Re: Definition of God

[Virgil]

In article <tNudnXTjjcXOi5PYnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> > Such reference show you to be categorically mistaken when you say (see
> > above) that "Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is
> > "fallacious".
>
> Argument from popularity and argument from authority is no longer logical
> fallacy?

As evidence of lack of agreement, lack of agreement is evidence
If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body then there is,
by definition, a mind body problem.

Septic does not have one, as whatever mind he once had has been replaced
by a 'bot.

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

> Actually, there's a big difference.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gt1tnimf6v1d5@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>> Actually, there's a big difference. Scientists know something more than
>> the usual person about their own subject. And if we don't listen to their
>> expertise, then we really have no way of measuring the validity of
>> evidence or of arguments.
>
> And if _I_do it

You do it all over your pants.

Yes, we know, Barney

 

[John Jones]

DanWood wrote:
> "Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s23ue29tmvo756hji9e7mcd5jtb1ute0k3@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:41:21 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:genre2ttjlsfegkq27vidfso7h2lsouho3@4ax.com...
> > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:08 -0400, "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> ><jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:1156227178.495729.118180@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Immortalist wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > God is a concept some humans use as a lever
> > >> >> > [crutch-lever?].
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Okay. But with some 6 billion people on the planet,
> > >> >> this isn't exactly going out on a limb.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I mean, try to imagine if some aliens visited the
> > >> >> Earth from another planet, and not knowing a lot
> > >> >> about us they asked me about sex, what it is we
> > >> >> do. At this point I tell the aliens that some people
> > >> >> are masochistic, that they get a sexual thrill out
> > >> >> of having pain inflicted on them.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'd be leaving them with a pretty misleading view
> > >> >> of human sexuality, would I not?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > If evolutionary theory is correct, people with
> > >> >> > particular religious instincts survived and the
> > >> >> > atheists died.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> None.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How are you arriving at this claim?
> > >> >>
> > >> >There are people who go to their deaths completely
> > >> >assured that it's not the end. And are convinced they
> > >> >will live again a much better life. Atheist, however,
> > >> >have none of this assurance.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Neither do Christians, Dan. They want to believe their fantasies, but
> > >> they don't really.
> > >>
> > >Do you speak for Christians?
> > >>
> >
> > Dan, I don't have to be the Christians designated spokesperson to
> > comment on my observations. You guys repeatedly prove to all
> > non-biased observers that you really don't believe what you say you
> > believe.
> >
> You are painting with a _very_broad_ brush. I do not deny that
> there are times when many perhaps most Christians have times
> of doubt and disbelief. Certainly, I do.
>
> Dan Wood, DDS
> > ------------------
> >
> > Gospel Bretts
> > a.a. Atheist #2262
> > Fundy Xian Atheist

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
> > contrary to the facts in evidence:
> >
> >> Mr. Wood never said anything about where consciousness dwells.
> >
> > The facts in evidence in this case indicate that you are mistaken.
> >
> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
> > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood

In other words Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell
outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false, a form of logical fallacy for which theists are
FAMOUS, as Copi explains.

> Thanks for demonstrating that you're wrong.

Did you overlook the term, 'dwell' in Wood's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that
consciousness might dwell outside the brain because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, logical fallacy for which
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.]

Wood might as well be arguing _ad ignorantiam_, "Does God dwell exclusively
in the imagination of the believers? No one knows for certain."

Is there something about the term, 'dwell' that causes you to overlook it in
Wood's argument?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lb-dndqHP5ZjupLYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>> > <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
>> > contrary to the facts in evidence:
>> >
>> >> Mr. Wood never said anything about where consciousness dwells.
>> >
>> > The facts in evidence in this case indicate that you are mistaken.
>> >
>> > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
>> > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood
>
> In other words

In other words he wasn't arguing at all. So he couldn't have been using the
argument from ignorance.

Which, by the way, you don't understand at all.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:
>
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary
to the facts in evidence:
> >
> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
ignorantiam
> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
> >
> > This is in no way out of context
>
> Of course it is.

Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book
here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

> It is most obviously NOT a definition.

Argument from ignorance is well defined, and you know it. Copi not only
presents that definition in _Introduction to Logic_, he presents a perfectly
clear example of those theists of Galileo's time trying to get away with the
fallacy of argument _ ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
famous. Is there something in this explanation to which you specifically
take exception? If so, please explain why. (Otherwise you are just blowing
smoke.)

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IdOdnbvD-qjIopLYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
> ignorantiam
>> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
>> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
>> >
>> > This is in no way out of context
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> Of course it is not. What do you want me to do

Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance
would be a nice start rather than ladeling out your single anecdote and
pretending that exhausts the subject.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
> > ignorantiam
> >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,
being
> >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the
subject.
> >> >
> >> > This is in no way out of context
> >>
> >> Of course it is.
> >
> > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book
here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

>
> Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance

Evidently I know it better than YOU do seeing as how you don't seem to grasp
the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that
their hypothesis (their 'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove false
is a GREAT example of argument from ignorance, logical fallacy for which
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.]

You should study the above carefully before you make an even bigger fool of
yourself.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> In other words he wasn't arguing at all.

Argument from ignorance is not arguing? Since when?
Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell
outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false, a form of logical fallacy for which theists are
FAMOUS, as Copi explains.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l7SdncLt2ME_-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
>> > ignorantiam
>> >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,
> being
>> >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the
> subject.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is in no way out of context
>> >>
>> >> Of course it is.
>> >
>> > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole
>> > book
> here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?

Since you only seem to have access to the pasted remark, that's probably
pretty unlikely.

It might help if you had more than one source and if you posted an actual
definition rather than an anecdote.

