| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 10:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
Antitheism |
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Antitheists may also accept the label Atheist,
or might not. The primary distinction between
atheism and antitheism is that the atheist may
think the question of the existence or non-existence
of God worthy of consideration, while the antitheist
does not. The primary interest of the antitheist
with respect to God is to make the idea go away,
and it is even possible for an antitheist to believe
that God exists -- but is irrelevant.
Antitheists are generally not well received by
monotheists, and for good reason. The antitheist
probably finds the behavor of monotheists
particularly unpleasant in their pushing of the
God idea as some sort of absolute truth.
As an antitheist, my brief against monotheism
is this: The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully
who cannot play well with others. It is basic to
the idea of One God that all other notions of divinity
must be destroyed -- frequently by killing the people
who hold those other notions of divinity. People
infected with the One God idea have to be viewed with
suspicion, as in the past -- and even the present --
they have been known to engage in violence based
upon this evil idea, sometimes collectively.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
30 Mar 2007 02:35:16 PM |
|
|
In article <opSdnai8sqOg_JDbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It is not proven there is no god ...
*
That is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_
Does Septic claim that it IS proven that there is no god?
SEPTIC must either support such a that claim no god is proven or allow
that it is not proven.
In the later case, it is Septic himself who has made a fallacious
argumentum ad hominem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
30 Mar 2007 06:40:22 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <opSdnai8sqOg_JDbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It is not proven there is no god ...
*
That is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_
Does Septic claim that it IS proven that there is no god?
No, you lot argue there is no proof of the negative. That is definitely
fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
are FAMOUS, as Copi explains in his logic textbook:
<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 ignorantiam_, 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_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
In this case, since there is nothing you can point to and say, 'There,
that's what I'm talking about', all you can do is argue _ad ignorantiam_
that there might actually be such a thing anyway, because there is no
proof the hypothesis (the speculative, 'might be' imagining with no
basis in fact) is false.
This kind of theolog argument from ignorance that you are still trying
to get away with is as old as the hills, as Copi points out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
30 Mar 2007 06:52:51 PM |
|
|
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:GdednUAqT-h7ApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
Virgil wrote:
In article <opSdnai8sqOg_JDbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It is not proven there is no god ...
*
That is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_
Does Septic claim that it IS proven that there is no god?
No, you lot argue there is no proof of the negative. That is definitely
fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists
are FAMOUS, as Copi explains in his logic textbook:
[snip same old irrelevant quote]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
30 Mar 2007 07:32:46 PM |
|
|
In article <GdednUAqT-h7ApDbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <opSdnai8sqOg_JDbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
It is not proven there is no god ...
*
That is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_
Does Septic claim that it IS proven that there is no god?
No, you lot argue there is no proof of the negative.
It is not a matter of argument but of evidence.
Septic apparently does not have any evidence that there is no god,
either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 01:22:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:13:00 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
Jeckyl wrote:
"Sippuddin" <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote in message
news:GcidndLR9KGrmpHbnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@comcast.com...
stumper wrote:
Virgil only argues for the possibility of God.
?'Only'?? Isn't that what all theists do?
Arguing as Virgil and friends do that there is a possibility that there
might be a God because there is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be'
theist conjecture) is false is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_,
logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains in his
logic textbook:
It is not proven there is no god ...
*
That is the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for
which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains in his logic textbook:
<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 ignorantiam_, 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_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
In this case, since there is nothing you can point to and say, 'There,
that's what I'm talking about', all you can do is argue _ad ignorantiam_
that there might actually be such a thing anyway, because there is no
proof the hypothesis (the speculative, 'might be' imagining with no
basis in fact) is false.
This kind of theolog argument from ignorance that you are still trying
to get away with is as old as the hills, as Copi points out.
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 05:09:27 AM |
|
|
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 08:40:16 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 12:03:43 PM |
|
|
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 03:19:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:43 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
I would not call it my definition. It's only my understanding of God.
I believe God is not to be defined. We can only learn to understand
God.
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
It is my understanding. Christianity is definitely an important part
of my understanding of God, yes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 04:18:37 PM |
|
|
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:40gt03t4na1nuk83fp3vu9hihk9ccda61c@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:43 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
I would not call it my definition. It's only my understanding of God.
I believe God is not to be defined. We can only learn to understand
God.
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
It is my understanding. Christianity is definitely an important part
of my understanding of God, yes.
I'm trying to understand your understanding. So then... more
questions about your understanding of God:
(1) What is God-like about this God? that is, if God is truth..
or God is the reality that underlies all other realities then
maybe you have just substituted the word "God" in place of
"truth" and in place of "reality". Could you not do away with
the word "God" and just use the words "truth" and "reality"?
