Re: Definition of God

In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
>
> > Copi quotes ...
>
> Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad
> ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends

Septic LIES again.

The atronomers' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"

Our agnostic confession of ignorance says "it might or might not be the
case that"

It is the form of the statement itself, not whether or not it is an
hypothesis, which is critical in qualifying such a statement as part of
an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Septic's Gnostic claim that there cannot be any gods because there is no
proof any exist IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Our agnostic confession of ignorance is not.

If Septic would only admit to his error like a man instead of continuing
his snide lies, we might make some progress here.
 
In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
> > >
> > >> Copi quotes ...
> > >
> > > Copi quotes ...
> >
> > Copi represents only one viewpoint ...
>
> It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron

Copi's viewpoint that shows Septic to be a liar and a poltoon.

To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must
declare certainty, as in Copi's example, " it is a fact that", not the
uncertainty of our agnostic "might or might not be" admissions of
ignorance.

A good example of such certainty is Septic's own claims that gods are
impossible.
 
In article <Ef2dneio3KDrMJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >... your religious bigotry
>
> Atheism is not a religion, moron

But athiests in general, and anti-theists like Septic, in particular,
are not immune from committing bigotry, or any other "sins".

Septic repeatedly commits the logical sin of falsely calling confessions
of ignorance argumenta ad ignorantiam, when they do not argue anything.

And Septic repeatedly commits the logical sin of argumentum ad hominem,
as in that above "moron" claim.

And Septic himself commits the logical sin of argumentum ad ignorantiam,
of which he accuses so many innocents, when he claims gods cannot exist
because there is no proof they can.
 
In article <toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> > news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Virgil wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being
> > >> found out.
> > >>
> > >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
> > >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
> > >>
> > >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable of
> > >> supporting consciousness.
> > >
> > > No brain, no conciousness.
> >
> > Correlation does not equal causation.
>
> Are you still trying to argue from ignorance that there might be
> consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that hypothesis is
> false?

That is Septic's argument, not Gandalfs.

While a brain may well be necessary for consciousness, it has not been
shown by itself to be sufficient, which issue is sufficient to justify
Gandalf's questioning of Septic's dogmatism.

So Septic's doggy behavior and deliberate misrepresentataion of
Galdalf's question again puts Septic in the wrong.

In the wrong seems lately to be Septic's only place.
 
Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12gb7ej94cb31ad@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being
>>>>> found out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
>>>>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
>>>>> of supporting consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> No brain, no conciousness.
>>>
>>> Correlation does not equal causation.
>>
>>
>> As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you
>> snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems
>
> 1. Dualism causes problems with or without god.
> 2. Dualism is not the only avenue down which the Mind/Body problem goes.

Mind is either a brain state or it is not.

That is why they call it dualism.

You are ignorant indeed.

It us a brain state, min is known only to exist with
things with complex brains and is dependent on a working,
undamaged brain.

Mind is a collection of brain states, a bundle
of states.

Mind does not work well if you have an aphasia
or some problem. people with no abilities
to form long term memories and other similar problams
demonstrate mind is nor one thing.

People with specific damage, strkes etc show specific
changes in mind states.

This is not new except to you.

Mind is what the brain does. Specific parts of the human brain
are often responsible for specific brain states.
Damage to a specific part of a brain will affect a specific
aspect of mind.
The damage in many cases is well understood and why that
part of a brain is damaged causes these effects.

> Because you're ignorant of the actual debate, you as usual tend to see
> everything through the blinkers your religious bigotry has created.

You are ignorant of the debate, science, logic, reason
and rationality.

You are a bloviating ignorami with a defective mind.


The irrational blather of dualists and idealists
are something you cannot be expected to know anything
about as you have a proven lack iof thinking and
logic ability.





--

Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?

Cheerful Charlie
 
In article <KOKdnX5X250qLZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > >>
> > >> "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 ...
> > >
> > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem,
> >
> > A big problem for you.
>
> No, a big problem for your side, since it is your side championing the
> argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness without a brain

Where does Septic see that, except in his own disordered "mind"?

Gandalf's actual statements and questions are quite consistent with a
brain being necessary but not sufficient for consciousness.

So can Septic demonstrate that a rain in isolations from everything else
is capable of consciousness?

Perhaps Septic would like to volunteer his own brain for testing this
issue?
 
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gbep5edisjd94@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12gb7ej94cb31ad@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and being
>>>>>> found out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
>>>>>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
>>>>>> of supporting consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>> No brain, no conciousness.
>>>>
>>>> Correlation does not equal causation.
>>>
>>>
>>> As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you
>>> snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems
>>
>> 1. Dualism causes problems with or without god.
>> 2. Dualism is not the only avenue down which the Mind/Body problem goes.
>
> Mind is either a brain state or it is not.
>
> That is why they call it dualism.

