Re: Definition of God

[Virgil]

In article <-7WdndTlPfIeCpLYnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
> > the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.
>
> If that were true, then what would the following passage mean?
>
> " ... as theology had long taught ..."
>
> Isn't theology that to which the churchmen commit themselves?

if it had been the churchmen, instead of the astronomers who had
confronted Galileo on that issue, Copi was really stupid for not saying
so. wasn't he. And history has been remarkably silent on the issue.

The truth is that the churchmen were quite aware that the astronomers
were committing a fallacy against Christian Galileo, and wanted no part
of it.
>
> Anyway the issue is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be
> something because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
> conjecture) is false:

WRONG! The issue is whether a claim of "must be" claim and a suggestion
of "might be" are logically equivalent, and the answer is NO!

 

[Virgil]

In article <d-SdnU2zMY8qCpLYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

According to that text, Septic is wrong, and has been wrong for years.

According to that text, argumentum ad ignorantiam is about claiming
certainty based on absence of contradictory evidence.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body

We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you
are calling 'mind' be any different?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsMKdnXKmMroD3I3YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body
>
> We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you
> are calling 'mind' be any different?

Maybe because mind isn't digestion.

>
>
>

 

[John Jones]

Cary Kittrell wrote:
> Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:07:21 +0000 (UTC), cary@afone.as.arizona.edu
> > (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Did Al say anything about the gain of a religion? Less than
> > >a century after making Christianity its official religion,
> > >Rome fell -- repeatedly -- to the barbarians.
> >
> > Except the Empire didn't fall when Rome did. The capital was moved to
> > Ravenna, which was taken by the Arian Christian Ostrogoths.
>
> You're a nurse: isn't that some kind of bone cell?
>
> > And they
> > weren't barbarians; they left some beautiful architecture that is
> > still standing. Theodoric was no barbarian.
> >
> > And the Eastern Empire didn't fall till centuries later. And, again,
> > it fell to the Roman Catholic Venetians.
> >
> > The Roman Empire fell apart because it was trying to occupy too much
> > space with too few soldiers. Oh, and the economy. To imply that
> > Christianity had anything to do with it is simply not true. Just cos
> > something happens at about the same time (although a century is a
> > pretty long time in human terms) doesn't mean it caused the original
> > problem.
>
> Oh, I know, I know. Nothing is ever remotely that simple -- nor do
> I even think that the official adoption of Christianity had much, if
> anything, to do with subsequent events.
>
> What you saw is a knee-jerk reaction has arisen from years of
> reading posts along the line of "FAGS WILL CAUSE GOD TO DESTROY
> AMERICA JUST LIKE HE DID ROME".
>
> Which, of course, Whosis didn't actually say. But it was fun
> anyhow.
>
> Interesting history lesson, by the way. Thank you.
>
>
> -- cary

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

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

> Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a
> mind/body problem?

You are lying, Richard, I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a
mind - body problem, and you know it. Obviously YOU and Wood and others
believe there is a mind - body problem in that there might be consciousness
dwelling (living, existing)outside the body. But does your belief prove
anything? I don't agree that it does.

So I am not making any claims, all I am doing is asking you a fair question:

The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god,
too; does that prove that there is?

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

(And why do you keep trying to change the subject, Richard? Is it that you
do not have the courage of your convictions?)

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mY6dnagVgtsh243YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
>> Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a
>> mind/body problem?
>
> I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a
> mind - body problem

Then what's your problem, little man...beyond a penchant for using double
negatives....?

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> "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.

What would you know about logic?


GANDY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES


WBARWELL

Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore something must have always existed
far back into infinity. There was never a
time when nothing did not exist.

Parmenides nailed this one.

Something always existed.

GANDY
Another unsupported assertion

WBARWELL
Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are
you?

Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed
out, there must have been.

Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your
ability to reason is impaired.
I can't help you here.

GANDY
Prove it, Poser.



--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[wcb]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

>
> "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.
>




September 11 - Gandy Grey:
> As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
> philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.

What about your bad arguments you can't prove?

What do you know about arguments?

--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h0mb7jsl525b5@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
> What would you know about logic?

I know that you're stupid enough to think that an appeal to logic is a
fallacy.

LOL!!!!
>
>
> BARNEY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES
>

Barwell actually asserts that appeal to logic is a logical fallacy.

>>> WBARWELL
>>>
>>> Something cannot come from nothing.
>>> Therefore something must have always existed
>>> far back into infinity. There was never a
>>> time when nothing did not exist.
>>>
>>> Parmenides nailed this one.
>>>
>>> Something always existed.
>>>
>>> GANDY
>>> Another unsupported assertion
>>
>
> Appeal to logic

Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.

Do it right here, right now---------->

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h0mg43f0jh83e@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>>

BARNEY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES

Barwell actually asserts that appeal to logic is a logical fallacy.

>>> WBARWELL
>>>
>>> Something cannot come from nothing.
>>> Therefore something must have always existed
>>> far back into infinity. There was never a
>>> time when nothing did not exist.
>>>
>>> Parmenides nailed this one.
>>>
>>> Something always existed.
>>>
>>> GANDY
>>> Another unsupported assertion
>>
>
> Appeal to logic

Cite where an appeal to logic is a fallacy in a logical argument.

Do it right here, right now---------->

 

[Virgil]

In article <HdOdnTySZLVxA5LYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > They said "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE AS THEOLOGY HAS LONG
> TAUGHT".
>
> That's part of the hypothesis [the 'might be' theist conjecture].

Versus the conjecture of theist Galileo that the moon is not a perfect
sphere because telescopes show us irregularities.

