Re: Definition of God

[stoney]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:59:06 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:eupgg2lcm039kv0upvel38lr68a4rip459@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:27:36 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Dan Wood wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to
>those
>> >> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,
>> >forthright
>> >> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing
>honest
>> >> >> and sincere discussions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day,
>> >> >> Dan
>> >> >
>> >> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity
>> >>
>> >> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
>> >> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
>> >>
>> >Such is bound for punnishment.
>>
>> Rapunnzel Rapunnzel.
>>
>> Free clue Dan; when a character has omni characteristics all results are
>> as it wants it.
>>
>Sorry I must disagree.

Omni=all, Dan. Anything less isn't omni. Don't blame me for the
idiocies in the Bible, I didn't write the rubbish. How conveniently
Christians ignore what is written in their tome.

>There was, as I see it, only two options. We
>would live strictly according to deterministic dictates (puppets
>on a string) or by free will.

According to the Bible, all are mere actors hitting our marks and
spouting their lines as scripted in a pointless play written eons ago.

>I appreciate and respect your thoughts,
>Dan




--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:53:27 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:m2qgg25d2q2aacnblbd4lclrf2v8b6boch@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:51:11 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:c5stf2p772bpbiaefvi8ulgs16bm2lpciu@4ax.com...
>>
>> []
>>
>> >> >Chris, otoh, thought we were miles apart. One example:
>> >> >in applying the laws of physics we can go to go back to
>> >> >Planck Time. But, where we disagreed, imho, was the
>> >> >period beyond Planck Time. My position was that while
>> >> >some kind of physics was at work during this epoch i.e.
>> >> >T0 - 10^-43 secs. This was were no modern laws of
>> >> >physics as we understand them.
>> >>
>> >> I would agree about 'no modern laws...' but am uncertain about if 'some
>> >> kind of physics' is even a player.
>> >>
>> >The laws of physics break down at 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang.
>>
>> I know.
>>
>>
>> >For this reason we cannot extrspolate beyond Planck Time with the same
>> >degree of confidence.
>>
>> Agreed. That's why I said I was uncertain if 'some kind of physics'
>> applied.
>>
>This is old news, but Chris and I were not so far apart. I think we were
>talking past each other.

That happens quite often.



--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:50:17 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:949hg297v5tf1e0e1ho1k1onbbruvhgua0@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:35:44 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> >>>news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >>>> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me.
>If
>> >>>> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless
>you
>> >>>> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
>needs
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> read the Christian bible.
>> >>>> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
>wrathful
>> >>>> killer.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>> >>>> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
>innocent
>> >>>> >>people.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And that God is different from the Christian God in what way,exactly?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
>named
>> >>>> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>> >>>> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, or
>> >>>> did
>> >>>> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>> >>>New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
>> >>
>> >> No change then.
>> >
>> >I think he's trying to say that God became a born again Christian when
>Jesus
>> >arrived on the scene...
>>
>> If so, no change then.
>>
>If you are going to be critical of Christanity, at least know somethingt
>about it.

Projection noted. Poor fool.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:45:30 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:ve9hg2tibtf9dj0dsfchq8k4bdpssl6hne@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:50:29 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> newstOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O"
><sendspam@here.com>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not
>me.
>> >If
>> >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me,
>unless
>> >you
>> >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
>> >needs
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> read the Christian bible.
>> >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
>> >> >> >> wrathful
>> >> >> >> killer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>> >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
>> >innocent
>> >> >> >> >>people.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
>> >way,exactly?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
>> >named
>> >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>> >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New
>Testament,
>> >or
>> >> > did
>> >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>> >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No change then.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
>> >> > was made with man.
>> >> >
>> >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer.
>> >>
>> >Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the
>> > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as
>> >a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man.
>> >
>> >But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love,
>> >understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself
>> >on behalf of man.
>>
>> Multiple lies and there was no 'sacrifice.'
>>
>And you proof is_____?

Evidence, Dan. Proof is the venue of mathematics. The evidence is in
the Bible you're unfamiliar with.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[stoney]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:46:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

>
>"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>news:379hg211fa7v9pq85vp7chbm1cq160mcpv@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 01:53:49 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>> >
>> >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
>> >news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in alt.atheism
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me.
>If
>> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless
>you
>> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one
>needs
>> >to
>> >> >> read the Christian bible.
>> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and
>wrathful
>> >> >> killer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament.
>> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and
>innocent
>> >> >> >>people.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what
>way,exactly?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy
>named
>> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both.
>> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament,
>or
>> >did
>> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the
>> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant.
>> >>
>> >> No change then.
>> >>
>> >Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant
>> >was made with man.
>>
>> No. The 'old laws' remained in effect until 'heaven and earth passed
>> away.' It's quite common for Christians to be very ignorant of their
>> bronze age superstition, so don't feel bad.
>>
>No, until all is fulfilled ie Christ's mission on earth.

Ah, you rewrote that part of the Bible. Such is quite common with
Christians.


--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xsqdnYNWasXD3JfYnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uiiNg.10663$xQ1.878@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ef2dneio3KDrMJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>... your religious bigotry
>> >
>> > Atheism is not a religion
>>
>> Anti-theism is a religion
>
> No it isn't,

Yes it is. And it's a offensive, evangelical religion at that as Barwell's
zealotry and intolerance demonstrate.

