Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:8LadncKt55v-QJjYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:fjiNg.10665$xQ1.3472@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... >> >> > Virgil wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and > being >> >> >> found out. >> >> >> >> >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be >> >> >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. >> >> >> >> >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is >> >> >> capable >> >> >> of >> >> >> supporting consciousness. >> >> > >> >> > No brain, no conciousness. >> >> >> >> Correlation does not equal causation. >> > >> > Are you still trying to argue >> >> Does the sentence above look like an argument? > > Do you think the clock get set back to zero every time you post? You have > a > history you know. My history is showing that you don't know what the argument from ignorance is or how to apply it. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:GrmdnSjVcLU1Q5jYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com... > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:fjiNg.10665$xQ1.3472@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:toWdnae0vqQDMpjYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:450590cc$0$24186$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> >> >> "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message >> >> news:12ga01dgujej1e8@corp.supernews.com... >> >> > Virgil wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> It is a problem for Septic, because he keeps lying about it and > being >> >> >> found out. >> >> >> >> >> >> The most we have suggested re the brain is that, while it may be >> >> >> necessary to consciousness, it has not been shown sufficient. >> >> >> >> >> >> Septic apparently claims that a naked brain all by itself is >> >> >> capable >> >> >> of >> >> >> supporting consciousness. >> >> > >> >> > No brain, no conciousness. >> >> >> >> Correlation does not equal causation. >> > >> > Are you still trying to argue >> >> Does the sentence above look like an argument? > > Do you think the clock... I think you can't answer the question. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:12gblhninkr6f51@corp.supernews.com... > Virgil wrote: > >> >> While a brain may well be necessary for consciousness, it has not been >> shown by itself to be sufficient, which issue is sufficient to justify >> Gandalf's questioning of Septic's dogmatism. > > It has been so shown. The only thing that has been shown is that you're an idiot. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: > >> ... your bigoted viewpoints. > > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint Viewpoints are not simply opinions, my stupid little friend. The argument from ignorance is a complex subject that you have never defended in your own words. There are many logicians who have looked at the subject, there are IN FACT, a number of recognized viewpoints toward it, and the subject has in fact changed over the years from its introduction into philosophy by John Locke. The fact that you continuously misuse and abuse the term is evidence that you've never actually made an attempt to understand the rule. You only use it because you believe it to be a magic bumpersticker that can be hammered into supporting your bigoted viewpoints. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 In article <EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: > > > ... your bigoted viewpoints. > > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint But Septicism is a highly bigoted viewpoint, which cannot even that other viewpoints mean what they say, and no more, but must falsely reinterpret what others say as seen through the filter of his own extreme bias. And Since Septic puts his Septicism before atheism or anything else, Septic's Septicismic viewpoint is extremely bigoted. > Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad > ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof > there isn't What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 In article <8LadncKt55v-QJjYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > Do you think the clock get set back to zero every time you post? You have a > history you know. No one else has anywhere near an notorious a history as Septic here. Septic's Handles - Alphabetical by name , a partial listing, with date of first know use. ABC <abc@hotmail.com> 9-Jul-2003 Abu ben Hogan (benhogan@nospamhotmail.com) 21-Sep-2002 Ace (dralford@pacificrim.net) 17-Nov-1995 Al (arc@nospam.com) 20-Nov-2003 Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> 6-Jul-2003 Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> 3-Aug-2003 Arno <arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com> 13-Jan-2004 Arnold (arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com) 5-Feb-2004 Art <art300001@hotmailspamblock.com> 28-Jan-2004 Art2 (art2300001@hotmailspamblock.com) 28-Jan-2004 Atheistagnostic <atheistagnos...