| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"*nemo*" |
| Date: |
27 May 2004 04:16:14 PM |
| Object: |
aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
I'm already ready for a vacation. But it will be close to another month
till I can get away. Drat. Oh well, at least we can all sit back and
enjoy the Quote of the month contests, eh?
Here are the nominations for Theist Quote of the Month for May 2004.
Vote for your favorite by responding to this thread. Votes will be
accepted until midnight, May. 31. See rules below. Questions? Comments?
Email me.
* * * * *
1) For some reason I think athiest just don't want to believe we have a
creator.
By: Osprey
Nominated: Doc Smartass
Seconded: Callipygian Nullifidian
------------
2) I have responded to this kind of garbage enough times already.
People like me, who cannot think for themselves, are a dime a dozen.
By: Pastor Dave
Nominated: bogie
Seconded: Tink
------------
3) The rate of sex crimes in the Church is far less than general
society.
By:
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: jwk
------------
4) Oh, yes, and right "machines can detect oxygen and then we can
manipulate it." Well dear, God is a person, not to be manipulated.
However He made a device which can actually recognize God in the world
and in a person. It is called a Human Being. Now you seem to think that
people are hallucinating God as they would Donald Duck on a bad acid
trip. What you fail to logically postulate is that our ability to
hallucinate at all, or dream, or to have out of body experiences, etc.
are indeed physical attributes in the human brain, but they were PUT
there precisely for the act of DETECTING GOD.
By: Anatid Bonecki
Nominated: Dixit
Seconded: Liz
------------
5) In response to:
So why weren't the rodents that died in the Great Flood preserved as
fossils?
Deviation tactic, you are not addessing the issue. You can't prove
evoution theory by questioning creational issues.
By: Roadrunner
Nominated: Gregory Gadow
Seconded: Harry F. Leopold
------------
6) You want specific when all you do is regurgitate ignorance?
By: Mary Hogan
Nominated: Sara Brum
Seconded: bogie
------------
7) You're right - I believe in God with evidence You believe in the
romans with roads. I win.
By: duke
Nominated: Iain
Seconded: Vic Sagerquist
------------
8) Right; but we're not talking about whether your or I exist, but
whether the 'collection of everything that exists' exists. You've said
that, if it did not, then 'we would not be here'; and I questioned that
assertion, precisely because I don't see the sense in it myself.
By: George Dance
Nominated: Ron Baker
Seconded: Dixit
------------
9) You might like to start with just thinking. You might improve with
time-say millions and millions of years as in the fairy tales of goo to
you by way of the zoo...
By: IKnowHimDoYou
Nominated: W. Syme
Seconded: Douglas Berry
------------
10) It has nothing to do with data. What data can distinguish between
the 2 hypotheses?? It's a question of *reason*. The materialist
metaphysic only entails p-zombies, not real people.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Denis Loubet
------------
11) No, evidence does not need to be objective.
By: Interesting Ian
Nominated: John M Price PhD
Seconded: Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are the rules for the Quote of the Month Contests.
RULES
1. Only atheists and agnostics may participate in the contests.
2. A quote is a valid entry for the contests if:
a. The quote is a brief piece of text;
b. The quote has recently been written in alt.atheism (verifiable);
c. Nomination of the quote is made by an atheist or agnostic
in alt.atheism
d. Nomination of the quote is supported by at least one other
atheist or agnostic in alt.atheism;
e. The quote is not nominated or seconded by the person who wrote it
in
the first place (no one is allowed to nominate him- or herself,
but a person
can vote for the quote he or she wrote.)
3. There will be two categories: 'Atheist Quote of the Month'
and 'Theist Quote of the Month'. The category for which a
quote must be nominated must be mentioned by the atheist or
agnostic who wants to nominate it.
If a quote is miscategorized (e.g. an atheist quote is mistakenly
nominated in the Theist QOTM category), the quote will be re-directed
to appear in the correct category, with approriate notification.
4. Nominations can be made until five days before the first of the
next month. If quotes are nominated after this period, they will be
considered as entries for the contest of the next month.
* When making a nomination, please use this format for the subject
line:
"aa - <A or T as applicable>QOTM Nomination (was: <original thread
name>)"
5. Each atheist or agnostic who visits alt.atheism has one vote to
cast for each category (two votes total).
6. Voting starts 5 days before the end of the month. During the month,
votes will be ignored. This way, all nominees will have equal chance of
winning.