 

[John Jones]

Dan Wood wrote:
> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> news:eupgg2lcm039kv0upvel38lr68a4rip459@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:27:36 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
> > wrote in alt.atheism
> >
> > >
> > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
> > >news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> alt.atheism
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Dan Wood wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >[...]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to
> those
> > >> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,
> > >forthright
> > >> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing
> honest
> > >> >> and sincere discussions.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day,
> > >> >> Dan
> > >> >
> > >> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity
> > >>
> > >> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
> > >> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
> > >>
> > >Such is bound for punnishment.
> >
> > Rapunnzel Rapunnzel.
> >
> > Free clue Dan; when a character has omni characteristics all results are
> > as it wants it.
> >
> Sorry I must disagree. There was, as I see it, only two options. We
> would live strictly according to deterministic dictates (puppets
> on a string) or by free will.
>
> I appreciate and respect your thoughts,
> Dan
> >
> > --
> > Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
> > shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
> > at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
> > be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... one cannot reject any possibility
> without proof of its impossibility.

That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_
that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all the
valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist
conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is 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.]

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > > ... the brain might need some help in
> > > maintaining consciousness
> >
> > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal
soul'
> > thingy?
>
> How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> etc.?

Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron? When you all say 'help'
you aren't talking about blood supply to the cells (which any cell needs),
you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,
aren't you?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > > ... the brain might need some help in
> > > maintaining consciousness
> >
> > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal
soul'
> > thingy?
>
> How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> etc.?

Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron? When you all say 'help'
you aren't really talking about blood supply or anything else physical,
you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,
aren't you?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-936EAE.23055814092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > > ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in
> > > maintaining consciousness
> >
> > To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need
some
> > [metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?
>
> My notion of "needed help" is that the brain needs considerable physical
> help in maintaining consciousness.

How would that help your side's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be
the case that consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false?

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

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

<snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -
body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">
>
> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -
> body problem,"

Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree with you on that, Septic.
But your argument from ignorance seems to be that because we can't currently
come up with an exact description of consciousness, then consciousness must
be whatever you say it is.

A truly excellent example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam as described by
Copi and others.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

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

<snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -
body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is how Wood phrases your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

That's just like a prosecutor arguing _ad ignorantiam_ in court, "Is the
accused actually not guilty as he claims? No one knows for certain." It is a
not-too-cleverly-disguised attempt at shifting the burden of proof, a form
of argument _ad ignorantiam_.

Remember, it is the MEANING of a statement such as that which really
matters, not the particular wording or rewording. Argument _ad ignorantiam_
is logical fallacy no matter how hard you try to disguise it.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-A0C83A.01143615092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <SJCdnSaT3vcCq5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > > 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
> > >
> > > The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"
> >
> > The hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)
is
> > that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible
> > crystalline substance
>
> False!!!

Don't be silly. It is true. Anybody can read it for himself. The hypothesis
(the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact) is that all the
moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And this hypothesis (this
'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false!"

<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 [hypothetically] 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.]

 

[Virgil]

In article <yYGdnby3E9DUDJbYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > ... the brain might need some help in
> > > > maintaining consciousness
> > >
> > > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal
> soul'
> > > thingy?
> >
> > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> > etc.?
>
> Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?

Sure it would. In autopsies, the brain is quite regularly removed from
the rest of the remains. Presumably after all consciousness has also
left the remains. But it is still the brain.

So it is moronic of Septic not to be aware of that.


> When you all say 'help'
> you aren't talking about blood supply to the cells (which any cell needs),
> you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,
> aren't you?

Septic seems to want to put his words in my mouth.

Can a physical brain maintain consciousness when in physical isolation
from it physical body?

Septic seems to want to say "yes".

 

[Virgil]

In article <yYGdnb23E9DaDJbYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > ... one cannot reject any possibility as impossible
> > without proof of its impossibility.
>
> That is just
one half of the agnostic principle, the other half being that one
cannot accept any possibility as actuality without proof of its
actuality.

We agnostics accept both halves. Septic doesn't.

 

[Virgil]

In article <reKdnX3g7qMKDpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > ... the brain might need some help in
> > > > maintaining consciousness
> > >
> > > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal
> soul'
> > > thingy?
> >
> > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such
> > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,
> > etc.?
>
> Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?

Sure it would. Unless Septic is implying that there is something more
to a brain than its physical presence.

>When you all say 'help'
> you aren't really talking about blood supply or anything else physical,
> you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,
> aren't you?

Septic seems to be arguing for souls, but I have no belief in 'souls",
whatever Septic supposes them to be.

 

[Virgil]

In article <I_mdnfN73tz_CpbYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-936EAE.23055814092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in
> > > > maintaining consciousness
> > >
> > > To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need
> some
> > > [metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?
> >
> > My notion of "needed help" is that the brain needs considerable physical
> > help in maintaining consciousness.
>
> How would that help your side's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be
> the case that consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because
> there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
> false?

I don't know why Septic keeps claiming that his side is our side. No one
on "our side" has said anything about where "consciousness dwells", or
how it dwells or anything else.

We merely ask by what authority, or evidence, Septic claims to know that
"consciousness dwells exclusively in the brain".

And Septic keeps avoiding our question.

>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood

Apparently Septic claims to know for certain, or to know someone who
does know for certain, as he rebukes Dan for saying otherwise, but
Septic will not divulge how he came by that knowledge.

 

[Virgil]

In article <R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> ignorantiam_:
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood

For Septic to argue that that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
must be arguing that someone DOES know for certain.

Well do you know for certain, Punk?
Do you know of anyone who does know for certain, Punk?