Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >>> >>> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >>>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >>>> > >>>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >>>> > >>>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness >>> dwell >>>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? >>>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. >>>> > > >>>> > > How does that turn into an argument? >>>> > >>>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument >>>> >>>> It does >>> >>> [unsnip] >>> >>> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument >> >> 1. If it's not an argument. >> 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> 3. And it is not an argument. >> 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > It appears to be couched as a question. If he had said "We know that > consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because nobody has > proven that it does." that would be argumentum ad ignorantiam. Precisely!!! Thank you. > > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:450039c8.53490140@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 14:59:51 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > wrote: > >>the same old bloodthirsty killer. > > Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty? Pay attention- it is you old testament God which is depicted as a bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d5XLg.39946$y7.36098@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4mamp8F5433aU1@individual.net... >> >> >><snip> >> >> I certainly do understand the difference, having read both. >> >> All you have done is dodge two perfectly reasonable questions. >> >> So I'll try again. >> >> 1. If your God is infallible, how can he misrepresent his own essence > in >> > his >> >> own bible, as you suggest? >> >> 2.Is Jesus, as part of the trinity, the same God as the God of the old >> >> and >> >> new testaments? >> >> Please dodge them again if you feel it is necessary. >> >> >> > Ok, I answer your questions as best as I can. Response to questions: >> > 1- God _is_ infallible, but man is not. God did not misrepresent >> > himself, the fault lay with man.. Man failed to understand God. If I >> > suggested God misrepresented himself, I was wrong. It certainly >> > wasn't my intent. If it is difficult for humans to sometimes understand >> > each other, it isn't very difficult to see how we can mistake the will >> > of God. >> > 2) Yes. Jesus is part if the Trinity. There is only one God, but in >> > three distinct manifestations, God the Father, God the Son and >> > Holy Ghost. Jesus was God made flesh. The same God is >> > depicted in both the Old and the New Testaments, however, the >> > N.T. gives a much better and more accurate presentation of God >> > than the Old. >> > >> >> Thank you for answering. >> At least you believe that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God. >> People like that can be dangerous. >> >> > NOw please answer my questions. >> > >> > What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, >> > or why the New Testament was necessary? >> >> One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament was >> necessary at all. >> If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question. >> > Ok, so you have no idea! In all due respect, how then can you > criticize that which you do not understand? > I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation. I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted in the Old Testament is the same God that you worship. You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God, then later weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem. Jeez..... a slippery lot,aren't you? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Steve O Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net... >> >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:PtOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> > >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism >> >> >> >> > >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. > If >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless > you >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one > needs >> > to >> >> >> read the Christian bible. >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and >> >> >> wrathful >> >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and > innocent >> >> >> >>people. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People. >> >> >> >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what > way,exactly? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy > named >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, > or >> > did >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? >> >> >> > >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant. >> >> >> >> No change then. >> >> >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant >> > was made with man. >> > >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer. >> > Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as > a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man. > > But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love, > understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself > on behalf of man. >> > Best Wishes, > Dan So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong. That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit that. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mddblF5n7gbU1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d5XLg.39946$y7.36098@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > > news:4mamp8F5433aU1@individual.net... > >> > >> >><snip> > >> >> I certainly do understand the difference, having read both. > >> >> All you have done is dodge two perfectly reasonable questions. > >> >> So I'll try again. > >> >> 1. If your God is infallible, how can he misrepresent his own essence > > in > >> > his > >> >> own bible, as you suggest? > >> >> 2.Is Jesus, as part of the trinity, the same God as the God of the old > >> >> and > >> >> new testaments? > >> >> Please dodge them again if you feel it is necessary. > >> >> > >> > Ok, I answer your questions as best as I can. Response to questions: > >> > 1- God _is_ infallible, but man is not. God did not misrepresent > >> > himself, the fault lay with man.. Man failed to understand God. If I > >> > suggested God misrepresented himself, I was wrong. It certainly > >> > wasn't my intent. If it is difficult for humans to sometimes understand > >> > each other, it isn't very difficult to see how we can mistake the will > >> > of God. > >> > 2) Yes. Jesus is part if the Trinity. There is only one God, but in > >> > three distinct