7. The two winning quotes will be published in the QOTM Archive.
SUMMARY
A nomination must contain the following information:
1. The lines of the quote.
2. Who wrote it.
3. Who nominates or seconds the nomination of this quote (that's you!)
4. Which category this nomination is for.
5. The word "nomination" MUST appear somewhere in the subject line!
6. The original thread title must appear in the subject line.
Publish the nomination or support for a nomination in a designated
thread, preferably called "[T/A]QoTM Nomination for [month]." You can
also e-mail it to me (see below).
VOTING
1. In the last five days of the month you can cast your vote in both
categories.
2. Votes must either be placed in the designated thread.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
03 Jun 2004 11:14:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:39:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:47:56 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0406020647.66b7825d@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi>...
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
How much of the backstory do you want? The short version would be: A
couple of the atheists here have a metaphysical belief in eternally
existing, omnipresent, physical entities; I've challenged that belief;
and, in consequence, one of them nominated me.
(Looks like he is too)
Nope. I know what I am; an agnostic, and consequently an atheist.
Interesting. You seem to have managed to convince a number of folks you're
a theist.
Yeah but most of them are Skeptic.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jun 2004 11:30:14 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:<k4uvb0dg3lg2imtk31l4m3bv3100tstlai@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:39:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:47:56 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0406020647.66b7825d@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
I know what I am; an agnostic, and consequently an atheist.
Interesting. You seem to have managed to convince a number of folks you're
a theist.
Yeah but most of them are Skeptic.
Mark.
You know, I'm really surprised that we didn't hear from *all* the sock
puppets, all bearing witness to nemo of my alleged theism. I guess
Skeptic wasn't thinking, again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jun 2004 12:15:10 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... I guess Skeptic wasn't thinking ...
Argument _ad hominem_ like that won't help you make your case for God,
the hypothetical first cause, George.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jun 2004 04:46:32 PM |
|
|
In article <y62wc.8101$%F2.3161@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I guess Skeptic wasn't thinking ...
Argument _ad hominem_ like that won't help you make your case for God,
the hypothetical first cause, George.
As George has never tried to make a case for any god, that leaves him
free to disparage Septic Skeptic to his hearts content.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jun 2004 01:40:02 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <y62wc.8101$%F2.3161@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I guess Skeptic wasn't thinking ...
Argument _ad hominem_ like that won't help you make your case for God,
the hypothetical first cause, George.
As George has never tried to make a case for any god ...
George Dance himself says you are mistaken:
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
07 Jun 2004 03:35:52 PM |
|
|
In article <6E2xc.1203$0y.80@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <y62wc.8101$%F2.3161@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I guess Skeptic wasn't thinking ...
Argument _ad hominem_ like that won't help you make your case for God,
the hypothetical first cause, George.
As George has never tried to make a case for any god ...
George Dance himself says you are mistaken:
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
"There may be a God" is a rejection of the false Dixit, AKA Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, claim "Gods are known to be impossible."
It is not a claim that any god actually exists.
Thus Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is WRONG. AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
04 Jun 2004 10:31:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 04:14:18 +0000 in episode
<k4uvb0dg3lg2imtk31l4m3bv3100tstlai@4ax.com> we saw our hero Mark
Richardson <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:39:26 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:47:56 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0406020647.66b7825d@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi>...
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the
running for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
How much of the backstory do you want? The short version would be: A
couple of the atheists here have a metaphysical belief in eternally
existing, omnipresent, physical entities; I've challenged that belief;
and, in consequence, one of them nominated me.
(Looks like he is too)
Nope. I know what I am; an agnostic, and consequently an atheist.
Interesting. You seem to have managed to convince a number of folks
you're a theist.
Yeah but most of them are Skeptic.
So I'm noticing.
I also just noticed Skeptic managing to post "evidence" in a way that
rather undermines his claims about Dance...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
29 May 2004 04:31:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:26:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> in news message
<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:55:01 +0000 in episode
<b9jhb0p77efq3or787msr35hgrhngrpfu8@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
On 29 May 2004 10:40:02 -0700, (George Dance) in
news message <6312c50b.0405290940.64ceb871@posting.google.com> wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:<e0ucb0t84l4lurgksadrngkli7026bbblm@4ax.com>...
Between the two bizarre quotes, one from the Saint claiming that people
were made to hallucinate in order to detect GodŽ and the second from
George Dance claiming that those things that exist might not exist . .
