Re: Definition of God

In article <PoSdneF7AbRWHYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@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:
>
>
> > 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.

Septic is be the one arguing that large scale belief makes truth, as no
one else is arguing anything like that.

On that basis, Septic is a theist.
 
In article <9tGdnYRQHO4lH4HYnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@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 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?

That is Septic's argument, but no one else has argued it.
So any fallacy here is entirely Septic's fallacy
 
In article <FM6dnauQIdr7GYHYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> repeated his sin by writing:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> wrote:
>
> > Your argumentum ad hominem is going nowhere.
>
> Nice try at evading the issue, knucklehead.

And we see that Septic responds to a charge of argumentum ad hominem by
committing another argumentum ad hominem.

Nice one, Septic!!!
 
Your Logic Tutor 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?

Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.

So what?

I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying that
the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a
mind-body problem was "fallacious".

Does that prove that there actually is one?

It proves that you were completely mistaken to say that the claim that
scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a mind-body
problem was "fallacious".

Goober.

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
 
Your Logic Tutor 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?
>
> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS')

"IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists".

Goober.

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
>
>
>
>
 
Your Logic Tutor 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.

On the contrary.

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,

True - that hypothesis is not known to actually be the case.

that is just theist conjecture, the hypothesis,

False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the
time was:

that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible crystalline
substance.

the 'might be'
> speculation with no basis in fact.

False. It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys
might be filled with a crystalline substance.

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

False. The hypothesis in question was an "is" hypothesis/conjecture, not
a "might be" hypothesis/conjecture. That is, it was a hypothesis about
what IS the case, not about what "might be" the case.

>
> 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:

False. Copi does not and would not describe the hypothesis as a "might
be" conjecture. Such an interpretation as you make is clearly
inconsistent with what Copi says.

> <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.

False. I'm not arguing anything of the kind.

One out six - even less impressive.

Goober.



>
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "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.

Yes it is, moron. It is argument from popularity, which 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.

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 clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be
> filled with a crystalline substance.

That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means
guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact.

Check the thesaurus:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture

Arguing that there might be something magically invisible because there is
no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false is 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.]
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:

> > 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, 'might be' speculation
>
> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the
> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible
> crystalline substance.

That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis, conjecture (guesswork, 'might
be' speculation with no basis in fact), 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. And the argument from
ignorance Copi is pointing out is, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be'
conjecture] Galileo could not prove false!"

Check the thesaurus:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=conjecture


Arguing that thee might be something magically invisible because there is no
proof the hypothesis is false is 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.]
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:efiivf$dm7$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Your Logic Tutor 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?
>>
>> Here you are equivocating between that which is known to be real ('IS')
>
> "IS" here does not mean " known to be real". It means "exists".

The terms, 'real', actual, and 'existing' are synonyms (words having the
same or similar meanings).
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=real
Can you name ten things that are known to exist that are not known to be
real?
How could we honestly say that we know that something exists unless it is
something known to be actual, to be real?

>> 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
>>
>>
>>
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AOqdnfB3T9ho1YDYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>
>> > 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, 'might be' speculation
>>
>> False. The conjecture/hypothesis put forward by the astronomers of the
>> time was that the apparent valleys ARE filled with an invisible
>> crystalline substance.
>
> That is what I said, it is theist hypothesis

Then it has nothing to do with the Argument from Ignorance which is not
based on 'might be' arguments.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0sGdnYeyq5EV24DYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>
>
>> It clearly was not a hypothesis/conjecture that the valleys might be
>> filled with a crystalline substance.
>
> That is what the term, 'hypothesis' MEANS in this case, moron, it means
> guesswork, 'might be' conjecture with no basis in fact.

And since 'might be' has nothing to do with the argumentum ad ignorantiam
you've got no case, Septic.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z4adndzKd92Yp4DYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:451c8ffe$0$24210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Yes it is, moron.

Your ad hominem just makes you look weak. Since the statement above is
not a logical argument, it is not an ad argumentum ad populum and you
STILL haven't figured out what an argument actually is.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion
called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called
premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and
inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of
communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a
conversation.
 
"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Your Logic Tutor 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?
>
> Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
>
> So what?
>
> I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying that
> the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a
> mind-body problem was "fallacious".

Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a
premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy
(fallacious, invalid inference, bogus argument, argument from popularity).
Please learn the difference.

Again, I am not questioning the truth of the premise ('lots and lots of
people believe there might be a mind - body problem'), I am questioning the
validity of the argument from popularity. Argument from poopularity is
logical fallacy (invalid argument).

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


> Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a
> mind-body
> problem?

If you are talking to me, no I do not, that is your straw man doing that. I
am questioning your appeal to popularity.

Try reading it again:

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

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:eek:OWdncNYft4CyYDYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
>> Does [ad hom deleted] deny that there are many who claim that there is a
>> mind-body
>> problem?
>
> If you are talking to me, no I do not,

You're just trying to pretend that the statement is an argument when it's
not.
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:duqdnWePoO5czYDYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efiiam$dgb$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Needs a Logic Tutor 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?
>>
>> Yes - scores of scientists and academics to be specific.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> I'll tell you "so what": it means that you were mistaken in saying that
>> the claim that scores of scientists and academics believe there to be a
>> mind-body problem was "fallacious".
>
> Are you trying to build a straw man? I did not say it is false (not a
> premise known to be true), knucklehead, I said it is logical fallacy

No it's not. In order to be a logical fallacy, it would have to be an
argument which it is not.
 
"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "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.

Having a premise that might be a fact does not make it any less 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
 
"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_rydneRifNakx4DYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> "Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>>> > "Needs a 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.
>
> Having a premise that might be a fact does not make it any less an
> argument from popularity.

And not being an argument saves it from being an Argument from Popularity.

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

Wrong.

In order to be the Argument from Popularity, the premise you typed above
would have to be linked to a conclusion.

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

Get a clue, Septic.
 
Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to get away with
logical fallacy

> Your ad hominem

Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, son? Don't you know that is
the logical fallacy of trying to evade the issue?


To return to the issue:

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
 

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