@nospam.net> 2-Feb-2005 B. Corporeal <bcorp392@hotmail.com> 1-Jan-2004 B. Corporel (bcorp39874@hotmail.com) 1-Dec-2003 Ben <someone @microsoft.com> 2-Jun-2003 bfskinner bfskinner@my-deja.com 14-May-2000 Bill Gates <billg@microsaused.com> 7-Jul-2003 Bo Hica <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 3-Jun-2000 Bob D. <bobd2004@comcast.com> 6-May-2003 Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> 14-Jul-2003 Boggs <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com> 5-Dec-2001 Boggs <muddyboggs@hotmail.com> 27-Jul-2004 Bullet <bul...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006 C Ketchikan (cj@ket.net) 31-Jul-2003 C. Tailor (ct98229@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003 Creon <douglacia@nospamathome.com> 19-May-2000 D R <nospam@please.com> 12-Jul-1998 D. Wolfe (wolfe@stancion.com) 19-Jul-2003 Deep Thought <d...@algia.org> 12-Jun-2005 Deep Thought <deepthou...@nospam.net> 5-Jun-2005 Dick Dragon <Matt-Sweetman-Is-A-Fraud@alloverthe.net> 25-Jun-2000 Dick Dragon <nospam@all.net> 8-Jun-2000 Diesel <abuse-mail@uu.net> 5-Sep-1999 Diixiit <diiix@nospam.com> 14-Jun-2004 Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> 29-Mar-2004 Dixit <dix@nospam.com> 31-Mar-2004 Dixit <dix@nospam.com> 17-May-2004 Donald Alford <donald_alford@email.msn.com> 26-Aug-1998 Donald Alford <dralford@pacificrim.net> 1-May-1995 Donald Alford <y3kSPAM@uswest.net> 16-Apr-1999 Donald R. Alford (DRAlford@gnn.com) 15-Sep-1996 DR Feelgood <drfeelgood3000@hotmailspamblock.com> 17-Jul-2003 Dr. Sinster <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 29-Jun-2000 Dr. Sinster <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net> 18-Jun-2000 Dr. Sister <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000 Dr. Sister <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net> 20-Jun-2000 Duck <quacker@webfoot.net> 31-Oct-2003 eggs (eggs@nospam.com) 29-Nov-2004 Frazier <fraz@stones.com> 30-Jul-1999 Fred <someone@amazon.com> 6-Oct-1999 Fred Skinner <nospam@all.all> 29-Oct-1998 Fred Skinner <y3k@NOSPAMuswest.net> 3-Mar-1999 Frisbyterian <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000 Frisbyterian Skeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 26-Jun-2000 Gawud <dad@home.com> 11-Jan-2001 George g...@nospam.com 13-Jun-2006 Hans <hansv@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002 Hans Van M. <hansv@hotmail.com> 27-Dec-2002 Ho Hum (spam@spam.com) 27-Apr-2002 Ho Hum <hohum@weareallone.net> 21-May-1999 Ho Hum <nospam@forme.please> 7-Jun-1999 Hum <hohum2001@my-deja.com> 19-Aug-1999 Huxley <someone@microsoft.com> 30-Jun-2001 Hy (hrh@hrh.net) 20-Nov-2003 I M Notajoiner <nospam@all.atall> 27-Aug-1998 Ima Skeptic Too <Dad@home.com> 1-Jul-2000 Incubus <i...@in.net> 15-Mar-2005 Jaco Bandolim (jband@sparknode.com) 6-Jan-2004 Jaco Mandolin (jmand@sparknode.com) 8-Jan-2004 Jake <j@nospam.net> 20-Feb-2005 JHC j...@nospam.net 16-Apr-2005 John McTavish <jmctavish@hootmon.net> 31-Oct-2003 Jones <j...@nospam.net> 5-Aug-2005 JR1 (jr1@jr.com) 22-Nov-2003 JR2 (jr2@jr.com) 23-Nov-2003 KB <kb@hotmail.com> 19-Jun-2003 KBC <kbc@westlink.cop> 24-Jun-2003 Krait Bungarus Caeruleus <kbc@wesltink.com> 18-Jun-2003 Loadnlock <l...@nospam.net> 17-Apr-2005 Long <long@nospam.net> 16-Jan-2005 Mac <m...@nospam.net> 9-Nov-2005 MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 8-Jun-2005 MagicRub <m...@nospam.net> 12-Jan-2006 McSweeny <mcs@hootmon.com> 14-Oct-2002 Mekkala's Alleged \Blithering Fucking Idiot\ <slimshady@mnm.com> 18-Nov-2003 Miller <m...@miler.org> 15-Nov-2005 Muddy Boggs <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com> 4-Mar-2002 muddyboggs muddyboggs@hotmail.com 19-Dec-2001 Navigator (nav@nav.com) 10-Feb-2004 Navigatorator <navi@navi.com> 1-Mar-2004 Nick <nospam@all.all> 20-Aug-2002 Oil-O-Matic <aikin@nospam.com> 27-May-2003 one <one@world.net> 22-Jul-1999 OS XI oes...@gmail.com 8-Nov-2005 Otto <ottumwa3001@hotmailt.com> 13-Jun-2003 Page Downey (pd98229@hotmail.com) 29-Oct-2003 Paige Downey (pd98229@hotmail.com) 30-Oct-2003 Pat <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003 Pat Hand <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> 3-Nov-2003 PBJ <pbj@nospam.com> 9-Jul-2003 Pesche <pes...@nospam.net> 9-May-2005 Peter <p...@wherisya.com> <p...@wherisya.com> 5-Jun-2006 Pitt <p....@....com> 8-May-2006 Proulx <pru@az.net> 4-May-2003 PsychStudent <psychstudent@earth.net> 3-Aug-1999 Ray <ray@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003 Rhode Island Red <rirrooster2000@hotmail.com> 27-Jun-2003 Richo <richo98...@hotmail.com> 17-Nov-2005 Rien <r...@nospam.com> 18-May-2006 Roger Bush <roger@bush.com> 21-Dec-2002 Romeo <romeo@shakespear.net> 24-Jun-2003 Rooster <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Sep-2002 Rooster <nospam@all.all> 24-Jul-2002 Rooster <rooster@hotmail.com> 23-Sep-2002 Salmon Loaf <sal097236@hotmail.com> 21-Aug-2003 Sam Jankis <s...@nospam.net> 15-May-2005 Sam Spade <sspade@hotmail.com> 15-Oct-2002 Sheikh Yapeter <s...@comcast.com> 20-Jun-2006 Shleptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 22-Jun-2000 Skeptic <abuse-mail@uu.net> 4-Sep-1999 Skeptic <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 14-Nov-1999 Skeptic <Dad@home.com> 2-Jul-2000 Skeptic <nospam@all.all> 18-Aug-1999 Skeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 24-Jun-2000 Skeptic <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000 Skeptic Schemeptic <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com> 23-Jun-2000 Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> 11-Mar-2004 Slim (slimshady@mnm.com) 17-Nov-2003 Smith <nospam@all.all> ? Spike Nail <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 28-Apr-2003 SquareKnot <SquareK...