. [moves hands alternately up and down as if weighing on a balance
scale] . . . I vote for the Saint with #4.
Dame Liz, if you're arguing:
I'm not arguing with you. I'm voting for a quote of the month. Keep your
arguing out of a.a. threads.
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he
is involved in, and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug]
You'd think that he would have enough people in this group with whom
he can argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested
in him or what he says in the least.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 09:38:15 AM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message news:<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:26:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> in news message
<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he
is involved in,
Which hasn't stopped you from making claims about them, I notice.
and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug]
I responded to what you were saying about me, dear.
You'd think that he would have enough people in this group with whom
he can argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested
in him or what he says in the least.
I usually respond to those who ***** about me, as you were doing;
and I don't accept that you don't know what you're talking about, and
don't care to know, as something that excuses your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 10:42:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:38:15 -0700 in episode
<6312c50b.0406020638.6dbfeddd@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance):
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:26:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>
in news message
<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he
is involved in,
Which hasn't stopped you from making claims about them, I notice.
and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug]
I responded to what you were saying about me, dear.
You'd think that he would have enough people in this group with whom he
can argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested in him
or what he says in the least.
I usually respond to those who ***** about me, as you were doing; and I
don't accept that you don't know what you're talking about, and don't care
to know, as something that excuses your *****.
Hm. That's often what trolls say too.
Shrug.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
29 May 2004 05:21:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:31:44 +0000 in episode
<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:26:48 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> in
news message
<pan.2004.05.29.20.26.47.958667@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 17:55:01 +0000 in episode
<b9jhb0p77efq3or787msr35hgrhngrpfu8@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
On 29 May 2004 10:40:02 -0700, (George Dance)
in news message <6312c50b.0405290940.64ceb871@posting.google.com>
wrote:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:<e0ucb0t84l4lurgksadrngkli7026bbblm@4ax.com>...
Between the two bizarre quotes, one from the Saint claiming that
people were made to hallucinate in order to detect GodŽ and the
second from George Dance claiming that those things that exist might
not exist . . . [moves hands alternately up and down as if weighing
on a balance scale] . . . I vote for the Saint with #4.
Dame Liz, if you're arguing:
I'm not arguing with you. I'm voting for a quote of the month. Keep
your arguing out of a.a. threads.
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he is
involved in, and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug] You'd
think that he would have enough people in this group with whom he can
argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested in him or
what he says in the least.
You hadn't even been talking to him?
Okay, I'm even more confused...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 09:59:20 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.05.29.22.21.06.820453@hoo.com-amikchi>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:31:44 +0000 in episode
<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he is
involved in, and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug] You'd
think that he would have enough people in this group with whom he can
argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested in him or
what he says in the least.
You hadn't even been talking to him?
Nope, she's just been talking about me; without (as she is candid
enough to admit) knowing or caring whether what she's saying is
accurate.
Okay, I'm even more confused...
The bottom line: a couple of people have decided to use the TQOTM
process to smear me for their own reasons; and Liz has decided, for
her own reasons, to make herself a party to it. It's certainly in
order for me to correct their misinformation about me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 12:40:45 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406020659.2a90b075@posting.google.com...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.05.29.22.21.06.820453@hoo.com-amikchi>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:31:44 +0000 in episode
<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the
running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he
is
involved in, and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug]
You'd
think that he would have enough people in this group with whom he can
argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested in him
or
what he says in the least.
You hadn't even been talking to him?
Nope, she's just been talking about me; without (as she is candid
enough to admit) knowing or caring whether what she's saying is
accurate.
Okay, I'm even more confused...
The bottom line: a couple of people have decided to use the TQOTM
process to smear me for their own reasons
See:
news:HNxwc.31208$wO4.14437@twister.socal.rr.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 07:29:43 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I look forward to both
agreeing and disagreeing with you, civilly.
Nobody can ask for anything more, especially when somebody like George
Dance posts the theist argument that there might be a first cause [read
GodŽ with a capital G].
Question:
Can you produce a valid argument that there might be a first cause
without
running into the fatal problem of special pleading pointed out by
Russell?
Please post one.
George Dance:
Child's play:
1. Every physical object has a beginning.
2. Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
4. The cause of a physical object is either (a) solely physical or (b)
at least partly non-physical.