Since you don't know what the hell you're talking about, that's probably not
going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> In other words he wasn't arguing at all.
>
> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?

No. Not arguing is not arguing from ignorance. Making a statement or
asking a question is not arguing.

If you knew anything about logic, you'd know that.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson keeps trying to smokescreen theist argument from ignorance:

> Scientists know something more than the
> usual person about their own subject.

Are you and Goober saying there is documentation that some scientists
somewhere have produced solid evidence of consciousness outside the brain,
and thus there really is a mind - body problem? I don't believe that.

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

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

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

Any reasonable man can recognize that for what it is: argument from
ignorance => the fallacy of taking it for granted there might be
consciousness 'dwelling' (existing) somewhere other than in the brain
because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.

 

[Virgil]

In article <lb-dndqHP5ZjupLYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one
> > > knows for certain." -- Dan Wood
>
> In other words Wood argues _ad ignorantiam_ that consciousness might dwell
> outside the brain

False! Dan argues nothing except ignorance.
Septic's only possible objection would be if Septic claims that he, or
at least someone, really does know whether consciousness dwells
exclusively in the brain.

Well, does anyone know that , punk?

if so, who? and how?

 

[Virgil]

In article <IdOdnbvD-qjIopLYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
> >
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary
> to the facts in evidence:
> > >
> > >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
> ignorantiam
> > >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own, being
> > >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the subject.
> > >
> > > This is in no way out of context
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> Of course it is not.
> Argument from ignorance is well defined, and you know it. Copi not only
> presents that definition in _Introduction to Logic_, he presents a perfectly
> clear example of those theists of Galileo's time trying to get away with the
> fallacy of argument _ ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are
> famous.

Actually Galileo was as much a theist as any of the astronomers who
argued against him, and the only professional theists anywhere around,
the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.

So for Septic to say theists are famous for it is deliberately
misleading, as a theist, Galileo, is even more famous for opposing it.

Also, the non-theist argumentum ad ignorantiam Copi refers to, involves
a claim of form "it is a fact that" which Septic tries to equate with a
statement of form " as far as we know it might be the case that".

Anyone who will not see the difference is being willfully blind and
deliberately misrepresenting the case, which is the fallacy of the STRAW
MAN.

Thus Septic is totally wrong, and delibertely wrong, on at least two
counts.

So Septic is once more WRONG! AGAIN!

AS USUAL!!!

 

[Virgil]

In article <l7SdncLt2ME_-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>
> > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
> > > ignorantiam
> > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,
> being
> > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the
> subject.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is in no way out of context
> > >>
> > >> Of course it is.
> > >
> > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole book
> here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?
>
> >
> > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from ignorance
>
> Evidently I know it better than YOU do

Then why do you keep lying about what it is, Septic?



> seeing as how you don't seem to grasp
> the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_

It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed that argumentum
ad ignorantiam, namely Galileo himself.

Why does Septic keep misrepresenting a dispute between theists as being
theist versus non-theist?

Only because Septic is a compulsive and habitual liar, and because
Septic cannot, or at least will not, give a fair representation of
anything.

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been
proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been
proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or
refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary
or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can
be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time
of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are
contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or
'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones
was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A
claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and
vice-versa.)

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by
an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that
it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent
Creator prove that it isn't.

The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can play
upon wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for
example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the
contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.

 

[Virgil]

In article <l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:


> > In other words he wasn't arguing at all.
>
> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?

As there was no argumentum ad ignorantiam, there need not have been any
argument.

> Since when?

How does Septic fit the circumstances to the following definition of
argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Septic can't? What a surprise!

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
contrary to
> > the facts in evidence:
> >
> > > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum ad
> > > > ignorantiam
> > > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on your own,
> > being
> > > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on the
> > subject.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This is in no way out of context
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course it is.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the whole
book
> > here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?
> >
> > >
> > > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument from
ignorance
> >
> > Evidently I know it better than YOU do
> > seeing as how you don't seem to grasp
> > the fact that these theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_
>
> It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed

The term is 'exposed'. See below.

> that argumentum
> ad ignorantiam, namely Galileo himself.

Galileo was at this point a scientist in trouble with the church for
discovering new things that challenged what theology had long taught, wasn't
he? But no matter, just let me say HURRAH, now you have finally come around
to agreeing with Copi that to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there is no proof
one's hypothesis (one's 'might be' conjecture) is false is argument from
ignorance, logical fallacy for which 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 a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bKadnZSsvuSEH5LYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Scientists know something more than the
>> usual person about their own subject.
>
> Are you and Goober saying

that scientists usually know more about their own subject than the average
person?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Now go learn something about logic.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-50C2DA.23114418092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <l7Sdnf3t2ME1-5LYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your illogic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > In other words he wasn't arguing at all.
>>
>> Argument from ignorance is not arguing?
>
> As there was no argumentum ad ignorantiam, there need not have been any
> argument.

And as there was no argument, there could be no argumentum ad ignorantiam.

There's a nice symmetry there.


>
>> Since when?
>
> How does Septic fit the circumstances to the following definition of
> argumentum ad ignorantiam?
>
> Septic can't? What a surprise!
>
> http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
> argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
>
> The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring
> when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been
> proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been
> proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or
> refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary
> or contradictory claim. (Contrary claims can't both be true but both can
> be false, unlike contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time
> of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are
> contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or
> 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones
> was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A
> claim is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and
> vice-versa.)
>
> The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by
> an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that
> it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent
> Creator prove that it isn't.
>
> The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can play
> upon wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for
> example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the
> contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.