Re: Definition of God

September 15, 2006

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:xsqdnYNWasXD3JfYnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message

> news:uiiNg.10663$xQ1.878@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>>

>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> news:Ef2dneio3KDrMJjYnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> >

>> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >>... your religious bigotry

>> >

>> > Atheism is not a religion

>>

>> Anti-theism is a religion

>

> No it isn't,

Yes it is. And it's a offensive, evangelical religion at that as Barwell's

zealotry and intolerance demonstrate.

September 15, 2006

Dan Wood wrote:

> "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message

> news:eupgg2lcm039kv0upvel38lr68a4rip459@4ax.com...

> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:27:36 -0400, "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>

> > wrote in alt.atheism

> >

> > >

> > >"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message

> > >news:94rtf2tr95j4dagv7o033cr6bdchri6v8i@4ax.com...

> > >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:12:32 -0400, herb z <herbzet@gmail.com> wrote in

> > >> alt.atheism

> > >>

> > >> >

> > >> >Dan Wood wrote:

> > >> >>

> > >> >[...]

> > >> >>

> > >> >> I'm going to turn over a new leaf. No more returning insults to

> those

> > >> >> who insult me. In the future I will attempt to carry on a civil,

> > >forthright

> > >> >> even friendly discourse. Insults only cloud the issue preventing

> honest

> > >> >> and sincere discussions.

> > >> >>

> > >> >> I hope you've had a wonderful day,

> > >> >> Dan

> > >> >

> > >> >Bravo, Dr. Dan. This is a better argument for Christianity

> > >>

> > >> Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,

> > >> hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.

> > >>

> > >Such is bound for punnishment.

> >

> > Rapunnzel Rapunnzel.

> >

> > Free clue Dan; when a character has omni characteristics all results are

> > as it wants it.

> >

> Sorry I must disagree. There was, as I see it, only two options. We

> would live strictly according to deterministic dictates (puppets

> on a string) or by free will.

>

> I appreciate and respect your thoughts,

> Dan

> >

> > --

> > Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to

> > shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate

> > at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll

> > be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.

September 16, 2006

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> ... one cannot reject any possibility

> without proof of its impossibility.

That is just like those theists of Galileo's time arguing _ad ignorantiam_

that there might be an invisible crystalline substance filling all the

valleys of the moon because that hypothesis [that 'might be' theist

conjecture] Galileo could not prove false! That is 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.]

September 16, 2006

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> >

> > > ... the brain might need some help in

> > > maintaining consciousness

> >

> > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal

soul'

> > thingy?

>

> How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such

> things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,

> etc.?

Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron? When you all say 'help'

you aren't talking about blood supply to the cells (which any cell needs),

you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,

aren't you?

September 16, 2006

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> >

> > > ... the brain might need some help in

> > > maintaining consciousness

> >

> > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal

soul'

> > thingy?

>

> How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such

> things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,

> etc.?

Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron? When you all say 'help'

you aren't really talking about blood supply or anything else physical,

you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,

aren't you?

September 16, 2006

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:virgil-936EAE.23055814092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> >

> > > ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in

> > > maintaining consciousness

> >

> > To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need

some

> > [metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?

>

> My notion of "needed help" is that the brain needs considerable physical

> help in maintaining consciousness.

How would that help your side's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be

the case that consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because

there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is

false?

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

certain." -- Dan Wood

September 16, 2006

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -

body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad

ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

certain." -- Dan Wood

September 16, 2006

"Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

>

> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">

>

> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -

> body problem,"

Well, scores of academics and scientists disagree with you on that, Septic.

But your argument from ignorance seems to be that because we can't currently

come up with an exact description of consciousness, then consciousness must

be whatever you say it is.

A truly excellent example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam as described by

Copi and others.

September 16, 2006

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -

body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

Here is how Wood phrases your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad

ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

certain." -- Dan Wood

That's just like a prosecutor arguing _ad ignorantiam_ in court, "Is the

accused actually not guilty as he claims? No one knows for certain." It is a

not-too-cleverly-disguised attempt at shifting the burden of proof, a form

of argument _ad ignorantiam_.

Remember, it is the MEANING of a statement such as that which really

matters, not the particular wording or rewording. Argument _ad ignorantiam_

is logical fallacy no matter how hard you try to disguise it.

September 16, 2006

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:virgil-A0C83A.01143615092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> In article <SJCdnSaT3vcCq5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > > In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > >

> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :

> > > >

> > > > > Copi quotes ...

> > > >

> > > > Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad

> > > > ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends

> > >

> > > The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"

> >

> > The hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)

is

> > that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an

invisible

> > crystalline substance

>

> False!!!

Don't be silly. It is true. Anybody can read it for himself. The hypothesis

(the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact) is that all the

moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline

substance, and the argument _ad ignorantiam_ is, "And this hypothesis (this

'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove 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 [hypothetically] 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.]

September 16, 2006

In article <yYGdnby3E9DUDJbYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >

> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > >

> > > > ... the brain might need some help in

> > > > maintaining consciousness

> > >

> > > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal

> soul'

> > > thingy?

> >

> > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such

> > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,

> > etc.?

>

> Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?

Sure it would. In autopsies, the brain is quite regularly removed from

the rest of the remains. Presumably after all consciousness has also

left the remains. But it is still the brain.

So it is moronic of Septic not to be aware of that.

> When you all say 'help'

> you aren't talking about blood supply to the cells (which any cell needs),

> you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,

> aren't you?