5. If 4a, then: there has been an infinite series of physical objects.
(by 1 and 2, recursively)
6. If 4b, then: there is at least one non-physical object capable of
causing physical events.
7. Either: there has been an infinite series of physical objects, or
there is at least one non-physical object capable of causing physical
events. (4,5,6 CD)
8. There might not have been an infinite series of physical objects.
9. There might be a non-physical object capable of causing physical
events.
QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
06 Jun 2004 12:10:40 PM |
|
|
In article <X6Ewc.10438$4S5.5135@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I look forward to both
agreeing and disagreeing with you, civilly.
Nobody can ask for anything more, especially when somebody like George
Dance posts the theist argument that there might be a first cause [read
GodŽ with a capital G].
George's posts are a lot more sane than those of Dixit, AKA Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, who posts above that suggesting that a first
cause merely MIGHT exist is theist rather than agnostic, as it actually
is.
Agnostics do not know and will say that they do not know whether there
MUST be a first cause or CANNOT be a first cause, thus they say that
there might not be one but equally there might be one, at least as far
as anyone knows.
Question:
Can you produce a valid argument that there might be a first cause
without
running into the fatal problem of special pleading pointed out by
Russell?
Please post one.
Yes, quite simply: "might" does not mean "must". QED.
George Dance:
Child's play:
1. Every physical object has a beginning.
2. Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
4. The cause of a physical object is either (a) solely physical or (b)
at least partly non-physical.
5. If 4a, then: there has been an infinite series of physical objects.
(by 1 and 2, recursively)
6. If 4b, then: there is at least one non-physical object capable of
causing physical events.
7. Either: there has been an infinite series of physical objects, or
there is at least one non-physical object capable of causing physical
events. (4,5,6 CD)
8. There might not have been an infinite series of physical objects.
9. There might be a non-physical object capable of causing physical
events.
QED
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jun 2004 03:19:45 PM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406020659.2a90b075@posting.google.com>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.05.29.22.21.06.820453@hoo.com-amikchi>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:31:44 +0000 in episode
<q00ib053r4vtc9ti0vvgqdfc0h4cd3r5cl@4ax.com> we saw our hero Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com>:
Okay, what did I miss? This George Dance has a quote (8) in the running
for TQOTM but *voted and is yapping around an AA thread?
I'm confused...
(Looks like he is too)
I don't know what he is. I haven't even been reading the thread(s) he is
involved in, and he comes looking for an argument from me. [shrug] You'd
think that he would have enough people in this group with whom he can
argue without coming looking for someone who isn't interested in him or
what he says in the least.
You hadn't even been talking to him?
Nope, she's just been talking about me; without (as she is candid
enough to admit) knowing or caring whether what she's saying is
accurate.
Okay, I'm even more confused...
The bottom line: a couple of people have decided to use the TQOTM
process to smear me for their own reasons; and Liz has decided, for
her own reasons, to make herself a party to it. It's certainly in
order for me to correct their misinformation about me.
All the better to open your mouth again and PROVE you're a dumbass, I take it.
-Hy
---
"On Star Trek, I played Lt. Sulu, helmsman of the Enterprise.
But every night, when I went home, I was Admiral of my own bathtub."
--George Takei
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jun 2004 10:58:44 AM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in message news:<fb1e5579.0406021219.4c445333@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406020659.2a90b075@posting.google.com>...
The bottom line: a couple of people have decided to use the TQOTM
process to smear me for their own reasons; and Liz has decided, for
her own reasons, to make herself a party to it. It's certainly in
order for me to correct their misinformation about me.
All the better to open your mouth again and PROVE you're a dumbass, I take it.
-Hy
'Theist' and 'dumbass' do not mean the same thing; one can be an
atheist and a dumbass, as you've just proven yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
10 Jun 2004 07:17:08 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
berli@lycos.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in message news:<fb1e5579.0406021219.4c445333@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406020659.2a90b075@posting.google.com>...
The bottom line: a couple of people have decided to use the TQOTM
process to smear me for their own reasons; and Liz has decided, for
her own reasons, to make herself a party to it. It's certainly in
order for me to correct their misinformation about me.
All the better to open your mouth again and PROVE you're a dumbass, I take it.
-Hy
'Theist' and 'dumbass' do not mean the same thing; one can be an
atheist and a dumbass, as you've just proven yourself.