(2) Is this God a thinking being that planned and shaped
(or shapes) the universe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
31 Mar 2007 05:33:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:18:37 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:40gt03t4na1nuk83fp3vu9hihk9ccda61c@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:43 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
I would not call it my definition. It's only my understanding of God.
I believe God is not to be defined. We can only learn to understand
God.
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
It is my understanding. Christianity is definitely an important part
of my understanding of God, yes.
I'm trying to understand your understanding. So then... more
questions about your understanding of God:
(1) What is God-like about this God? that is, if God is truth..
or God is the reality that underlies all other realities then
maybe you have just substituted the word "God" in place of
"truth" and in place of "reality". Could you not do away with
the word "God" and just use the words "truth" and "reality"?
If the truth and reality you are talking about is the ultimate truth
and reality of the universe, then you are talking about God himself.
In that case, it doesn't matter whether you use the word "God" or not.
(2) Is this God a thinking being that planned and shaped
(or shapes) the universe?
Yes, I think so. I believe the entire universe is the mind of God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 11:26:36 AM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 9:19 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:43 GMT, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
I would not call it my definition. It's only my understanding of God.
I believe God is not to be defined. We can only learn to understand
God.
That gets the prize for the sillyest thing I have read today.
Wht is the point discussing somthing when you don't know what it is
you are talking about?
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
It is my understanding. Christianity is definitely an important part
of my understanding of God, yes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 01:26:05 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2007 09:26:36 -0700, "chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:19 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:43 GMT, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:4dos03lms3enpovqvlcl1m238sub7scs0s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:09:27 GMT, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:asur03pl5qop5e5iiombt1o45p5fqfm8tj@4ax.com...
First, God is not a "thing" to be presupposed, God is the truth.
Second, logic does not apply to God. It's God who defines logic so
that it can be used to prove or disprove everything in the world.
Logic is based on God who is the truth. Without the truth as the
foundation, logic has no place to begin with. So stop trying to prove
or disprove God. It's meaningless.
Is this kind of a "God is reality" pantheist sort of thing?
God is the Reality that defines all the other realities. That's not
pantheistic.
Interesting...
Is this a definition? ie
God is truth. God is the Reality that defines
all the other realities.
I would not call it my definition. It's only my understanding of God.
I believe God is not to be defined. We can only learn to understand
God.
That gets the prize for the sillyest thing I have read today.
Wht is the point discussing somthing when you don't know what it is
you are talking about?
I refuse to define God to be this or that not because I don't know
anything about God. Quite the contrary, it's because I have learned so
much about God that I am certain there is no way to define God.
What is the basis from your definition? ie... is it Christianity?
It is my understanding. Christianity is definitely an important part
of my understanding of God, yes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 09:09:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ypsvwf
As far as I can tell so far all you have going for you is lame old
argument for God #666:
#666. ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 09:32:11 PM |
|
|
In article <7KadnRadIrd6-I3bnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ypsvwf
Oh, cool, thanks for that link! Now I understand that Ted Chiang story
a bit better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
01 Apr 2007 09:56:30 PM |
|
|
In article <7KadnRadIrd6-I3bnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
And Septic cannot recall most things that are defined.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 12:10:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion, that's pretty much what God is. Therefore, the origin and
completion of everything in the universe is undefined.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ypsvwf
As far as I can tell so far all you have going for you is lame old
argument for God #666:
#666. ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 09:45:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
As far as I can tell so far all you have going for you is lame old
argument for God #666:
#666. ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 04:12:50 PM |
|
|
In article <5YGdnQncEpyGiozbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which is the amount of sense Septic has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 12:47:01 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <5YGdnQncEpyGiozbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which is the amount of sense Septic has.
Your argument _ad hominem_ won't help you establish the possibility
there might be a God, it's logical fallacy and you know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 02:17:20 PM |
|
|
In article <8NKdnYm_4uCIDo_bnZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <5YGdnQncEpyGiozbnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which is the amount of sense Septic has.
Your argument _ad hominem_ won't help you establish the possibility
there might be a God, it's logical fallacy and you know it.
Septic claims that to say
"Gods might be possible because they have not been proved impossible"
is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
But then to say, as all atheists do,
"Gods might be impossible because they have not been proved possible"
is equally the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
So that Septic demonstrates here his lack of sense, which demonstration
is not an argumentum ad hominem, but merely Septic revealing his nature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
02 Apr 2007 02:41:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which means when universe ceases to exist or before the universe is
born. That is where God is.
As far as I can tell so far all you have going for you is lame old
argument for God #666:
#666. ARGUMENT FROM ASSUMPTION
(1) God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/iom3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 05:41:27 AM |
|
|
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mum213p5q0smuikcbkkqg8dhu3jb5jnoav@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which means when universe ceases to exist or before the universe is
born. That is where God is.
