Re: Definition of God

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8LadncKt55v-QJjYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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 history is showing that you don't know what the argument from ignorance
is or how to apply it.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GrmdnSjVcLU1Q5jYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "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...

I think you can't answer the question.
 
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gblhninkr6f51@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... your bigoted viewpoints.
>
> Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint

Viewpoints are not simply opinions, my stupid little friend. The argument
from ignorance is a complex subject that you have never defended in your own
words. There are many logicians who have looked at the subject, there are
IN FACT, a number of recognized viewpoints toward it, and the subject has in
fact changed over the years from its introduction into philosophy by John
Locke.

The fact that you continuously misuse and abuse the term is evidence that
you've never actually made an attempt to understand the rule. You only use
it because you believe it to be a magic bumpersticker that can be hammered
into supporting your bigoted viewpoints.
 
In article <EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... your bigoted viewpoints.
>
> Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint

But Septicism is a highly bigoted viewpoint, which cannot even that
other viewpoints mean what they say, and no more, but must falsely
reinterpret what others say as seen through the filter of his own
extreme bias.

And Since Septic puts his Septicism before atheism or anything else,
Septic's Septicismic viewpoint is extremely bigoted.



> 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

What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or
might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way.

Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position
demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally.
 
In article <8LadncKt55v-QJjYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


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

No one else has anywhere near an notorious a history as Septic here.


Septic's Handles - Alphabetical by name , a partial listing, with date
of first know use.