One can certainly be a knucklehead theist true believer, as you have
shown youself to be, Georgie.
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
12 Jun 2004 02:23:49 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8S6yc.78097$Ly.23821@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
OK, let's let everybody read this one again (it's the 2004 model,
tweaked up just for you, Dixie). Then let everyone see, for
themselves, Dixit's inability to show any of those fallacies in any
step of it; which he'll most likely demonstrate by snipping the whole
thing instead:
1. Either P ('There may be a proof of the non-existence of gods') is
true; or P is not true. (LEM)
2. Assume, for the argument, that P is not true. (ACP)
3. Then a proof of the non-existence is impossible. (2 MN)
4. If a proof of the non-existence of gods is impossible, then there
may be a god.
5. There may be a god. (3,4 MP)
6. If P is not true, then there may be a god. (2-5 CP)
7. Now, assume, for the argument, that P is true. (ACP)
8. There is no known proof of the non-existence of gods.
9. P is true, only if there may be a proof of the non-existence of
gods and there is no known proof of the non-existence of gods.
(A->(B->(A&B)))
10. P is true, only if there may be an X and there is no known X.
(9 [X/'proof of the non-existence of gods'])
11. There may be an X and there is no known X. (7,10 MP)
12. There may be an X and there is no known X, only if There may be an
X even though there is no known X. (A&B)->~(B->~A).
13. There may be an X even though there is no known X. (11,12 MP)
14. Either there is a known god, or there is not a known god. (LEN)
15. If there is a known god, then there may be a god. (p-><>p)
16. If there is no known god, then, if there may be a god even though
there is no known god, there may be a god. (B->(~(B->~A)->A)
17. There may be a god even though there is no known god. (13 [god/X])
18. If there is no known god, then there may be a god. (16, 17 HS)
19. Either there may be a god, or there may be a god. (14,15,18 CD)
20. There may be a god. (19 Idem)
21. If P is true, then there may be a god. (7-20 CP)
22. Either there may be a god, or there may be a god. (1,6,21 CD)
20. There may be a God. (22 Idem)
QED
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
19 Jun 2004 12:14:17 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406121123.ba37ab7@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8S6yc.78097$Ly.23821@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
OK, let's let everybody read this one again (it's the 2004 model,
tweaked up just for you, Dixie). Then let everyone see, for
themselves, Dixit's inability to show any of those fallacies in any
step of it; which he'll most likely demonstrate by snipping the whole
thing instead:
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You are right however that we cannot disprove every thing
before it has even been defined. That does not mean
that you are right when you say that God is possible,
because any of the commonly held ideas about what God
is should lead to a great abundance of evidence, the
lack of which means either these common ideas are
wrong, or the monster does not exist.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
20 Jun 2004 05:05:59 AM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406182114.3ff44d41@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406121123.ba37ab7@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8S6yc.78097$Ly.23821@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
OK, let's let everybody read this one again (it's the 2004 model,
tweaked up just for you, Dixie). Then let everyone see, for
themselves, Dixit's inability to show any of those fallacies in any
step of it; which he'll most likely demonstrate by snipping the whole
thing instead:
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
You are right however that we cannot disprove every thing
before it has even been defined. That does not mean
that you are right when you say that God is possible,
because any of the commonly held ideas about what God
is should lead to a great abundance of evidence, the
lack of which means either these common ideas are
wrong, or the monster does not exist.
Sounds like you're assuming the truth of at least some of those
'common ideas'; which ones, and on what grounds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
24 Jun 2004 09:54:16 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406182114.3ff44d41@posting.google.com>...
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406121123.ba37ab7@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<8S6yc.78097$Ly.23821@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
You are right however that we cannot disprove every thing
before it has even been defined. That does not mean
that you are right when you say that God is possible,
because any of the commonly held ideas about what God
is should lead to a great abundance of evidence, the
lack of which means either these common ideas are
wrong, or the monster does not exist.
Sounds like you're assuming the truth of at least some of those
'common ideas'; which ones, and on what grounds?
Some common ideas are that God, created the universe,
is benevolent, has feelings, see all and knows all,
knows the future, wants us to love him, helps people
through prayer, created a heaven and a hell.
I think the minimum must be that he created
the universe and is conscious, but I do not
claim this do be rigorous.
