies that O/T. type prophets are no longer
needed.

But I will locate the quote if necessary.

Dan
>
> --
> 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:6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "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.
>
> No it is not a rebuttal

Of course it is. Anything that answers an opposing point of view is a
rebuttal. Nevertheless a rebuttal is not an argument unless it contains all
the elements of an argument. "No one knows for certain" does not contain
all the elements of an argument. It therefore is not an argument. It
therefore is not the argument from ignorance.

 

[Virgil]

In article <6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.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?
> >
> > Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone.
>
> No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no
> God" is a rebuttal.

Both are rebuttals to lying claims by Septic that, respectively state :
(1) Septic knows for certain that consciousness is entirely in the brain
(2) Septic knows for sure that there is no God.



Theists are not the ones making the hypothesis in this case, it is
agnostics who are hypothesizing that there might or might not be any
gods because neither the necessity not impossibility of gods has been
proved.

Similarly it is agnostics who are saying that consciousness may or may
not lie entirely within the brain because it has neither been proved to
lie entirely within the brain or not.

 

[Virgil]

In article <9didnSbYPZFs8ZnYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Virgil, if you want to discuss this, then don't try to evade the issue here.
> You say, "Copi deals with a claim of necessity." That is not true

Septic LIES!

Copi quotes the astronomers as saying "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect
sphere"

Copis does not quote them as saying " the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere.

Septic conflates the contents of statements with their truth. Which is,
in its own way, Septic committing an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The content of the statement claimed in an argumentum ad ignorantiam
must be an imperative, however tentative the truth of the statement may
be.

And "might be" is not sufficiently imperative.

So that Septic is LYING! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-FF9ABB.17110910092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <6uydnexH483O95nYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4502c52b$0$24173$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.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?
>> >
>> > Because it's a rebuttal that stands alone.
>>
>> No it is not a rebuttal any more than "Nobody knows for sure there is no
>> God" is a rebuttal.
>
> Both are rebuttals to lying claims by Septic that, respectively state :
> (1) Septic knows for certain that consciousness is entirely in the brain
> (2) Septic knows for sure that there is no God.

Speaking particularly with respect to the Mind/Body problem and the seat of
consciousness and so on.....

I think it's important again to remember the three rules of knowledge.

In order to "know" something.

1. We have to believe it's true.
2. We have to have sufficient reason to believe it's true [meaning logical
sufficiency].
3. It has to be true.

Obviously were there sufficient grounds to cover these three points, debates
on consciousness would not still be raging in many fields concerning
consciousness.

The fact is no one does 'know for sure.'

That's not an argument, it's simply a fact.