Re: Definition of God

"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.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
> ...
> "to suppose"

That means conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, son. 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?
 
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:4505f64b.37820218@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> 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.
>
I did not propose this as a real 2 dimension world situation.
So, neither or the afore mentioned professionals are required.

It seems that you do not understand the concept of the analogy.
>
> 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.
>
Need I repeat, I did not propose this as a real world situation.
<
Dan Wood, DDS
>
> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
>
 
Bob wrote:
> 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.

Having accidentally fallen into this thread... How is it that this
essenceless God which is only an idea held by millions of
people does not exist?

Are you saying that because I can lie I do not exist? Are
you saying that because I am only a story told by trillions
of cells I do not exist?

Perhaps you are trying to say that because the idea
does not perfectly match a referent it does not exist.
But if so then nothing exists, for there are no ideas
which completely or totally correctly describe
their referents -- except perhaps ideas, like "perfect
circle" which have no referents.

There are millions of people who adhere to this God,
and they act based upon the idea. From this action
something arises, just as I arise from the action of
cells. What is this something to be called if not
God?


>
> 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.


Heheh. I'm not going to try to specify any
essences at all.

>
> 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".

Here we agree, or I would have passed this by.

The Agnostic says "Interesting question."

> --
>
> "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
> --Mark Twain
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action.
 
Gandalf Grey wrote:

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

All you have is ad hominem attacks?
 
Virgil wrote:
> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote:
>
>> 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.

For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big.
We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that
half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there
somewhere.

> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position
> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally.

Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm
not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest
in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't
think I'd say that the question is unresolved.


--
--Bryan
 
In article <R9-dnfg9O-k6m5vYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>
> Don't act so stupid.


Septic should not try to give advice he cannot follow.
 
In article <l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> Atheism is not a viewpoint

Septic's viewpoint IS a viewpoint and a biased one, which claims that
everyone who is not a Gnostic anti-theist, like Septic, is his enemy.

And Septic's attitude towards neutral agnostics, and other reasonable
people, is enough to turn anyone who might start by being neutral into
enemies of Septic and all his fallacies.
 
Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot.

What, nothing but hate talk from a well known loser?
You lose!


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.
 
In article <2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... no proof either way.
>
>
>
> That is argument

That is fact. Unless Septic has proof one way or the other.

Well do you, punk?
 
In article <XaidnT09G-IGmJvYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> Atheism is not a viewpoint

Then Septic is not an atheist, because he is all viewpoint, and a lousy
one at that.
 
In article <JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God,"

And includes "There is no proof there is a god."

And hardly constitutes an argument for either side.

What pisses off Septic is that the neutrality of "No proof either way"
tends to make the bias and argumentum ad ignorantiam of Septic's
"Gods are impossible because of no proof there are any" too obvious to
ignore.
 
In article <Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> You really are a moron, aren't you?

Only to imbeciles like Septic, and other lower forms of life who can't
see any higher.
 
"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:4jpNg.701$IA.479@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Virgil wrote:
>> "Your Logic Tutor" wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big.
> We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that
> half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there
> somewhere.
>
>> Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position
>> demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally.
>
> Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm
> not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest
> in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't
> think I'd say that the question is unresolved.

I don't think I would be either. The question here is a bit more
fundamental. What it comes down to is the essential meaning of "might
be/might not be." Septic's position is that anytime someone says that
something isn't proven to be false, they MUST be saying that it MUST be
true. And anytime they say something isn't proven to be true, they MUST be
saying that it MUST be false. That kind of argument is the argument from
ignorance. Furthermore Septic's position is that saying that something
"might be" true is exactly equivalent to saying that it MUST be true, and to
say that something "might be" false is exactly equivalent to saying that it
MUST be false.

A moment's thought will convince you that this is not the case. We can all
question the amount of evidence for something's truth without actually
making an argument one way or the other. For example: suppose you ask me if
I know whether or not it will rain today. If I say "I don't know" it would
be absurd to accuse me of taking the position that it CAN'T be true that it
will rain today OR that it MUST be true that it will rain today.

One way of looking at the argument from ignorance is that it is a way of
warning us that an absence of evidence should never be taken as equivalent
to some kind of conclusion beyond the fact that there is an absence of
evidence. It should also be plain after some consideration that simply
pointing out that there is an absence of evidence is not in itself an
argument. For example, pointing out that there are gaps in the fossil
record has often been used as an argument that evolution is a failed theory
and that god must have created life on earth.

The argument goes....

1. There are gaps in the fossil record, therefore Darwin's theory of
evolution is wrong.
2. If Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong then God must have created life.

This argument fails for two reasons.

1. Statement one is the argument from ignorance.

There are gaps in the fossil record.
Scientist cannot offer physical proof as to what happened in those gaps
Therefore Darwinian evolution does not fully explain the fossil record
Therefore Darwinian evolution must be a failed theory.

2. The argument assumes that either evolution is completely correct and can
explain everything right now or God created life. This assumes that
Darwinian evolution vs Creationism are two arguments that are both mutually
exclusive and mutually exhaustive. This is the fallacy of the excluded
middle.

>
>
> --
> --Bryan
 
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gc7o7gk46n768@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>>> You lie and I correct your lies.
>>> You are the liar not me.
>>
>> You are a child.
>
> All you have is ad hominem attacks?

All you have is re-pasted dreck.
 
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gc95etd9ddg24@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot.
>
> What, nothing but hate talk from a well known loser?

Irony.
 
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XaidnT09G-IGmJvYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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]......

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:R9-dnfg9O-k6m5vYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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"......

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.
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:JpednaZz0b8pm5vYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "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,"

Which is not an argument.

Since it is not an argument
It is not the argument from ignorance

Likewise "there is no proof there is a god"
is not an argument.
Therefore it is not the argument from ignorance.

Either way, you lose, Septic
 
"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ju-dnQo1IcxylZvYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Needs 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.
>
> You really are a moron, aren't you?
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
>> ...
>> "to suppose"
>
> That means conjecture......

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!

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.
 

> 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 two dimesnional being would describe it as a line, popping into existence
from nowhere into the middle of their world, growing larger, shrinking , and
then vanishing.
Didn't you watch "Cosmos" or didn't you read "Flatlanders"?

>A resident of a water world gifted with a
> highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he
> cannot see,

You mean dolphins?
I beg to differ.
They are resident of a water world, have highly developed brains and can
comprehend thimgs they cannot see quite well by using sonar.


>We cannot always see reality.

Correction, reality is what we see.
(or feel, or detect)


Dan, you need to think things through a bit more.
Perhaps you could understand things a litttle better if you tried.
It would also help if you didn't stop using your brain when it comes to the
subject of God.


--
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?"
 

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