@nospam.net> 7-Oct-2005 Stanley Leverlock <stan@nospam.com> 27-May-2003 Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever <stan@nospam.com> 2-Jun-2003 Steven V. Snyder <2098snyder360@hootmail.com> 11-Nov-2002 Sven <svh@nospam.com> 14-Nov-2003 T. Jefferson <abuse-mail@uunet.com> 1-Mar-2003 The Other Alan <otheralan@nospam.com> 6-Apr-2004 The Theeeenker <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 2-Jul-2000 The Theenker <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 1-Jul-2000 The Thinkerator <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 30-Jun-2000 Threeball Hall <hall31728@hotmail.com> 3-Aug-2003 Tiger <T...@nospam.net> 12-Jul-2005 Tim <tim3000@nospam.com> 16-Jul-2003 todd t...@rog.com 8-Nov-2005 Todd Field toadfrog3001@hotmail.com 6-Jun-2001 Tom Wetsuit <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com> 6-Jul-2000 Tygasi tygasi@tygasi.net 30-Jan-2005 Vital Basics <vb32987@hotmail.com> 19-Aug-2003 Whitey <tonyb@hotmail.com> 31-May-2003 Whosya Daddy <Dad@home.com> 1-Jul-2000 Wolf Blister <wolf@uunet.com> 25-Mar-2003 X <X@nospam.net> 8-Oct-2004 XL XL@XL.net 17-Dec-04 Y3K oilomatic@hotmail.com 15-Jan-2003 Y3K (y3k@netscrape.com) 29-Dec-2003 Y3K <y3k@hotmail.com> 1-Jun-2003 Yoda <yoda@hotmail.com> 28-Sep-2002 Your Logic Tutor <muddybo...@hotmail.com> 1-Jul-2006 Zogby z...@comcast.com 9-Jul-2006 Quote
Guest Virgil Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 In article <4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > > In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > > > > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > > > > > > > > > >> Copi quotes ... > > > > > > > > > > Copi quotes ... > > > > > > > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... > > > > > > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron > > > > To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must > > declare certainty > > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' > conjecture. How many times do you have to be reminded? Septic again deliberately conflates the what an hypothesis says with whether it is true or not. The Astronomers in Copi's example said "is in fact". Whether what they said was actually "in fact" true is quite independent of the certainty with which they claimed it. But when someone does not claim "in fact" but only that something "might or might not be", then there is no way to claim an argumentum ad ignorantiam without lying. Since Septic does claim it, he convicts himself of lying once more. > > > Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning: > hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition, > belief, faith The certainty, or lack of it, in the truth of a statement is totally independent of the form of the statement, and it is the form of that statement which determines whether an argumentum ad ignorantiam exists. On can be guilty of an argumentum ad ignorantiam when makings a true statement, and be innocent of argumentum ad ignorantiam when making a false statement, since it depends only on the form, and not the content. Septic describes only the content and carefully ignores the form. form. > > And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally > probable hypothesis," in the following, is there? But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an argumentum ad ignorantiam. if one declares oneself uncertain, as we agnostics do when we say that as far as we know there might or might not be any gods, no argumentum ad ignorantiam can exist. Perhaps the little boy in Septic just never grew up enough to be able to admit when he was so grievously and repeatedly wrong. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, in alt.atheism "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote in <MvlNg.18630$IM1.4403@bignews8.bellsouth.net>: > >"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message >news:450556c2.2593625@news-server.houston.rr.com... >> I think by now the point has been made that I wanted to make when I >> started this thread. >> >> Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists >> or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or >> tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you >> claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a >> God that does not exist. >> >> Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is >> extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms. >> Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course >> of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person >> has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking >> on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting. >> >> Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational >> fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is >> something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but >> it is not what you claim it is". >> >There is more to reality than we see. Really? What evidence do you have? >The inhabitants of a two >dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. I see that you have never met a mathematician. >So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling >into their world? A resident of a water world gifted with a >highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he >cannot see, We cannot always see reality. Until the >Hubble, we could not see planets circling a star in Orion. >That doesn't mean they were not there. >When electricity was first discovered it was a curious >phenonium without any visible cause. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: > > > >> ... your bigoted viewpoints. > > > > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint > > Viewpoints <BITCHSLAP!> Atheism is not a viewpoint, opinion, or belief like the Christian Belief, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html Is this too difficult for your tiny brain to absorb? Now why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof there isn't now that you have been informed that is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > ... no proof either way. <BITCHSLAP!> That is argument from ignorance, 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 Bob Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:28:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists >>or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or >>tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you >>claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a >>God that does not exist. >Yet religious zealots insist they have evidence for the existence of >God. When pressed on the matter, they fail to provide references for >such evidence. The real question is what is the essence of this God they claim exists. You can't provide references to something that does not exist. >>Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is >>extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms. >>Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course >>of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person >>has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking >>on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting. >> >>Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational >>fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is >>something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but >>it is not what you claim it is". >I don't think you get anywhere with this. Yet this is the single most important consideration in the theist/atheist debate. Neither side can't specify the essence of the God they are referring to. Therefore they both refer to a God that does not exist to begin with. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> wrote: >There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two >dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. Straw man. It is not possible for a two-dimensional universe to exist. >So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling >into their world? A resident of a water world gifted with a >highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he >cannot see, We cannot always see reality. Until the >Hubble, we could not see planets circling a star in Orion. >That doesn't mean they were not there. >When electricity was first discovered it was a curious >phenonium without any visible cause. You are an agnostic. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Bob Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:24:34 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>The inhabitants of a two >>dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. >I see that you have never met a mathematician. Worse yet he has never met a physicist. The laws of physics require a 4-dimensional spacetime, at a minimum. Anything less than those 4 dimensions would cause certain laws of physics to diverge. -- "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Mark Twain Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> > > >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > > > >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : >> > > > >> > > >> Copi quotes ... >> > > > >> > > > Copi quotes ... >> > > >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... >> > >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron >> >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must >> declare certainty > > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really not a part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis A hypothesis (from Greek ????????) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... >> >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints. >> > >> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint >> >> Viewpoints Viewpoints are not simply opinions, my stupid little friend. The argument from ignorance is a complex subject that you have never defended in your own words. There are many logicians who have looked at the subject, there are IN FACT, a number of recognized viewpoints toward it, and the subject has in fact changed over the years from its introduction into philosophy by John Locke. The fact that you continuously misuse and abuse the term is evidence that you've never actually made an attempt to understand the rule. You only use it because you believe it to be a magic bumpersticker that can be hammered into supporting your bigoted viewpoints. Quote