Truly you can fix your definition of God by
saying he is an unknown type of energy, then
it may be impossible to disprove. Such a definition
makes it clear however that there is little
connection to an unknown force and what most
people consider to be God. That is to say
it is an incorrect definition, it is changing
the meaning dramatically.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
24 Jun 2004 01:35:23 PM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
You are right however that we cannot disprove every thing
before it has even been defined.
There has to be some definition (either full or partial).
That does not mean
that you are right when you say that God is possible,
because any of the commonly held ideas about what God
is should lead to a great abundance of evidence, the
lack of which means either these common ideas are
wrong, or the monster does not exist.
Sounds like you're assuming the truth of at least some of those
'common ideas'; which ones, and on what grounds?
Some common ideas are that God, created the universe,
is benevolent, has feelings, see all and knows all,
knows the future, wants us to love him, helps people
through prayer, created a heaven and a hell.
OK. Which ones do you want assumed as true, by definition?
I think the minimum must be that he created
the universe and is conscious, but I do not
claim this do be rigorous.
I think we're close; 'agent' implies 'consciousness,' and creating the
space-time continuum is what I thought of by affecting 4D reality
(though I haven't ruled out other cases of 'affecting'); which implies
that a god would not be a product of 4D reality.
Truly you can fix your definition of God by
saying he is an unknown type of energy, then
it may be impossible to disprove.
Well, yes, but if it's 4D energy, like gravity or sunlight, then it
can't be the creator of the 4D continuum (as it wouldn't even exist
unless the 4D continuum already existed). So it would also have to be
specified that gods were not 4D energy.
Such a definition
makes it clear however that there is little
connection to an unknown force and what most
people consider to be God.
Certainly non-4D energy would be an 'unknown force'. As for what most
people consider to be God; well, the first 'definition' you gave above
(which sounds quite representative) turns out to define God as a whole
number of things, so it's not a very good one - eg, by it, a creator
of the universe, who sees all and knows all, but who doesn't care if
anyone loves him or not, would not be God, by definition.
That is to say
it is an incorrect definition, it is changing
the meaning dramatically.
Larry
Certainly to seriously look at whether there's a god or not, one has
to unbundle the common definition, and see if each definiendum is
satisfied in turn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
24 Jun 2004 10:55:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory, thus showing one of
the premises must be wrong and thus showing the god, as defined, can't
exist.
<snip>
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
26 Jun 2004 11:24:56 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
[God =df.] "an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Thank you for putting the argument in a more formal form, Mike; it
focusses the discussion more, IMO.
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Right; 'matter' and 'energy' being 4D phenomena, observeable by human
senses, and equivalent (in GTR, AIII) with the shape of the 4D
continuum. Nothing like that could have been a god that could have
created the continuum, as it wouldn't have existed unless the
continuum also existed. So that's a meaningful distinction between
gods and non-gods.
Premise: god can affect reality.
'Reality' being the 4D continuum; either a god could affect [4D]
matter or 4D energy.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
That conclusion rests on redefining 'energy' as 'anything that can
affect matter;' and conflating affecting matter with affecting
reality. Neither of which is a valid assumption (it might be true, or
it might also be false). There might be forces which are not energy
by the definition used in my premise (observeable 4D or physical
phenomena - energy1) but are by the one used in the conclusion (able
to affect 4D matter - energy2). Or there might be non-4D forces that
could not affect 4D matter, but could affect some forms of 4D energy,
which in turn would be able to affect 4D matter.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory, thus showing one of
the premises must be wrong and thus showing the god, as defined, can't
exist.
The word 'energy' is being defined in two different ways in the first
premise and the conclusion, meaning that they are not contradictory -
it is logically possible for something to both be energy1, and to not
be energy2. The RAA fails due to that equivocation.
<snip>
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
25 Jun 2004 02:33:03 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
26 Jun 2004 06:37:02 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises. Now if the
premises aren't true, the argument's not sound. But it's still valid.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
28 Jun 2004 12:08:44 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young <jientho@aol.com> wrote:
wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Perhaps you've got a hidden "conservation of energy" premise up your
sleeve? Do tell.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
01 Jul 2004 08:34:09 AM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406280908.289b273c@posting.google.com>...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<yMnDc.6614$5N4.2442@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism Jeff Young < > wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<4nNCc.985$pE1.594@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0406240654.7660b5f1@posting.google.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406200205.46423d50@posting.google.com>...
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
snip
If you can define a God for me, then I will disprove it.