ABC <abc@hotmail.com> 9-Jul-2003
Abu ben Hogan (benhogan@nospamhotmail.com) 21-Sep-2002
Ace (dralford@pacificrim.net) 17-Nov-1995
Al (arc@nospam.com) 20-Nov-2003
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> 6-Jul-2003
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> 3-Aug-2003
Arno <arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com> 13-Jan-2004
Arnold (arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com) 5-Feb-2004
Art <art300001@hotmailspamblock.com> 28-Jan-2004
Art2 (art2300001@hotmailspamblock.com) 28-Jan-2004
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnos...@nospam.net> 2-Feb-2005
B. Corporeal <bcorp392@hotmail.com> 1-Jan-2004
B. Corporel (bcorp39874@hotmail.com) 1-Dec-2003
Ben <someone @microsoft.com> 2-Jun-2003
bfskinner bfskinner@my-deja.com 14-May-2000
Bill Gates <billg@microsaused.com> 7-Jul-2003
Bo Hica <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 3-Jun-2000
Bob D. <bobd2004@comcast.com> 6-May-2003
Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> 14-Jul-2003
Boggs <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com> 5-Dec-2001
Boggs <muddyboggs@hotmail.com> 27-Jul-2004
Bullet <bul...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006
C Ketchikan (cj@ket.net) 31-Jul-2003
C. Tailor (ct98229@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003
Creon <douglacia@nospamathome.com> 19-May-2000
D R <nospam@please.com> 12-Jul-1998
D. Wolfe (wolfe@stancion.com) 19-Jul-2003
Deep Thought <d...@algia.org> 12-Jun-2005
Deep Thought <deepthou...@nospam.net> 5-Jun-2005
Dick Dragon <Matt-Sweetman-Is-A-Fraud@alloverthe.net> 25-Jun-2000
Dick Dragon <nospam@all.net> 8-Jun-2000
Diesel <abuse-mail@uu.net> 5-Sep-1999
Diixiit <diiix@nospam.com> 14-Jun-2004
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> 29-Mar-2004
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> 31-Mar-2004
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> 17-May-2004
Donald Alford <donald_alford@email.msn.com> 26-Aug-1998
Donald Alford <dralford@pacificrim.net> 1-May-1995
Donald Alford <y3kSPAM@uswest.net> 16-Apr-1999
Donald R. Alford (DRAlford@gnn.com) 15-Sep-1996
DR Feelgood <drfeelgood3000@hotmailspamblock.com> 17-Jul-2003
Dr. Sinster <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 29-Jun-2000
Dr. Sinster <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net> 18-Jun-2000
Dr. Sister <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Dr. Sister <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net> 20-Jun-2000
Duck <quacker@webfoot.net> 31-Oct-2003
eggs (eggs@nospam.com) 29-Nov-2004
Frazier <fraz@stones.com> 30-Jul-1999
Fred <someone@amazon.com> 6-Oct-1999
Fred Skinner <nospam@all.all> 29-Oct-1998
Fred Skinner <y3k@NOSPAMuswest.net> 3-Mar-1999
Frisbyterian <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Frisbyterian Skeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 26-Jun-2000
Gawud <dad@home.com> 11-Jan-2001
George g...@nospam.com 13-Jun-2006
Hans <hansv@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002
Hans Van M. <hansv@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002
Ho Hum (spam@spam.com) 27-Apr-2002
Ho Hum <hohum@weareallone.net> 21-May-1999
Ho Hum <nospam@forme.please> 7-Jun-1999
Hum <hohum2001@my-deja.com> 19-Aug-1999
Huxley <someone@microsoft.com> 30-Jun-2001
Hy (hrh@hrh.net) 20-Nov-2003
I M Notajoiner <nospam@all.atall> 27-Aug-1998
Ima Skeptic Too <Dad@home.com> 1-Jul-2000
Incubus <i...@in.net> 15-Mar-2005
Jaco Bandolim (jband@sparknode.com) 6-Jan-2004
Jaco Mandolin (jmand@sparknode.com) 8-Jan-2004
Jake <j@nospam.net> 20-Feb-2005
JHC j...@nospam.net 16-Apr-2005
John McTavish <jmctavish@hootmon.net> 31-Oct-2003
Jones <j...@nospam.net> 5-Aug-2005
JR1 (jr1@jr.com) 22-Nov-2003
JR2 (jr2@jr.com) 23-Nov-2003
KB <kb@hotmail.com> 19-Jun-2003
KBC <kbc@westlink.cop> 24-Jun-2003
Krait Bungarus Caeruleus <kbc@wesltink.com> 18-Jun-2003
Loadnlock <l...@nospam.net> 17-Apr-2005
Long <long@nospam.net> 16-Jan-2005
Mac <m...@nospam.net> 9-Nov-2005
MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 8-Jun-2005
MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006
McSweeny <mcs@hootmon.com> 14-Oct-2002
Mekkala's Alleged \Blithering ****ing
Idiot\ <slimshady@mnm.com> 18-Nov-2003
Miller <m...@miler.org> 15-Nov-2005
Muddy Boggs <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com> 4-Mar-2002
muddyboggs muddyboggs@hotmail.com 19-Dec-2001
Navigator (nav@nav.com) 10-Feb-2004
Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> 1-Mar-2004
Nick <nospam@all.all> 20-Aug-2002
Oil-O-Matic <aikin@nospam.com> 27-May-2003
one <one@world.net> 22-Jul-1999
OS XI oes...@gmail.com 8-Nov-2005
Otto <ottumwa3001@hotmailt.com> 13-Jun-2003
Page Downey (pd98229@hotmail.com) 29-Oct-2003
Paige Downey (pd98229@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003
Pat <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003
Pat Hand <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003
PBJ <pbj@nospam.com> 9-Jul-2003
Pesche <pes...@nospam.net> 9-May-2005
Peter <p...@wherisya.com> <p...@wherisya.com> 5-Jun-2006
Pitt <p....@....com> 8-May-2006
Proulx <pru@az.net> 4-May-2003
PsychStudent <psychstudent@earth.net> 3-Aug-1999
Ray <ray@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003
Rhode Island Red <rirrooster2000@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003
Richo <richo98...@hotmail.com> 17-Nov-2005
Rien <r...@nospam.com> 18-May-2006
Roger Bush <roger@bush.com> 21-Dec-2002
Romeo <romeo@shakespear.net> 24-Jun-2003
Rooster <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Sep-2002
Rooster <nospam@all.all> 24-Jul-2002
Rooster <rooster@hotmail.com> 23-Sep-2002
Salmon Loaf <sal097236@hotmail.com> 21-Aug-2003
Sam Jankis <s...@nospam.net> 15-May-2005
Sam Spade <sspade@hotmail.com> 15-Oct-2002
Sheikh Yapeter <s...@comcast.com> 20-Jun-2006
Shleptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 22-Jun-2000
Skeptic <abuse-mail@uu.net> 4-Sep-1999
Skeptic <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 14-Nov-1999
Skeptic <Dad@home.com> 2-Jul-2000
Skeptic <nospam@all.all> 18-Aug-1999
Skeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000
Skeptic <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000
Skeptic Schemeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 23-Jun-2000
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> 11-Mar-2004
Slim (slimshady@mnm.com) 17-Nov-2003
Smith <nospam@all.all> ?
Spike Nail <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 28-Apr-2003
SquareKnot <SquareK...@nospam.net> 7-Oct-2005
Stanley Leverlock <stan@nospam.com> 27-May-2003
Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever <stan@nospam.com> 2-Jun-2003
Steven V. Snyder <2098snyder360@hootmail.com> 11-Nov-2002
Sven <svh@nospam.com> 14-Nov-2003
T. Jefferson <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 1-Mar-2003
The Other Alan <otheralan@nospam.com> 6-Apr-2004
The Theeeenker <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000
The Theenker <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 1-Jul-2000
The Thinkerator <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 30-Jun-2000
Threeball Hall <hall31728@hotmail.com> 3-Aug-2003
Tiger <T...@nospam.net> 12-Jul-2005
Tim <tim3000@nospam.com> 16-Jul-2003
todd t...@rog.com 8-Nov-2005
Todd Field toadfrog3001@hotmail.com 6-Jun-2001
Tom Wetsuit <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 6-Jul-2000
Tygasi tygasi@tygasi.net 30-Jan-2005
Vital Basics <vb32987@hotmail.com> 19-Aug-2003
Whitey <tonyb@hotmail.com> 31-May-2003
Whosya Daddy <Dad@home.com> 1-Jul-2000
Wolf Blister <wolf@uunet.com> 25-Mar-2003
X <X@nospam.net> 8-Oct-2004
XL XL@XL.net 17-Dec-04
Y3K oilomatic@hotmail.com 15-Jan-2003
Y3K (y3k@netscrape.com) 29-Dec-2003
Y3K <y3k@hotmail.com> 1-Jun-2003
Yoda <yoda@hotmail.com> 28-Sep-2002
Your Logic Tutor <muddybo...@hotmail.com> 1-Jul-2006
Zogby z...@comcast.com 9-Jul-2006
 