manifestations, God the Father, God the Son and > >> > Holy Ghost. Jesus was God made flesh. The same God is > >> > depicted in both the Old and the New Testaments, however, the > >> > N.T. gives a much better and more accurate presentation of God > >> > than the Old. > >> > > >> > >> Thank you for answering. > >> At least you believe that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God. > >> People like that can be dangerous. > >> > >> > NOw please answer my questions. > >> > > >> > What is the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, > >> > or why the New Testament was necessary? > >> > >> One was written before the other, and I don't think the new testament was > >> necessary at all. > >> If you want a better answer, you'll have to expand on the question. > >> > > Ok, so you have no idea! In all due respect, how then can you > > criticize that which you do not understand? > > > I haven't made a criticism, I made an observation. > I pointed out to you that the same old bloodthirsty killer God depicted in > the Old Testament is the same God that you worship. > Your observation doesn't take into account that people often misconstrue and fail to understand each other, to say nothing of misunderstanding the written word found within the pages of the Bible. There is often disagreement among dedicated Christians regarding the meaning of the messages contained within the Bible's pages. > > You seemed to disagree, and argued the point first of all that the Old > Testament God is not the same God as the new Testament God, > Nowhere have I argued this. I do not accept this. > then later > weaselled out of that position by then claiming that it was man's > misinterpretation of God in the Old Testament that caused the problem. > Jeez..... a slippery lot, aren't you? > This has been my position all along. The differenence is not different Gods, but different human impressions of God's nature . The New Testament does not depict God as vindictive, cruel, wrathful God demanding sacrifices as does the Old Testament: rather the N.T. pictures God as kind, loving giving and self-sacrificing. And this has been my view all along - no reason to weasel. You have shown that you have very little idea as to the difference where the Old and the New Testament is concerned. All you seem to know is that one was written before the other and the New Testament was unnecessary. It's obvious that you know next to nothing about the Bible. But that doesn't prevent you from commenting. How can one take you seriously? > Thanks, Dan > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > > > > Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message news:4mddeuF5lpdeU1@individual.net... > > "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bdXLg.39963$y7.4621@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > > > "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > > news:4mamv4F5bppvU1@individual.net... > >> > >> "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:PtOLg.48368$w7.20204@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > >> > > >> > "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message > >> > news:b2ttf21v19756id0enkqojss4vrsv188mf@4ax.com... > >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote in alt.atheism > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >"Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote in message > >> >> >news:4m3c5oF4boucU1@individual.net... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:44fc3d03.3749109@news-server.houston.rr.com... > >> >> >> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:38:55 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>A good example of a psychotic God would be your Christian God, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Not my God. Your God. You are the one doing the defining, not me. > > If > >> >> >> > you want to know how I define my God, you need to ask me, unless > > you > >> >> >> > are deluded into thinking you can read my mind. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> To define your Christian God, one does not need to ask you - one > > needs > >> > to > >> >> >> read the Christian bible. > >> >> >> The Christian bible defines their God as an angry, jealous and > >> >> >> wrathful > >> >> >> killer. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>particularly as described in the Old Testament. > >> >> >> >>A manipulative and sadistic killer of babies, children and > > innocent > >> >> >> >>people. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That would be the God of the Chosen People. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And that God is different from the Christian God in what > > way,exactly? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The God of Christians is described in the New Textament, a guy > > named > >> >> >> > Christ. I do not believe he was any baby killer. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> You are either being particularly stupid, obtuse, or both. > >> >> >> The God of the Old Testament IS the same God of the New Testament, > > or > >> > did > >> >> >> you think that they swapped Gods in between testaments? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >No, a far better understanding of God was brought about in the > >> >> >New Testiment which contained the New Covenant. > >> >> > >> >> No change then. > >> >> > >> > Our understanding changed. But there was a change. A new covenant > >> > was made with man. > >> > > >> I see- a new covenant with the same old bloodthirsty killer. > >> > > Sorry, but as I trieed to explain before, our understand of the > > nature of God changed. The Old Testiment depicted God as > > a wrathfull, spiteful, cruel being who demands sacrifices by man. > > > > But not the God of New Testiment. It pctures God one of love, > > understanding, kindness and a God one who sacrificed himself > > on behalf of man. > >> > > Best Wishes, > > Dan > > So basically, you think that the bible (Old Testament) was wrong. > That's okay, there are some Christians who wouldn't be prepared to admit > that. > The Old Testament concept of God was fundamentally wrong. I'm of the opinion, this was one reason for the coming of Christ and the New Testament - to correct the image of God created in the Old. Most mainline Churches claim to be a New Testament church. There is a reason for that. Do you have any idea as to why that is? I do not believe that prophets in the O.T. literately sat around taking dictation from God. Rather they were moved by the spirit. And they often got it wrong. The New Testament has no prophets. John the Baptist was the last of the old line of prophets they had no purpose in the New Testament. Thanks, Dan > > -- > Steve O > a.a. #2240 > "Apparently, as I understand it , I am supposed to repent for being the way > that God made me, and then God will save me from God's wrath?" > > > > Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> wrote: >> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty? >Pay attention Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it. >it is you old testament God which is depicted as a >bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood. Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:45019f89.145075437@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:29:50 +0100, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com> > wrote: > > >> Why do you consider self defense to be bloodthirsty? > > >Pay attention > > Upu pay attention. I asked you a question, and you did not answer it. > > >it is you old testament God which is depicted as a > >bloodthirsty killer in your own book o' blood. > > Bloodthirsty is good when you are defending yourself. > People too often see what they want to see. Dan Wood, DDS > > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > It is not an argument. Wake up, it is an argument, moron, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >>> > > >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > >> dwell > >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? > >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. > >>> > > > >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? > >>> > > >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > >>> > >>> It does > >> > >> [unsnip] > >> > >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument > > > > 1. If it's not an argument. > > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > 3. And it is not an argument. > > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > It appears to be couched as a question. "No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >>> > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > >>> > > > >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? > >>> > > >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > >>> > >>> It does > >> > >> [unsnip] > >> > >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument > > > > 1. If it's not an argument. > > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > 3. And it is not an argument. > > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > It appears to be couched as a question. "No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead, it is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Virgil" : > "Might" implies the possibility How will you establish that there is a possibility of consciousness outside the brain? The argument from ignorance you all are pissing your pants trying to get away with, that there might be consciousness outside the brain because there is no proof that hypothesis is false, that is argument _ad ignorantiam_, 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.] Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > > dwell exclusively in the brain? > > No one knows for certain. > That is not an argument. Yes it is, knucklehead. Ask any of your local experts in logic. It is argument from ignorance, 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.] Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:2NadnbEERex7hp_YnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > >> It is not an argument. > > Wake up, it is an argument, 1. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a flawed form of argument. 2. In order to be a flawed form of argument, it has to be an argument. 3. If it's not an argument, it's not a flawed argument. 4. If it's not an argument, it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. 5. And it's not an argument. 6. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... >> >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> > >> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness >> >> dwell >> >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? >> >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? >> >>> > >> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument >> >>> >> >>> It does >> >> >> >> [unsnip] >> >> >> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the >> >> argument >> > >> > 1. If it's not an argument. >> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> > 3. And it is not an argument. >> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> >> It appears to be couched as a question. > > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, No. It's a statement. A stand-alone statement is not an argument. 1. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a flawed form of argument. 2. In order to be a flawed form of argument, it has to be an argument. 3. If it's not an argument, it's not a flawed argument. 4. If it's not an argument, it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. 5. And it's not an argument. 6. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:XJKdnaoJ1Oybgp_YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com... > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... >> >> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> > >> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> >>> > > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> > exclusively in the brain? >> > No one knows for certain. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? >> >>> > >> >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument >> >>> >> >>> It does >> >> >> >> [unsnip] >> >> >> >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the >> >> argument >> > >> > 1. If it's not an argument. >> > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> > 3. And it is not an argument. >> > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> >> It appears to be couched as a question. > > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, No. It's a statement. Simple statements are not generally arguments. "No one knows for certain" is not an argument. 1. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a flawed form of argument. 2. In order to be a flawed form of argument, it has to be an argument. 3. If it's not an argument, it's not a flawed argument. 4. If it's not an argument, it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. 5. And it's not an argument. 6. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bNqdnWDfePJbvZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" : > >> "Might" implies the possibility > > How will you establish that there is a possibility of consciousness > outside > the brain? What do you care? So long as your erroneous understanding of one logical fallacy isn't employed, what business is it of yours. > > The argument from ignorance Has nothing to do with it. