Re: Definition of God

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:efpbsb$mj5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> >> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >
> >>> ...
> >>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
> >>
> >> Generally true, we know.
> >>
> >> Goober.
> >
> > Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.
>
> You presuppose a falsity


I am just thanking you for conceding, Mr. Goober. Now you say, "You are
welcome, Mr. Tutor."

>>
>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>> might actually 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? No.
>>
>> 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_:
>>for conceding, Mr. Goober.

>>
>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>> might actually 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? No.
>>
>> 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

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

 

[Virgil]

In article <CYOdnae2BM0rH73YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efpbsb$mj5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> > Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > >
> > > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> > >> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > >
> > >>> ...
> > >>> Large numbers believing P
> > >>

>
> I am just thanking you for conceding, Mr. Goober. Now you say, "You are
> welcome, Mr. Liar, Septic."

Whyever thank Septic for lying again.

Or is it merely a statement of fact that lots of people do believe there
is a mind body problem?

Does admitting that lots of people believe in gods require one to
suppose that belief to be well founded?

If that were the case then Septic would have to believe in gods.

So when Septic argues that allowing that lots of people believe there is
a mind body problem is an argument that the problem is exists, then
Septic;s arguments that anyone is a theist is equally an argument that
gods exist.

The parallelism is perfect. So either Septic is a theist or he is lying
about Goober's statement.

Which is it, Sepotic, old sot?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:CYOdnae2BM0rH73YnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efpbsb$mj5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>> >
>> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>> >
>> >>> ...
>> >>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>> >>
>> >> Generally true, we know.
>> >>
>> >> Goober.
>> >
>> > Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.
>>
>> You presuppose a falsity
>
>
> I am just thanking you for conceding,

Sounds like you're thanking him for calling you a liar, Septic.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:efpbsb$mj5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>>>> Generally true, we know.
>>>>
>>>> Goober.
>>> Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.
>> You presuppose a falsity
>
>
> I am just thanking you for conceding, Mr. Goober. Now you say, "You are
> welcome, Mr. Tutor."

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

[Sceptic]
> "P is true" [or just plain "P," it doesn't matter, it means the same]
is the proposition in question.
>
> "P is true" means exactly the same as just arguing, "P" ("There might
be a mind - body problem" for example) alone. Adding "is true" does not
change anything, and "is true" stands as an unstated premise in your
argument from popularity,

[Goober]
"is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious reasons, the
truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is true" to be a
premise it would have to express a proposition, and it doesn't. It has
no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of modern logic put
it: "unsaturated".

If what you are trying to say is that "there might be a mind-body
problem is true" is a hidden premise, there is no grounds for supposing
that.

We await your explicit specification (premises and conclusion, please)
of the supposed argument that you claim to be implicit.

[Sceptic]
"P is believed by millions of people
> worldwide." There is absolutely no difference in meaning between the
following two statements:
>
> "There might be a mind - body problem."
>
> "It is true that there might be a mind - body problem."
>
> The term, 'is true' simpy means that the argument ["P"]

[Goober]
BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument.

[Sceptic]
is known to be
> in accord with the actual state of affairs.

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It
does not mean that it is known to be anything.

[Sceptic]
>
> The problem with such an an argument

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. Ain't an argument.

[Sceptic]
is that it is logical fallacy
> (bogus argument), Mr. Hanson.
> 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.

[Goober]
BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy,
even if it were an argument (which it isn't).

Goober.
>
>>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>>> might actually 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? No.
>>>
>>> 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_:
>>> for conceding, Mr. Goober.
>
>>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe there
>>> might actually 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? No.
>>>
>>> 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
>
>>> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
>>> certain." -- Dan Wood
>
>
>

 

[Ted King]