Guest Gandalf Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > >> ... no proof either way. > > <BITCH..... "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance, because it's not an argument at all. Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4505fc11$0$24206$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:l4OdnYTZMbRIbpjYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4505e58d$0$24201$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > >> > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> news:EeWdnccKpcrUfJjYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> ... your bigoted viewpoints. > >> > > >> > Atheism is not a bigoted viewpoint > >> > >> Viewpoints [unsnip] <BITCHSLAP!> Atheism is not a viewpoint, opinion, or belief like the Christian Belief, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html Is this too difficult for your tiny brain to absorb? Now why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof there isn't now that you have been informed that is logical fallacy for which theists are famous, as Copi explains? Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:4505f5de.37710718@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:26 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >There is more to reality than we see. The inhabitants of a two > >dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. > > Straw man. It is not possible for a two-dimensional universe to exist. > > >So how would they describe a an 3 dimension object falling > >into their world? A resident of a water world gifted with a > >highly developed brain cannot comprehend that which he > >cannot see, We cannot always see reality. Until the > >Hubble, we could not see planets circling a star in Orion. > >That doesn't mean they were not there. > >When electricity was first discovered it was a curious > >phenonium without any visible cause. > > You are an agnostic. > It's interesting I been called everything from an atheist to a fundy an now an agnostic. > Dan > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain > Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> > > > >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > >> > > > > >> > > >> Copi quotes ... > >> > > > > >> > > > Copi quotes ... > >> > > > >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... > >> > > >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron > >> > >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must > >> declare certainty > > > > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' > > Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really > not a part of it. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis > ... > "to suppose" That means 'might be' conjecture, moron. Snap out of it! Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. How many times do you have to be reminded? Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning: hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition, belief, faith And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally probable hypothesis," in the following, is there? <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_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Will you ever be able to get this through your thick skull, son? Quote
Guest Your Logic Tutor Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4505fc4e$0$24211$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:2M-dnQ2laZtuaZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote > > > >> ... no proof either way. > > > > <BITCHSLAP>..... > > "No proof either way" is not an argument from ignorance ... <BITCHSLAP> "No proof either way" includes "There is no proof there is no God," right? Yes. And that is just the lame theist attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheists who have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you theists do. Got it now? It is the same lame argument from ignorance these theists of Galileo's time are trying to get away with, but Galileo called them on it: <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 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:4505fbd3$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:4-OdnQh3voroeJjYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:virgil-9B50C5.13233011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > >> In article <A7-dnRBVfMnSMZjYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message > >> > news:DahNg.6259$v%4.5222@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> > > > >> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > > news:9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote : > >> > > > > >> > > >> Copi quotes ... > >> > > > > >> > > > Copi quotes ... > >> > > > >> > > Copi represents only one viewpoint ... > >> > > >> > It's not a viewpoint (opinion), moron > >> > >> To qualify as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, the "hypothesis" must > >> declare certainty > > > > Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' > > Actually, hypothesis has a very specific meaning and 'might be' is really > not a part of it. You really are a moron, aren't you? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis > ... > "to suppose" That means conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, son. Snap out of it! Don't act so stupid. You know that the term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. How many times do you have to be reminded? Synonyms are terms that have the same or nearly the same meaning: hypothesis, conjecture, guesswork, 'might be' speculation, hunch, intuition, belief, faith And, there is certainly no "declaration of certainty," just an "equally probable hypothesis," in the following, is there? <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_) [in this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.] Will you ever be able to get this through your thick skull, son? Quote
Guest Dan Wood Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:4505f64b.37820218@news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:24:34 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> > wrote: > > >>The inhabitants of a two > >>dimension universe cannot imagine a three dimensions. > > >I see that you have never met a mathematician. > > Worse yet he has never met a physicist. > I did not propose this as a real 2 dimension world situation. So, neither or the afore mentioned professionals are required. It seems that you do not understand the concept of the analogy. > > The laws of physics require a 4-dimensional spacetime, at a minimum. > Anything less than those 4 dimensions would cause certain laws of > physics to diverge. > Need I repeat, I did not propose this as a real world situation. < Dan Wood, DDS > > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain > Quote
Guest Sphere Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Bob wrote: > I think by now the point has been made that I wanted to make when I > started this thread. > > Unless you can specify the essence of the God you claim either exists > or does not exist, all you are doing is engaging in constrsadiction or > tautology, because until you do specify the essence of the God you > claim either exists or does not exist, all you are referring to is a > God that does not exist. Having accidentally fallen into this thread... How is it that this essenceless God which is only an idea held by millions of people does not exist? Are you saying that because I can lie I do not exist? Are you saying that because I am only a story told by trillions of cells I do not exist? Perhaps you are trying to say that because the idea does not perfectly match a referent it does not exist. But if so then nothing exists, for there are no ideas which completely or totally correctly describe their referents -- except perhaps ideas, like "perfect circle" which have no referents. There are millions of people who adhere to this God, and they act based upon the idea. From this action something arises, just as I arise from the action of cells. What is this something to be called if not God? > > Furthermore, as we have just seen in the posts to this thread, it is > extremely difficult to specify the essence of God in rational terms. > Even the God of the Bible changes faces many times during the course > of history. And then there is the problem that in India, every person > has their own God. You better bring your lunch if you plan on taking > on 1 billion different Gods in one sitting. Heheh. I'm not going to try to specify any essences at all. > > Your theism and your atheism both are fictions based on irrational > fantasies fabricated by your imagination. The theist says "there is > something more to reality that what we see" and the atheist says "but > it is not what you claim it is". Here we agree, or I would have passed this by. The Agnostic says "Interesting question." > -- > > "There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." > --Mark Twain --- No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action. Quote
Guest wcb Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Gandalf Grey wrote: > >> You lie and I correct your lies. >> You are the liar not me. > > You are a child. All you have is ad hominem attacks? Quote
Guest Bryan Olson Posted September 12, 2006 Posted September 12, 2006 Virgil wrote: > "Your Logic Tutor" wrote: > >> Why don't you and your theist friends give up trying to argue _ad >> ignorantiam_ that there might be this or that because there is no proof >> there isn't > > What we agnostics say is that agnostics should admit that there might or > might not be a lot of things for which there is no proof either way. For example, there may or may not be mermaids. Oceans are big. We haven't nearly explored them well enough to rule out that half-hot-babe-half-fish beings are swimming around there somewhere. > Septics continual rejection of this unbiased agnostic position > demonstrates Septic's bigoted bias unequivocally. Even though I cannot prove the non-existence of mermaids, I'm not exactly unbiased on the issue. If a child with a an interest in marine biology were to ask me whether they are real, I don't think I'd say that the question is unresolved. -- --Bryan 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.