Re: Definition of God

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>> So what does
>>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue?
>>
>> Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity
>
> No it isn't.

As any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity for
proposition P, moron.

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.

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
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:svWdnd1-FIq9aIbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> So what does
>>>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue?
>>>
>>> Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> As any sane man can see

It's not an argument at all, hence it's not an argument from popularity.

Son, until you learn what a basic logical argument is, you're not going to
get any traction talking about fallacy arguments.
 
Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> So what does
>>>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue?
>>>
>>> Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> As any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity for
> proposition P,

Wrong again.

Goober


moron.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>>> MagicRub wrote:
>>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>> >
>>> >> The argument that many people
>>> >> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
>>> >
>>> > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.
>>>
>>> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word
>>> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your
>>> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your
>>> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is
>>> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified.
>>>
>>> Goober.
>>
>> Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that
>
> He made no Argument from ignorance.

It says "argument _ad hominem_," can't you read?

Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that will not
help you establish that there is a mind - body problem any more than your
argument from popularity will, that's all logical fallacy, as you should
know by now.


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
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote

> It is a hypothesis/conjecture (using either word is totally fine by me as
> it makes not the slightest difference) that, to quote Copi: "the moon IS
> IN FACT a perfect sphere". Hence, the "hypothesis" (or "conjecture") in
> question is a claim about what IS the case not what "might be" the case.

You still don't have it straight, knucklehead. Here are the facts in the
case:
It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of
the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect
sphere, that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, the 'might be'
speculation with no basis in fact.

And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be'
conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!'

Copi goes on to explain how Galileo exposed the argument _ad ignorantiam_ of
arguing for something hypothetical based on the absence of proof the
hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is 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 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_)

So your side, you and Gandy and Virgil, are mistaken, arguing there might be
something because there us no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
conjecture) is false IS argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which
theists are famous, as Copi explains.
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>> might
>> be a mind - body problem, does that prove there is one?
>
> It proves that there are a lot of people who think there is such a
> problem.

That is argument from popularity.

> 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.
>
> The question is not are there people who believe there is a mind - body
> problem, the question is isn't it the case that there is no mind - body
> problem any more than there is a digestion - stomach problem, that is just
> argument from ignorance from your side?
 
In article <svWdnd1-FIq9aIbYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:451b18b6$0$24180$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:I4adnX5P2rGAiYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >>
> >>> So what does
> >>> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide" argue?
> >>
> >> Well DUH, as any sane man can see it is an agument from popularity

If it argues only itself, which is all that it says, it is not an
argument FROM anything, but a mere statement stating only what it states:
"P is believed by millions of people worldwide" states only that
"P is believed by millions of people worldwide"!

Any conclusions that Septic, or anyone else, chooses to draw from that
statement are not part of the statement itself.
>
> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
> be a mind - body problem


It certainly proves that lots of people believe it, which was all that
was being argued.
 
In article <Fo-dnSphaOCl1oHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> >>> Septic wrote:
> >>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >>> >
> >>> >> The argument that many people
> >>> >> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
> >>> >
> >>> > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.
> >>>
> >>> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word
> >>> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your
> >>> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your
> >>> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is
> >>> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified.
> >>>
> >>> Goober.
> >>
> >> Look, Goober, here is the deal


Look, Septic here's the deal, misquoting as you have done above, is not
merely fallacious, it is LYING!

> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there might
> be a mind - body problem,

If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind
body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
body problem.

Septic deliberately conflates "might be" with "is" again.
He seems to dumb to tell the difference.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Fo-dnSphaOCl1oHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4519f815$0$24207$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:9YKdnZScIo66eYTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:efcjcc$b9u$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>>>> MagicRub wrote:
>>>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> >
>>>> >> The argument that many people
>>>> >> believe that there is a mind body problem is ...
>>>> >
>>>> > ... is logical fallacy, as you have been informed.
>>>>
>>>> You have deliberately and misleadingly deleted your interlocuter's word
>>>> "statement" and replaced it with the word "argument" in the above. Your
>>>> interlocuter never said any such thing, as you well know. Your
>>>> transparently mendacious attempt to misrepresent your opponent is
>>>> dishonesty exemplified and you are dishonesty personified.
>>>>
>>>> Goober.
>>>
>>> Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_ like that
>>
>> He made no Argument from ignorance.
>
> It says "argument _ad hominem_," can't you read?
>
> Look, Goober, here is the deal: Argument _ad hominem_

He made no argument ad hominem either. Since you're obviously
misrepresenting his position and he's simply pointing that out, where is the
ad hom?
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dO6dnbEbSf2AyYHYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>> It is a hypothesis/conjecture (using either word is totally fine by me as
>> it makes not the slightest difference) that, to quote Copi: "the moon IS
>> IN FACT a perfect sphere". Hence, the "hypothesis" (or "conjecture") in
>> question is a claim about what IS the case not what "might be" the case.
>
> You still don't have it straight, knucklehead.

Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere.
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
popularity:

> If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind
> body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
> people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
> body problem.

Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body
problem? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one?

Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS') and
that which is only hypothetical ('might be' conjecture). Lots and lots of
people believing X might be real doesn't make X real. Let X be your
hypothetical 'mind - body problem'. That remains purely hypothetical ('might
be' conjecture) unless you can show something more probative than your
logical fallacy of argument from popularity.

Argument from popularity like that is logical fallacy, moron, as you have
been informed.

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
 
In article <dO6dnbEbSf2AyYHYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> > It is a hypothesis/conjecture (using either word is totally fine by me as
> > it makes not the slightest difference) that, to quote Copi: "the moon IS
> > IN FACT a perfect sphere". Hence, the "hypothesis" (or "conjecture") in
> > question is a claim about what IS the case not what "might be" the case.
>
> You still don't have it straight, knucklehead.

Septic is not only dead wrong ( and Goober completely right), but he
includes an argumentum ad hominem into the bargain making himself doubly
wrong.


> Here are the facts in the case:

Whenever one sees Septic say something like this, one can be quite
certain that what follows is only Septic's warped view of the issue,
misrepresenting everyone, even himself.
 
In article <6YOdnXmZ8b7byoHYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
> >> might
> >> be a mind - body problem, does that prove there is one?
> >
> > It proves that there are a lot of people who think there is such a
> > problem.
>
> That is argument from popularity.

It is a statement of fact. It does not in any way intimate the the
belief is well founded any more that the acknowledgment of the existence
of many theists concedes that theism is a well founded.

Otherwise Septic would have to deny that any theists exist in order to
deny the validity of their faiths.

So If Septic argues that nobody believes that there is a mind-body
problem, he must equally argue that there is no such thing as theism.
Which makes all his atheist arguments a waste of time and energy.
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:


> It's not an argument at all, hence it's not an argument from popularity.


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.

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
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > 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?

> It certainly proves that lots of people believe it

That's not the question. The question is, 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?
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> attempts to evade the issue:

> Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere.

Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead.

Here are the facts in the case:
It is not known to actually be the case that God filled all the valleys of
the moon with an invisible crystaline substance, making of it a perfect
sphere, that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis, the 'might be'
speculation with no basis in fact.

And the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, 'And this hypothesis [this 'might be'
conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!'

Copi goes on to explain how Galileo exposed the argument _ad ignorantiam_ of
arguing for something hypothetical based on the absence of proof the
hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is 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 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_)

So your side, you and your brother Goober and your other brother Goober, are
mistaken, arguing there might be something because there us no proof the
hypothesis (the 'might be'
conjecture) is false IS argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which
theists are famous, as Copi explains.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:poSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide

Is not an argument. It's a statement. As usual, YOU don't know what an
argument is.

In order to be an argument, it would have to be stated as

"P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true."

Since this is not the form of the above statement, it is not the Argument
from Popularity.

Get a clue, Septic. You're just getting dumber.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FM6dnauQIdr7GYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>
> Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead.

Your argumentum ad hominem is noted, Septic.
 
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Virgil wrote:

Virgil, have you noticed your septic tank is overflowing?
 
In article <PoSdneZ7AbRVHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> tries to get away with argument from
> popularity:
>
> > If lots and lots of people believe there IS (not merely might be) a mind
> > body problem, that would prove what it says that lots and lots of
> > people believe that there not only might be, but actually IS, a mind
> > body problem.
>
> Lots and lots of people believe that there actually IS a mind - body
> problem? So what? Does that prove that there actually is one?

Didn't say that, did I. Though it certainly does not prove there isn't
one either.

Note: If Septic's argument against people believing in a mind-body
problem were valid then his own argument that there are any people
(theists) believing in any gods is equally a fallacy.
 

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