In article <efqg5t$57r$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Goober <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> > "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:efpbsb$mj5$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> >> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >>> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
> >>>> Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
> >>>> Generally true, we know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Goober.
> >>> Thanks for conceding, Mr. Goober.
> >> You presuppose a falsity
> >
> >
> > I am just thanking you for conceding, Mr. Goober. Now you say, "You are
> > welcome, Mr. Tutor."
>
> >> "P is believed by millions of people worldwide, therefore P is true."
> >
>
> [Sceptic]
> > "P is true" [or just plain "P," it doesn't matter, it means the same]
> is the proposition in question.
> >
> > "P is true" means exactly the same as just arguing, "P" ("There might
> be a mind - body problem" for example) alone. Adding "is true" does not
> change anything, and "is true" stands as an unstated premise in your
> argument from popularity,
>
> [Goober]
> "is true" is a predicate (commonly called, for obvious reasons, the
> truth predicate) and hence cannot be a premise. For "is true" to be a
> premise it would have to express a proposition, and it doesn't. It has
> no truth-value. It is, as Gottlob Frege, a founder of modern logic put
> it: "unsaturated".
>
> If what you are trying to say is that "there might be a mind-body
> problem is true" is a hidden premise, there is no grounds for supposing
> that.
>
> We await your explicit specification (premises and conclusion, please)
> of the supposed argument that you claim to be implicit.
>
> [Sceptic]
> "P is believed by millions of people
> > worldwide." There is absolutely no difference in meaning between the
> following two statements:
> >
> > "There might be a mind - body problem."
> >
> > "It is true that there might be a mind - body problem."
> >
> > The term, 'is true' simpy means that the argument ["P"]
>
> [Goober]
> BZZZZZZ. "P" is not an argument.
>
> [Sceptic]
> is known to be
> > in accord with the actual state of affairs.
>
> [Goober]
> BZZZZZ. It does not mean that. It means that P is actual, real, etc. It
> does not mean that it is known to be anything.
>
> [Sceptic]
> >
> > The problem with such an an argument
>
> [Goober]
> BZZZZZ. Ain't an argument.
>
> [Sceptic]
> is that it is logical fallacy
> > (bogus argument), Mr. Hanson.
> > 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.
>
> [Goober]
> BZZZZZ. Wrong - that they could all be wrong does not make it a fallacy,
> even if it were an argument (which it isn't).
>
> Goober.

If you feel like taking a break from playing with Skeptic for awhile,
there is a thread about "truth" where I'm floundering around (as usual)
- especially recently with respect to issues of reference. I would be
interested in hearing your thoughts if you are so inclined. The thread
title is, "What is Truth?"

Ted

 

[Dutch]

"Your 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. 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.

There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
argument _ad ignorantiam?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:12i4e23sikqjgf1@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Your 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. 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.
>
> There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
> argument _ad ignorantiam_?

Teacups are known to exist, and "There might be a teacup orbiting Earth" is
a LOCATION proposition, not an existential one. We are discussing
existential propositions, propositions concerning things not known to exist,
like the hypothetical ['might be' theist conjecture] invisible crystalline
substance God hypothetically installed in all the valleys of the moon,
making of it a perfect sphere, as theology <a system or school of religious
beliefs and teachings - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn> had long taught.

You understand the situation Copi is explaining, don't you?

 

[Virgil]

In article <98idndTbgYf5Rr7YnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Idiotic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i4e23sikqjgf1@news.supernews.com...
> >

> > There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
> > argument _ad ignorantiam_?
>
> Teacups are known to exist

There might be a bluavat orbiting earth.

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i4e23sikqjgf1@news.supernews.com...
>> "Your 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. 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.
>> There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
>> argument _ad ignorantiam_?
>
> Teacups are known to exist, and "There might be a teacup orbiting Earth" is
> a LOCATION proposition, not an existential one.

Error 1. False dilemma . "Location" propositions are not a separate
logically significant category of propositions from existential ones.
"Location" proposition are existential: For example: "There exists a
teacup located in orbit around the earth".

Error 2. "There might be a teacup orbiting the Earth" is also
existential . That is, in quantified predicate logic it is represented
by a proposition bounded by an existential quantifier. Specifically, in
English:

There exists a possible world, w, such that a teacup orbits the Earth.