And God is not necessary for mind to be other than a brain state.

So again, you're a liar.
 
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158002220.768586.236830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>> "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
>> > news:DfidnVq43_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 wrote:

>
> While a brain may well be necessary for consciousness, it has not been
> shown by itself to be sufficient, which issue is sufficient to justify
> Gandalf's questioning of Septic's dogmatism.

It has been so shown.

1. Biologically there is no nned for some mysterious
something other than brain, synapses, nerve cells,
and their underlying biochemistry. Conciousness is
a bundle of brain functons.

Example as related in Francis Crick's "The Amazing Hyposthesis",
a woman had a stroke and went into a coma. She was hospitalized
and brain scans showed a small a very localized area of the brain
that had been the focus of the physical damage by teh stroke. Quick
hospitalization and excellent care allowed her to revive without
permanent brain damage.
It turns out she was not in a coma, she was very awake and aware
of all that happened around her. As she explained it, she just lacked
any will to do anything, she had lost the ability to purposefully act.
Since it is now easy and routine to scan stroke patients like this to find
out what part of the brain is suffering physical damage and the amount and
kind of damage, science is building up unpredented maps of the
brain and its functions.
We now know what small part of the brain plays a big function in
conciousness, and will.




2. Pretending that somehow mind is not part of the brain
leads to all sorts of useless, unsatisfying 'explanations'
that explain nothing and need explaining themselves.

To insist these may be possible is argument from ignorance.

These ideas soon lead to ludicrous self defeating
of Malabranche, Descarte's idiocies about pineal glands,
occasionalism, parallelism and other claims relying on existence
of a god whose existance is disprovable.

Other attempts to deal with this, idealism for example,
again, are eiher not provable, are unlikely, lead to ludicrous
nonsense, or rely on a disprovable god.


--

Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?

Cheerful Charlie
 
Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:12gbep5edisjd94@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12gb7ej94cb31ad@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and
>>>>>>> being found out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
>>>>>>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
>>>>>>> of supporting consciousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No brain, no conciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correlation does not equal causation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you
>>>> snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems
>>>
>>> 1. Dualism causes problems with or without god.
>>> 2. Dualism is not the only avenue down which the Mind/Body problem goes.
>>
>> Mind is either a brain state or it is not.
>>
>> That is why they call it dualism.
>
> And God is not necessary for mind to be other than a brain state.
>
> So again, you're a liar.

You lie and I correct your lies.
You are the liar not me.

As I showed you, omnigenesis shows us all brain states,
all acts of ours MUST be god's specific doing if god
exists as creator of all and is either omniscient or omnipotent.

God predestinates all we do according to Quran and
Bible, see Romans 8-11.

God is part and parcel of all this.

Outside of god, the idea that mind is
outside the body is dead. There is not a single
trace of evidence for that and that includes any
sort of mechanism for that to occur.

There are good reasons to see mind, conciousness and
as a brain state as brain state can be disrupted and
thus such things, but not as unitary wholes.
Showing mind is not outside teh brain and not a unitary whole.

The large numbers of people known to science with peculiar
aphasias due the very specific kinds of damage to specific
parts of the brain known to be involved with things like memory
debunk yoiu utterly and totally.

Obvioulsy, you are blazing ignorant of any of this and thus are not in any
position to start shouting "Liar!", especially with your history of being a
liar yourself.

The idea that mind is outside the brain is as dead as vitalism.
Its for religious freaks and ignorami strictly.
Its disproven and is about on the same level as spontaneus
generation of life, vitalism and the phologiston theory of
combustion.

It lingers like god of the gaps in ignorance and
know-nothingism.



--

Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?

Cheerful Charlie
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:fjiNg.10665$xQ1.3472@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > Virgil wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and
being
> >> >> found out.
> >> >>
> >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
> >> >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
> >> >>
> >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
> >> >> of
> >> >> supporting consciousness.
> >> >
> >> > No brain, no conciousness.
> >>
> >> Correlation does not equal causation.
> >
> > Are you still trying to argue
>
> Does the sentence above look like an argument?

Do you think the clock get set back to zero every time you post? You have a
history you know.

My question is are you still trying to argue from ignorance that there might
be
consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that hypothesis is
false?
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:fjiNg.10665$xQ1.3472@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > Virgil wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and
being
> >> >> found out.
> >> >>
> >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
> >> >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
> >> >>
> >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
> >> >> of
> >> >> supporting consciousness.
> >> >
> >> > No brain, no conciousness.
> >>
> >> Correlation does not equal causation.
> >
> > Are you still trying to argue
>
> Does the sentence above look like an argument?

Do you think the clock get set back to zero every time you post some more of
your same old lame old drivel, moron? You have a history you know.

Isn't there a theist hypothesis that there might be consciousness without a
brain (you know, an eternal soul, or something)?