You've already seen my proposed definition, as you've commented on it
previously. So where's the disproof?
Since you did not comment on the proof in the other
thread, I will put it in this thread.
OK.
First your quoted definition
"an immaterial agent able to affect material reality."
Then your clarification of material
"I've used 'material' to mean "composed of matter or energy, and
located in the 4D space-time continuum"
proof that this cannot be correct:
In order to affect material reality, it must be able
cause matter to move in a way that it would not have
if it were not affected, that is to say it must
be able to accelerate matter. Since the time
of Isaac Newton, it has been known that you must apply
a force to accelerate matter. In order to move
matter this force must act through a distance,
and that is defined as work. The stored ability
to do work is called energy. Thus anything that
can affect matter must, by definition, be energy.
Non sequitur. The only conclusion can be validly drawn from
everything written above is that "Anything that can affect matter
must, by definition contain and/or produce energy." Fallacy of
conflating containment/production with identity.
Fine. So you've defined 'energy' as 'anything able to affect matter,'
and then concluded ... what exactly? (You don't have to answer here;
you may have answered it below.)
Premise: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise: god can affect reality.
Conclusion: (via his argument above that would have added more premises
here) god is energy.
Fallacious, as above.
But the conclusion and first premise are contradictory,
Not on their face, and not by the argument above. Try again.
Note that I wasn't saying I agreed (or disagreed) with his premises.
Noted.
But.............The argument IS valid in that the conclusion that the
premises lead to contradiction does follow from the premises.
Premise P1: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise P2: god can affect reality.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
From P1 God cannot contain energy because then it would be
partly material.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Perhaps you've got a hidden "conservation of energy" premise up your
sleeve? Do tell.
Basicly the law of conservation of energy does apply
here, however that would not be a logical proof, simply lack
of ever finding it. Still we do know that the universe is
here and thus at some point, energy must have been created.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: To George Dance: Re: aa - The polls are open! TQOTM for May 2004 |
02 Jul 2004 12:18:54 PM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in message news:<75ab6396.0407010534.7d44eb13@posting.google.com>...
Premise P1: god is immaterial (i.e. not composed of matter or energy.)
Premise P2: god can affect reality.
Note that I've already shown that _not_ to be the case. "Must be
energy" is an _invalid_ inference from the premises presented. (The
mere handwaving of two people notwithstanding.) I gave two
counterexamples that _disprove_ the validity of the argument:
1) Something that merely _contains_ energy would meet all the
premises without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
From P1 God cannot contain energy because then it would be
partly material.
2) Something that can _produce_ energy would meet all the premises
without necessarily _being_ energy itself.
Perhaps you've got a hidden "conservation of energy" premise up your
sleeve? Do tell.
Basicly the law of conservation of energy does apply
here, however that would not be a logical proof, simply lack
of ever finding it.
Sure; you've given an RAA proof that, if P1 and P2 both are true, then
there is no such thing as a god:
1. Assume that there is a god. (AIP)
2. Gods are neither matter nor energy. P1
[2a. Gods are not 4D-existent. (df."god")
2b. Matter and energy are 4D-existent.
(df."matter",df."energy")
2c. Nothing is 4D-existent and not 4D-existent. (~(A&~A))
2d. Therefore, 2.]
3. Gods are able to affect matter. P2
4. Anything able to affect matter is energy. (df."energy")
5. Gods are (or contain) energy. 2,3 MP
6. Gods are not (and do not contain) energy. 2 Simp
7. There is no god. 1,4,5 RAA
Which is a valid enough argument; but I'd question its soundness. The
one major problem I have is that energy is apparently being defined in
two different ways - in 1 the way I'd defined it, to include 4-D
existents (physical phenomena) only [energy1], and 4 as any force able
to affect any 4-D existent [energy2]. Which is mere equivocation.
You can repair the argument by adding a further explicit premise,
"Anything able to affect a 4-D existent must be a 4-D existent," but
that's one I'd challenge; as I think it's possible for something to be
energy2 without being energy1, for precisely the reason you allude to
below:
Still we do know that the universe is
here and thus at some point, energy must have been created.
Larry
Exactly. Given that we know there's a 4-D continuum, and even
assuming that all the matter and energy in it is perfectly conserved;
there's still the apparent fact that the continuum, and the matter and
energy in it, had a beginning: either they just started from nothing
(a true miracle!), or that they originated from other forces that were
not 4-D energy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
