Re: Definition of God

[Bob]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:58:57 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >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.

If the shoe fits...


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[Bob]

On 11 Sep 2006 18:36:12 -0700, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> 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.

>How is it that this essenceless God

Such a God does not exist in the realist objective ontological world.

Maybe that will help you sort out the massive confusion you suffer
from.


--

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> "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.

I post facts, you post nonsense.
Now you are down to merely post ad
hominems as you realize you dont
have any facts.

Dualism is a bad error from Descartes.
Nobody but metaphysical oriented idiots
take it seriously.

Brain states are conciousness as the facts
show, which facts you are utterly ignorant
of, as is Virgil.

There is no metaphysical mind "out there"
beyond the brain, that suggestion is metaphysical
nonsense, argument from ignorance, no proof for
that, just a statement that ignores many lines
of hard evidence conciousness is a property
of a highly evolved brain.



--

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

 

[wcb]

Bryan Olson wrote:

> 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.
>
>

There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or
A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and
take over the planet.

As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things
that might or might not be.

--

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

 

[Dan Wood]

"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4mn5acF6os66U1@individual.net...
>
>
>
> > 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 little better if you tried.
> It would also help if you didn't stop using your brain when it comes to
the
> subject of God.
>
Everything I wrote, Steve is strictly imaginary and purely
supposition.
Not a real universe. And _only_ to make a point that we
do not see everything. My dog hears and sees thing
I cannot. This is not supposition. Yet, I cannot, this
does not make it unreal?

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]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45063fd9$0$24184$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "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$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >>
> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > newsahNg.6259$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!!!!!!!!!!

Buzz all you want, it doesn't alter the fact that to suppose means 'might
be' conjecture.

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

Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning:
hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, supposition,
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?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote :


> ... For example: suppose

You mean do some 'might be' conjecture?


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?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gdbnr826ucuab@corp.supernews.com...
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or
> A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and
> take over the planet.
>
> As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things
> that might or might not be.

Contrary to what Virgil and GG are saying, agnosticism does NOT entail
agreeing with the theists that there might be a god anyway, even though
there is no such thing in evidence, agnosticism is the rightful denial and
repudiation of any religious doctrine like Christianity or Islam for
example, that there are propositions like the tenets of Christianity or
Islam for example, that people ought to believe without logically
satisfactory evidence.

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html


"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6JednWM-dsvUeJvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote :
>
>
>> ... For example: suppose
>
> You mean...

It's not possible for the interested reader to see what anyone 'means' when
you snip 99% of a post. If you want to start discussing things rationally,
stop pasting bumpersticker replies, and stop editing the efforts of your
opponents to express themselves.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aqednc6bR_NRfpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45063fd9$0$24184$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "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$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> >> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > newsahNg.6259$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!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Buzz all you want.....

And conjecture still isn't equivalent to a hypothesis.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gdbnr826ucuab@corp.supernews.com...
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or
> A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and
> take over the planet.
>
> As agnostics,

You're not an agonostic. You're a full fledged anti-theist.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gdbdmfn4l2sb4@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> I post facts,

Not to date.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... the neutrality of "No proof either way"

That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be
called neutrality, the fact of the matter is that you are demanding proof
there is no god when by all rights the non-believers have NOTHING (no thing)
to prove in this case, only theists do. Get it? Google burden of proof.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:45063f8b$0$24170$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "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.

Yes it definitely is, it is the same old lame old 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.]

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GJOdnTWNNsvVd5vYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> ... the neutrality of "No proof either way"
>
> That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be
> called neutrality,

Of course it is. The admission that there is no evidence for something
combines both honesty and the willingness to suspend judgment.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zoGdnSe0GK0ZdpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45063f8b$0$24170$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Yes it definitely is,

Which includes there is no proof that there is a god.

 

[Virgil]

In article <GJOdnTWNNsvVd5vYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... the neutrality of "No proof either way"
>
> That is not in any way, shape, or form anything that could reasonably be
> called neutrality, the fact of the matter is that you are demanding proof
> there is no god when by all rights the non-believers have NOTHING (no thing)
> to prove in this case, only theists do. Get it? Google burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies with those trying to establish the truth of a
claim.

If those who, like Septic, claim that gods are impossible, wish to
establish that claim, they bear the burden of establishing it.

We who are only claiming absence of any claim re existence of gods need
do no more than declare that absence.

 

[Bryan Olson]

wcb wrote:
> There might be an Easter Bunny, or 1 million gods, or
> A conspiracy of leprechauns to destroy humanity and
> take over the planet.

Your parents put out the candy and eggs. You can relax about
the leprechauns; it's all in your head. The gods? Well, I've
counted all I could find and my total is much lower.

> As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things
> that might or might not be.

In most cases we're asked to admit such things, we should
instead roll our eyes and say something like "get a grip on
reality". We do not require the exhaustive list of what is
real merely to recognize what is myth.


--
--Bryan

 

[Virgil]

In article <k8mdnbKkU8iZdZvYnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> > As agnostics, we should admit there are lots of things
> > that might or might not be.
>
> Contrary to what Virgil and GG are saying, agnosticism does NOT entail
> agreeing with the theists that there might be a god anyway

It is impossible to "agree with theists" in support of any such
statement so directly contrary to all theism.

Theists say "must be", gnostic anti-theists like Septic say "can't be",
we agnostics say "might or might not be as far a we know".

Why Septic feels compelled to lie so vociferously about either the
theist position or the agnostic one, he does not explain.





>
> "That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
> doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
> logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
> 'agnostic', http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

That's us! We reject both theist and anti-theist claims of certainty,
preferring to remain undecided in the absence of logically satisfactory
evidence either way.

Septic should try it, he might find he likes it.

 

[Virgil]

In article <aqednc6bR_NRfpvYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," in the following, is there?

The declaration "the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" is certainly
certain.
>
<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!

</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)