My question is are you still trying to argue from ignorance that there might
be consciousness without a brain because there is no proof that hypothesis
is
false?
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-949515.13415711092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <KOKdnX5X250qLZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > >
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> "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 ...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem,
> > >
> > > A big problem for you.
> >
> > No, a big problem for your side, since it is your side championing the
> > argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be
> > consciousness without a brain because there is no proof there isn't.
>
> Where does Tutor see that?

Up above here in this thread of discussion. Are you new here, and can't
figure out how to follow a thread?
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

> ... your bigoted viewpoints.

Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof
there isn't now that you have been informed that is logical fallacy for
which theists are famous as, Copi explains?
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:37:04 GMT, in alt.atheism
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in
<450556c2.2593625@news-server.houston.rr.com>:
>I think by now the point has been made that I wanted to make when I
>started this thread.
>
>Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists
>or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or
>tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you
>claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a
>God that does not exist.

Yet religious zealots insist they have evidence for the existence of
God. When pressed on the matter, they fail to provide references for
such evidence.

>Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is
>extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms.
>Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course
>of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person
>has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking
>on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting.
>
>Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational
>fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is
>something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but
>it is not what you claim it is".

I don't think you get anywhere with this.
 
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:450556c2.2593625@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> I think by now the point has been made that I wanted to make when I
> started this thread.
>
> Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists
> or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or
> tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you
> claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a
> God that does not exist.
>
> Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is
> extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms.
> Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course
> of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person
> has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking
> on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting.
>
> Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational
> fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is
> something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but
> it is not what you claim it is".
>
There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two
dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions.
So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling
into their world? A resident of a water world gifted with a
highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he
cannot see, We cannot always see reality. Until the
Hubble, we could not see planets circling a star in Orion.
That doesn't mean they were not there.
When electricity was first discovered it was a curious
phenonium without any visible cause.

Dan Wood,
DDS
>
> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
>
 
In article <GrmdnSjVcLU1Q5jYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fjiNg.10665$xQ1.3472@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > >>
> > >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> > Virgil wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and
> being
> > >> >> found out.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
> > >> >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is capable
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> supporting consciousness.
> > >> >
> > >> > No brain, no conciousness.
> > >>
> > >> Correlation does not equal causation.
> > >
> > > Are you still trying to argue
> >
> > Does the sentence above look like an argument?

> Isn't there a theist hypothesis that there might be consciousness without a
> brain (you know, an eternal soul, or something)?

Not unless Septic himself is hypothesizing it.

As far as I can see, the only question is whether a naked brain in vacuo
is enough by itself to maintain consciousness, according to Septic's
Gnostic hypothesis, or whether the brain might need some help in
maintaining that consciousness, as seems likely enough to those less
enamoured of their own prejudices.
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :
> > > >
> > > >> Copi quotes ...
> > > >
> > > > Copi quotes ...
> > >
> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ...
> >
> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron
>
> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must
> declare certainty

Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be'
conjecture. How many times do you have to be reminded?


Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning:
hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition,
belief, faith


And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally
probable hypothesis," in the following, is there?

<quote>
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.]

Will you ever be able to get this through your thick skull, son?
 
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gbmqi5e57ncd3@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:12gbep5edisjd94@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12gb7ej94cb31ad@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and
>>>>>>>> being found out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be
>>>>>>>> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is
>>>>>>>> capable
>>>>>>>> of supporting consciousness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No brain, no conciousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correlation does not equal causation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, being so honest and intellectually honest, you
>>>>> snip the rest. Dualism causes severe theological problems
>>>>
>>>> 1. Dualism causes problems with or without god.
>>>> 2. Dualism is not the only avenue down which the Mind/Body problem
>>>> goes.
>>>
>>> Mind is either a brain state or it is not.
>>>
>>> That is why they call it dualism.
>>
>> And God is not necessary for mind to be other than a brain state.
>>
>> So again, you're a liar.
>
> You lie and I correct your lies.
> You are the liar not me.

You are a child.
 
In article <_8adnYy9SMUiQpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-949515.13415711092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <KOKdnX5X250qLZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4504b95f$0$24208$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:GNGdnUJYmJNeKJnYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:45036d0a$0$24176$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "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 ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I know, and that is a big problem,
> > > >
> > > > A big problem for you.
> > >
> > > No, a big problem for your side, since it is your side championing the
> > > argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be
> > > consciousness without a brain because there is no proof there isn't.
> >
> > Where does Tutor see that?
>
> Up above here in this thread of discussion. Are you new here, and can't
> figure out how to follow a thread?

Does Septic have an exact quote from Gandalf arguing that a brain was
not necessary?

The way I read Gandalf's actual words, what he said was consistent with
a brain being necessary but not yet proven to be sufficient.

And unless Septic can show otherwise,
Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!
 

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