In article <4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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?

Septic again deliberately conflates the what an hypothesis says with
whether it is true or not.

The Astronomers in Copi's example said "is in fact". Whether what they
said was actually "in fact" true is quite independent of the certainty
with which they claimed it. But when someone does not claim "in fact"
but only that something "might or might not be", then there is no way to
claim an argumentum ad ignorantiam without lying.

Since Septic does claim it, he convicts himself of lying once more.
>
>
> Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning:
> hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition,
> belief, faith

The certainty, or lack of it, in the truth of a statement is totally
independent of the form of the statement, and it is the form of that
statement which determines whether an argumentum ad ignorantiam exists.

On can be guilty of an argumentum ad ignorantiam when makings a true
statement, and be innocent of argumentum ad ignorantiam when making a
false statement, since it depends only on the form, and not the content.

Septic describes only the content and carefully ignores the form. form.

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

But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
argumentum ad ignorantiam. if one declares oneself uncertain, as we
agnostics do when we say that as far as we know there might or might not
be any gods, no argumentum ad ignorantiam can exist.

Perhaps the little boy in Septic just never grew up enough to be able
to admit when he was so grievously and repeatedly wrong.
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in
<MvlNg.18630$IM1.4403@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
>
>"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.

Really? What evidence do you have?

>The inhabitants of a two
>dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions.

I see that you have never met a mathematician.

>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.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints.
> >
> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint
>
> Viewpoints <BITCHSLAP!>

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

Is this too difficult for your tiny brain to absorb?

Now 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?
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... no proof either way.

<BITCHSLAP!>

That is argument from ignorance, 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.]
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:28:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>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.

The real question is what is the essence of this God they claim
exists. You can't provide references to something 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".

>I don't think you get anywhere with this.

Yet this is the single most important consideration in the
theist/atheist debate. Neither side can't specify the essence of the
God they are referring to. Therefore they both refer to a God that
does not exist to begin with.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two
>dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions.

Straw man. It is not possible for a two-dimensional universe to exist.

>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.

You are an agnostic.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain
 
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:24:34 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>>The inhabitants of a two
>>dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions.

>I see that you have never met a mathematician.

Worse yet he has never met a physicist.

The laws of physics require a 4-dimensional spacetime, at a minimum.
Anything less than those 4 dimensions would cause certain laws of
physics to diverge.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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'

Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really
not a part of it.

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

A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) is a suggested explanation of a
phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between
multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai
meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that
one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such
hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints.
>> >
>> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint
>>
>> Viewpoints

Viewpoints are not simply opinions, my stupid little friend. The argument
from ignorance is a complex subject that you have never defended in your own
words. There are many logicians who have looked at the subject, there are
IN FACT, a number of recognized viewpoints toward it, and the subject has in
fact changed over the years from its introduction into philosophy by John
Locke.

The fact that you continuously misuse and abuse the term is evidence that
you've never actually made an attempt to understand the rule. You only use
it because you believe it to be a magic bumpersticker that can be hammered
into supporting your bigoted viewpoints.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> ... no proof either way.
>
> <BITCH.....

"No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance, because it's not an
argument at all.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4505fc11$0$24206$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints.
> >> >
> >> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint
> >>
> >> Viewpoints

[unsnip]

<BITCHSLAP!>

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

Is this too difficult for your tiny brain to absorb?

Now 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?
 
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:4505f5de.37710718@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two
> >dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions.
>
> Straw man. It is not possible for a two-dimensional universe to exist.
>
> >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.
>
> You are an agnostic.
>
It's interesting I been called everything from an atheist to a fundy
an now an agnostic.
>
Dan
> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
>
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:DahNg.6259$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'
>
> Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really
> not a part of it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
> ...
> "to suppose"

That means 'might be' conjecture, moron. Snap out of it!

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?
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >> ... no proof either way.
> >
> > <BITCHSLAP>.....
>
> "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ...

<BITCHSLAP>

"No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," right?
Yes. And that is just the lame theist attempt to shift the burden of proof
to the atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you theists do.
Got it now?

It is the same lame argument from ignorance these theists of Galileo's time
are trying to get away with, but Galileo called them on it:

<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.]
 

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