However, whether this carries with it existential import or not is a
matter of philosophical dispute. It largely turns on whether one's
metaphysical leanings are actualist (where to say that something
exists is to say that it is actual) or possibilist (where to say that
something exists carries no such entailment). See Prior and Fine
"Worlds, Times and Selves", 1977 for the actualist case, and Lewis "On
the Plurality of Worlds", 1986, for the possibilist case. The possiblist
does not equivocate on the interpretation of the existential quantifier;
the actualist apparently does. On the other hand, the actualist has
common-sense on their side.

We are discussing
> existential propositions, propositions concerning things not known to exist,

Error 3. You confuse existential propositions with universal
propositions .

An existential proposition is a proposition bounded by an existential
quantifier. A universal proposition is a proposition bounded by a
universal quantifier. A negated proposition is a proposition bounded by
a negation operator. See any elementary logic text that covers predicate
logic, such as Copi's Introduction to Logic. Using "E" to represent the
existential quantifier, and "P" to represent an arbitrary predicate, an
existential proposition has the logical form:

(Ex)Px

In English:

"There exists an x such that x has the property P."

But above you compound existential propositions with "propositions
concerning things not known to exist". The latter, however, is not
existential, it is a kind of universal claim - it is bounded by a
universal quantifier. Alternatively, you can view it as a negated
proposition. The claim "It is not known that a teacup orbits the Earth"
is logically equivalent to:

"It is not the case that it is known that there exists a teacup orbiting
the earth"

That is bounded by the negation operator, not an existential quantifier.
In logic, where "Kx" is "x is known", "t" is "a teacup orbits the
earth", it is:

~Kt

Or, within quantified predicate logic, staying within the domain of
propositions:

~(Ex)(Kx & x=t)

And this negated proposition (using "A" to represent the universal
quantifier) is logically equivalent to the following universal proposition:

(Ax)~(Kx & x=t)

Goober.

P.S. It never fails to astonish me how many errors and confusions you
manage to squeeze into so few words.

> like the hypothetical ['might be' theist conjecture] invisible crystalline
> substance God hypothetically installed in all the valleys of the moon,
> making of it a perfect sphere, as theology <a system or school of religious
> beliefs and teachings - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn> had long taught.
>
> You understand the situation Copi is explaining, don't you?
>
>
>
>

 

[Dutch]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:98idndTbgYf5Rr7YnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i4e23sikqjgf1@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Your 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. 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.
>>
>> There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
>> argument _ad ignorantiam_?
>
> Teacups are known to exist, and "There might be a teacup orbiting Earth"
> is
> a LOCATION proposition, not an existential one.

It is a "might be" statement, "be" being a synonym of the verb "to exist". I
may have said an undiscovered form of space dust instead of a teacup. Would
that have been argument _ad ignorantiam_?

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

> We are discussing
> existential propositions, propositions concerning things not known to
> exist,
> like the hypothetical ['might be' theist conjecture] invisible crystalline
> substance God hypothetically installed in all the valleys of the moon,
> making of it a perfect sphere, as theology <a system or school of
> religious
> beliefs and teachings - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn> had long taught.
>
> You understand the situation Copi is explaining, don't you?

You are moving the goalposts, your argument proposed that 'might be'
conjectures are argument _ad ignorantiam, they are not. Might be conjectures
are the goalposts of knowledge and learning. A scientist believed that a
hypothesis he formulated and worked for his entire career to prove might be
the answer to a problem. One day a student proved that his hypothesis was
impossible. He embraced him and thanked him.

 

[jientho@aol.com]

Septic wrote:
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i4e23sikqjgf1@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Septic" <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. 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.
> >
> > There might be a teacup orbiting the earth. Would you call that statement
> > argument _ad ignorantiam_?
>
> Teacups are known to exist, and "There might be a teacup orbiting Earth" is
> a LOCATION proposition, not an existential one.

Beings are known to exist, and "There might be an omniscient being" is
therefore a KNOWLEDGE proposition, not an existential one? Doh!
Something's wrong with Septic's "logic" and "reasoning" abilities.

Jeff