This is a theist versus theist arguement, so the theism is irrelevant.
The conflict is between whether a pagan authority, Aristoteles, or
current observation by galileo and others through the telescope
determines truth.

Septic is so hung up on theism that he sees it in everything, even where
it is not.

The list of things that Septic won't buy, unless they should happen to
support his prejudices, includes all the forms of valid argument known
to mankind.

The list of things that Septic does buy, when they can be twisted to
support his prejudices, includes every fallacy know to mankind.

That is Septic in a nutshell.

And in a nutshell is where Septic fits best.

 

[Virgil]

In article <HdOdnT-SZLVzA5LYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "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
> > > because there is no proof the hypothesis
> > > [the 'might be' conjecture] is false.
> >
> > False!
>
> You are mistaken

Septic reads what isn't there again.

Septic is the only one who is claiming that consciousness might dwell
outside the brain because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.

Everyone else is merely wondering if a naked brain is enough by its
naked self to maintain consciousness.

Since for most of its operations the brain needs at least some parts of
its usual environment of a body, might not the maintaining of
consciousness require something too?

Septic seems to think that a brain in vacuum can continue to maintain
consciousness, but that seems doubtful.

 

[Virgil]

In article <YuqdnUCcnqxNApLYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote
> > "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote:
> > >> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> > >> >> Needs a Logic Tutor wrote:
> > >> >>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
> > >> >>>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >> >>>>> "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
> > >>
> > >> [separated for emphasis]
> > >>
> > >> >>> So you argue (fallaciously).
> > >>
> > >> [separated for emphasis]
> > >>
> > >> 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 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
> > >> >> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
> > >> >> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
> > >> >
> > >> > So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind -
> body
> > >> > problem,
> > >>
> > >> 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?
> >
> > I see you don't understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and the
> > Argument from popularity anymore than you understand the argument from
> > ignorance. The fallacy of Appeal to Authority is caused by assuming that
> > authority alone is proof. In the case of the argument from popularity,
> > the fallacy occurs when we argue that popularity alone creates truth.
>
> So do you have any support for your hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) that
> there might really be a mind - body problem OTHER THAN your appeal to
> authority and your argument from popularity?

For one thing there is Septic's repeated claims that the brain
absolutely without any support at all can maintain consciousness.
But no one has ever shown that a brain outside of its body can be
conscious.

 

[Virgil]

In article <UtKdnSFc2qApO5LYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-B5BB91.23263917092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <m-adnV7w8r43fJHYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > What are you saying, that blood and oxygen are not physical?
> >
> > I am saying that blood and oxygen and the various other parts of a body,
> > other than the brain itself, are not a parts of the brain itself.
>
> It's all tied together. How do you think you get your fingers to wiggle to
> produce your drivel?

But Septic is saying that the body doesn't need to be all tied together,
that the brain can function in isolation from its body..
>
> Any notion you could still do that if you lost your head?
>
> Any notion any animal could still present with signs of of being conscious
> for very long after losing it's head?

 

[Virgil]

In article <oMKdnXKmMroD3I3YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > If no one agrees on how the mind is related to the body
>
> We all agree on how digestion is related to the body. Why should what you
> are calling 'mind' be any different?

Without minds there can be no such agreement, without digestion there
could be.

 

[Virgil]

In article <mY6dnagVgtsh243YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@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:
>
> > Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a
> > mind/body problem?
>
> You are lying, Richard, I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a
> mind - body problem, and you know it.

Septic claims Septic does not think there is a mind-body problem, which
only goes to show how little mind he has.

 

[Emmanual Kann]

An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt:

> In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>
>> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
>> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>>
>> Not according to Copi's explanation.
>
> Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
> is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?

He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the
assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter
hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes
there be a crystalline substance - moon problem.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eekatb$1f9$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>>> "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
>> [separated for emphasis]
>>
>>>>> So you argue (fallaciously).
>> [separated for emphasis]
>>
>> 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 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
>>>> Would you like references to some scientists and academics who think
>>>> there is such a thing as a mind-body problem?
>>> So what if lots and lots of people believe there might be a mind - body
>>> problem,
>> 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? I didn't get the memo on that revision to the principles of logic.
>
> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
> be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
> fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god,
> too; does that prove that there is?
>
> 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
>

By not challenging my claim that you are mistaken when you say that
"Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree" is "fallacious", you
implicitly concede my claim that you spoke falsely.

You implicitly concede that your interlocutor is entirely correct to
suggest that scores of academics and scientists think there is a
mind-body problem.

Goober.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>
>> Do you have any support for your claim that no one thinks there's a
>> mind/body problem?
>
> You are lying, Richard, I have NEVER claimed that nobody THINKS there is a
> mind - body problem, and you know it.

The point I challenged you on concerns whether scores of academics and
scientists think there is a mind-body problem. When your interlocutor
claimed that scores of academics and scientists think that there is such
a problem, you said that that was "fallacious".

I offered you evidence to prove the interlocutor's claim, but you
ignored that offer. Hence, you've implicitly conceded that you were
wrong to say that the interlocutor's claim was fallacious.

Goober.

Obviously YOU and Wood and others
> believe there is a mind - body problem in that there might be consciousness
> dwelling (living, existing)outside the body. But does your belief prove
> anything? I don't agree that it does.
>
> So I am not making any claims, all I am doing is asking you a fair question:
>
> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
> be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that just a
> fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be a god,
> too; does that prove that there is?
>
> 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
>
> (And why do you keep trying to change the subject, Richard? Is it that you
> do not have the courage of your convictions?)
>
>