Septic seems to want to put his words in my mouth.

Can a physical brain maintain consciousness when in physical isolation

from it physical body?

Septic seems to want to say "yes".

September 16, 2006

In article <yYGdnb23E9DaDJbYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

>

> > ... one cannot reject any possibility as impossible

> > without proof of its impossibility.

>

> That is just

one half of the agnostic principle, the other half being that one

cannot accept any possibility as actuality without proof of its

actuality.

We agnostics accept both halves. Septic doesn't.

September 16, 2006

In article <reKdnX3g7qMKDpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:virgil-15D2C2.23003114092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > In article <57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >

> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > >

> > > > ... the brain might need some help in

> > > > maintaining consciousness

> > >

> > > Some help from what, the theists' hypothetical metaphysical 'immortal

> soul'

> > > thingy?

> >

> > How long will any brain be able to maintain consciousness without such

> > things as the blood supply to keep the brain oxygenated and energized,

> > etc.?

>

> Wouldn't be a brain without that, would it, moron?

Sure it would. Unless Septic is implying that there is something more

to a brain than its physical presence.

>When you all say 'help'

> you aren't really talking about blood supply or anything else physical,

> you are really arguing that there might be a metaphysical 'soul' thingy,

> aren't you?

Septic seems to be arguing for souls, but I have no belief in 'souls",

whatever Septic supposes them to be.

September 16, 2006

In article <I_mdnfN73tz_CpbYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:virgil-936EAE.23055814092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > In article <7YqdnV82-6qhspfYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >

> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> > >

> > > > ... the brain might need some [metaphysical] help in

> > > > maintaining consciousness

> > >

> > > To be logically consistent you would also argue that the gut might need

> some

> > > [metaphysical] help in maintaining digestion?

> >

> > My notion of "needed help" is that the brain needs considerable physical

> > help in maintaining consciousness.

>

> How would that help your side's argument _ad ignorantiam_ that it might be

> the case that consciousness does not dwell exclusively in the brain because

> there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is

> false?

I don't know why Septic keeps claiming that his side is our side. No one

on "our side" has said anything about where "consciousness dwells", or

how it dwells or anything else.

We merely ask by what authority, or evidence, Septic claims to know that

"consciousness dwells exclusively in the brain".

And Septic keeps avoiding our question.

>

> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

> certain." -- Dan Wood

Apparently Septic claims to know for certain, or to know someone who

does know for certain, as he rebukes Dan for saying otherwise, but

Septic will not divulge how he came by that knowledge.

September 16, 2006

In article <R-WdnfTgRb57BpbYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Here is now Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad

> ignorantiam_:

>

> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

> certain." -- Dan Wood

For Septic to argue that that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, Septic

must be arguing that someone DOES know for certain.

Well do you know for certain, Punk?

Do you know of anyone who does know for certain, Punk?

September 16, 2006

In article <1Y-dnR6_3bSxApbYnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote

>

> <snip argument _ad hominem_ by "Gandalf Grey">

>

> Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a "mind -

> body problem," that is just argument from ignorance from your side?

>

> Here is how Wood phrases your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad

> ignorantiam_:

>

> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for

> certain." -- Dan Wood

Does Septic know for certain?

Does Septic know someone who knows for certain?

If it is the case no one knows for certain, wherein lies any fallacy in

asking the question.

So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

September 16, 2006

In article <ncidnfLct8piPZbYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com>,

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:virgil-A0C83A.01143615092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > In article <SJCdnSaT3vcCq5fYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >

> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > > news:virgil-1B4F30.13191011092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > > > In article <9t6dneWi-INQ4pjYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,

> > > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote :

> > > > >

> > > > > > Copi quotes ...

> > > > >

> > > > > Copi quotes those theists of Galileo's time with an argument _ad

> > > > > ignorantiam_ of the same form as that of you and your friends

> > > >

> > > > The theists' hypothesis in the Copi quote says "It is a fact that"

> > >

> > > The hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture with no basis in fact)

> is

> > > that all the moon's apparent irregularities are filled in by an

> invisible

> > > crystalline substance

> >

> > False!!!

>

> Don't be silly. It is true. Anybody can read it for himself. The hypothesis

> is

<quote>

Some scholars of that age... argued against Galileo that... THE MOON

IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE, because all its apparent irregularities

are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.

</quote>

(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

September 16, 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, knucklehead,

The entire quote was "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No

one knows for certain."

That is a question, a proposal of possibility, not a statement of fact or

opinion. I find it a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that consciousness may

extend into the spinal cord, even into the nerve endings. It is almost

always reasonable to doubt established ideas.

> 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:

I'm not a theist, you conclusion-jumping twit.

> <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.]

Blah blah.. strawmen

If stating that an unproven hypothesis might be true is argument from

ignorance then the entirety of human knowledge owes it's existence to such

fallacies.

The sensible meaning of this fallacy is a making a statement that claims

something is_true because it has not been disproven, not that it might be

possible.

September 16, 2006

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message

news:450a2e51$0$24202$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

>

> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message

> news:57KdnW1E_L8CtJfYnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com...

> >

> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote

> >

> >> ... the brain might need some help in

> >> maintaining consciousness

> >

> > Some help from what,

>

> Well, your brain obviously needs some help on the correct definition of

the

> argument from ignorance.

What's wrong with Copi's explanation that arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that

there might be X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'

conjecture) is false 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