Re: Definition of God

In article <UJednWnkeK18Q4zYnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Liar, liar, pants on fire" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it
has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
In article <DvidnVDr9sNBQozYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it
has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
In article <SMGdnQH474z2fYzYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it
has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
In article <i-qdnXbsLdVefYzYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it
has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
In article <_sqdnUc2Q-4HfIzYnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

It that were true, Septic would not have to post the identical false
argument 8 times in one day to establish it.

Nor post the same false argument hundred's of times over the years.


On the matter of what constitutes an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic
is always the one mistaken.

Septic claims that the agnostic "X might to might not be true because it
has not been proven either way" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
 
Virgil wrote:

>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.
>
>
This must be a really obuse argument I cant tell who is for and who is
against.
josephus
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca

> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and scientists
> think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that that was
> "fallacious".

It IS logical fallacy.

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.



> 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?)
>>
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote

> By not challenging my claim

You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^)

Argument from popularity is logical fallacy.

Know what logical fallacy is?

Argument from Popularity:

P is believed by millions of people worldwide

It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe in
something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <sy@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:O-KdnSYwo7lbhI7YnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> By not challenging my claim
>
> You are challenged,

Hey, guess what, Septic. I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail. I'm
betting he's got a definition of argumentum ad ignorantium in there and I
CAN'T WAIT to post it. Plus, it will make a nice addition to my logic
library.

It's exciting, isn't it?
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.

Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
principles of valid argument. 8^)

> I'm
> betting he's got a definition of argumentum ad ignorantium in there

Well DUH, that's what I have been telling you about all this time, brother,
theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ (and you keeep trying to change the
subject).

Argument from ignorance, also known as _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ or as
Copi shows it in _Introduction to Logic_, "argument _ad ignorantiam_," is a
logical fallacy (a fallacy of relevance) in which one argues for some
hypothesis or another [some 'might be' conjecture] based on that hypothesis
not having been proven false. It is a form of trying to shift the burden of
proof.

It is logical fallacy for which theists have been FAMOUS since at least
Galileo's time, 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.]
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.
>
> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...

Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'
conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis is false, 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.]
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

1953??? Your library is in dire need of an update, old son. 8^)

http://tinylink.com/?Z4BURs8itE
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> "Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote :
> >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

Liar. I did not write that, that is YOUR argument (which is contrary to the
facts in evidence), not mine. Please try to keep your attributions straight.

You seem to be purposefully trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis' ['might
be' conjecture] in Copi's explanation of the fallacy of arguing from
ignorance that there is no proof the hypothesis 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.]
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:YMudnXl-d8PfZY7YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...


> You seem to be purposefully trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis'
> ['might
> be' conjecture] in Copi's explanation

Copi does not include a 'might be' conjecture in his definition of the
argumentum ad ingnorantiam .

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.
>
> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?
 
Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.
>
> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?
 
Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

>> ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.
>
> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
> principles of valid argument. 8^)

And, Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue contrary
to
the facts in evidence:

> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...

Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'
conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis 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.]
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:YMudnXl-d8PfZY7YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...


> You seem to be purposefully trying to ignore the term, 'hypothesis'
> ['might
> be' conjecture] in Copi's explanation

Guess What???? Copi says you're utterly wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?
 
In article <DvqdnXDTOK3p4I7YnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> > ... I've got a copy of Copi coming in the mail.
>
> Good! It's about time you wake up and learn a few things about the
> principles of valid argument. 8^)
>
> > I'm
> > betting he's got a definition of argumentum ad ignorantium in there
>
> Well DUH, that's what I have been telling you about all this time, brother,
> theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ (and you keeep trying to change the
> subject).
>
> Argument from ignorance, also known as _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ or as
> Copi shows it in _Introduction to Logic_, "argument _ad ignorantiam_," is a
> logical fallacy in which one argues for some
> hypothesis or another based on that hypothesis
> not having been proven false. It is a form of trying to shift the burden of
> proof.

And Septic tries to claim that when one says "there might (or might not)
be an X because no one has shown that there must not be ( or must be)
and X, that one is committing that fallacy, which is , in itself, the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.



It is logical fallacy for which Septic has been INFAMOUS since at least
Galileo's time.
 

Similar threads

A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
Back
Top