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:r-edndil9MkIuJ_YnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> >> > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness >> > dwell exclusively in the brain? >> > No one knows for certain. > >> That is not an argument. > > Yes it is, knucklehead. No it's not, moron. It's a simple question, followed by a simple statement. The question can neither be true nor false. The statement might be either true or false. Neither is an argument. 1. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is a flawed form of argument. 2. In order to be a flawed form of argument, it has to be an argument. 3. If it's not an argument, it's not a flawed argument. 4. If it's not an argument, it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. 5. And it's not an argument. 6. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <IuudnbeEf4NBgZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> > > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > > >> dwell > > >>> > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? > > >>> > > >> > > No one knows for certain. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? > > >>> > > > >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > > >>> > > >>> It does > > >> > > >> [unsnip] > > >> > > >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument > > > > > > 1. If it's not an argument. > > > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > > 3. And it is not an argument. > > > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > > > It appears to be couched as a question. > > knucklehead Septic's argumentum ad hominem invalidates any other claim he mught have wished to make. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <s-OdnfGFWJR5b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:3QOLg.7597$bM.1036@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:x-udnaHmK_UBLWLZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > > > >> >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > >> >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > >> >> > > exclusively in the brain? > > >> >> > > No one knows for certain. > > >> > > >> How does that turn into an argument? > > > > > > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument > > > _ad > > > ignorantiam_ > > > > IF it's not an argument > > ..., moron,... Septic's argumentum ad hominem vitiates his argumentum ex ignoramus Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > > > > > >> >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > > > >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness > dwell > > > > >> > > exclusively in the brain? > > > > >> > > No one knows for certain. > > > > > > > > How does that turn into an argument? > > > > > > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > > > > It does > > [unsnip] > > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, Septic's argumentum ad hominem vitiates any other he argument makes. [snip the remaining irrelevancies] Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <2NadnbEERex7hp_YnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > > It is not an argument. > > Wake up, ..., moron When Septic is forced by the weakness of his case to descend to the illogic of an argumentum ad hominem, anything else he may say is worthless. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <XJKdnaoJ1Oybgp_YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> > > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote > > >>> > > > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell > > > exclusively in the brain? > > > No one knows for certain. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? > > >>> > > > >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument > > >>> > > >>> It does > > >> > > >> [unsnip] > > >> > > >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the argument > > > > > > 1. If it's not an argument. > > > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > > 3. And it is not an argument. > > > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. > > > > It appears to be couched as a question. > > "No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead, "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain?" certainly appears to be one, so the issue of who may properly be called a knucklehead is a good deal less clear that Septic presents it. My move that Septic to be elected to that post by acclamation. All in favor? i Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-2EE530.21415908092006@news.usenetmonster.com... > In article <XJKdnaoJ1Oybgp_YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message >> news:12g21p4p3hsre8d@news.supernews.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:4500fe60$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> > > >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > news:s-OdnfCFWJR7b53YnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> >> > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote >> > >>> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote >> > >>> > >> > "DanWood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote >> > > That is really quite besides the point. Does consciousness dwell >> > > exclusively in the brain? >> > > No one knows for certain. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > How does that turn into an argument? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument >> > >>> >> > >>> It does >> > >> >> > >> [unsnip] >> > >> >> > >> It doesn't have to "turn into" an argument, moron, that IS the >> > >> argument >> > > >> > > 1. If it's not an argument. >> > > 2. then it's not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> > > 3. And it is not an argument. >> > > 4. Therefore it is not the argumentum ad ignorantiam. >> > >> > It appears to be couched as a question. >> >> "No one knows for certain" is not a question, knucklehead, > > "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain?" certainly appears > to be one, so the issue of who may properly be called a knucklehead is > a good deal less clear that Septic presents it. > > My move that Septic to be elected to that post by acclamation. > > All in favor? Aye. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 9, 2006 Posted September 9, 2006 In article <bNqdnWDfePJbvZ_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" : > > > "Might" implies the possibility of "might not" > > > The argument Does Septic assert that any statement of "might" necessarily excludes "might not"? So that when a weather report says it might rain, that excludes any possibility that it might not rain after all? If so, I suggest that Septic should spend less time venting his spleen here and more time correlating weather predictions with actual weather. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.