I don't understand cosmology completely, but I know there has been
a LOT of debate over the years over whether the universe is "bounded"
or "unbounded". If there is enough mass within the universe that
gravitational attraction will slow the expansion and reverse into the
big crunch then the universe is "bounded". ... poetically speaking
"started from nothing and will return to nothing" 0 --> 0
If there is NOT enough mass then the universe will continue expanding
forever. Started from nothing but will not return to nothing 0 --> 1
My point is, that all of this reminds me of "religious" thinking.
ie "God is everything." "God is nothing"
"Everything is nothing" "Nothing is everything"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 06:12:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:41:27 GMT, "Scot" <bite2@me.net> wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mum213p5q0smuikcbkkqg8dhu3jb5jnoav@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which means when universe ceases to exist or before the universe is
born. That is where God is.
I don't understand cosmology completely, but I know there has been
a LOT of debate over the years over whether the universe is "bounded"
or "unbounded". If there is enough mass within the universe that
gravitational attraction will slow the expansion and reverse into the
big crunch then the universe is "bounded". ... poetically speaking
"started from nothing and will return to nothing" 0 --> 0
If there is NOT enough mass then the universe will continue expanding
forever. Started from nothing but will not return to nothing 0 --> 1
You assume there has to be a "big crunch" in order to make the
universe return to nothing. That may or may not be true. We will never
know for sure. As for your hypothesis that the universe may continue
expanding forever, it's also just a guess.
My point is, that all of this reminds me of "religious" thinking.
ie "God is everything." "God is nothing"
"Everything is nothing" "Nothing is everything"
The "nothing" before the universe came into existence is not the
"nothing" after the universe is already here. They are not the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 01:15:13 PM |
|
|
Scot wrote:
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:mum213p5q0smuikcbkkqg8dhu3jb5jnoav@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:45:46 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
brze@no.spam.mail.com wrote:
I believe God is not to be defined.
Division by zero is the only thing I can recall is undefined.
I figure that is not entirely unrelated. Zero means the origin and the
completion ...
You are mistaken, 'zero' = null, none.
Which means when universe ceases to exist or before the universe is
born. That is where God is.
I don't understand cosmology completely, but I know there has been
a LOT of debate over the years over whether the universe is "bounded"
or "unbounded". If there is enough mass within the universe that
gravitational attraction will slow the expansion and reverse into the
big crunch then the universe is "bounded". ... poetically speaking
"started from nothing and will return to nothing" 0 --> 0
If there is NOT enough mass then the universe will continue expanding
forever. Started from nothing but will not return to nothing 0 --> 1
My point is, that all of this reminds me of "religious" thinking.
ie "God is everything." "God is nothing"
"Everything is nothing" "Nothing is everything"
*
It's just a lame attempted diversion away from the issue genuinely under
discussion, Scot.
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 02:27:20 PM |
|
|
In article <gPidnQAKBNQsBI_bnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
To match the 'no guilt' and 'no god' format, that should be 'no guns'.
Or at least, 'no more danger from guns thatn from anything else'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:07:10 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <gPidnQAKBNQsBI_bnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
To match the 'no guilt' and 'no god' format, that should be 'no guns'.
'No safety'. Firearms are known to be a real danger. When the question
is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on ETs, the only
reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety', 'No guilt', or
'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Hope this helps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
03 Apr 2007 07:33:05 PM |
|
|
In article <wJCdnU1KGfWycY_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <gPidnQAKBNQsBI_bnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
To match the 'no guilt' and 'no god' format, that should be 'no guns'.
'No safety'. Firearms are known to be a real danger.
Evidence that firearms pose a real danger allows us to reject the proper
null hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuddin" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 04:11:16 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnU1KGfWycY_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <gPidnQAKBNQsBI_bnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
To match the 'no guilt' and 'no god' format, that should be 'no guns'.
'No safety'. Firearms are known to be a real danger.
Evidence that firearms pose a real danger allows us to reject the proper
null hypothesis.
*
You still don't get it.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
ETs, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
See: SETI
http://www.setileague.org/articles/setihoax.htm
"Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research
hypothesis in what’s called the null form: "resolved that there are no
civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio
emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove
the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness."
Nobody ever has to prove the negative. The burden of proof cannot be
shifted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the possibility of God |
07 Apr 2007 06:12:55 PM |
|
|
In article <crydnRX_L9ZolYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <wJCdnU1KGfWycY_bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <gPidnQAKBNQsBI_bnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com>,
Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> wrote:
'Zero' = null, none. And the only reasonable presumption in any case is
the null.
When the question is on firearm safety, or on guilt, or on God, or on
Ets, the only reasonable default presumption is the null, 'No safety',
'No guilt', or 'No God', or 'No ETs' as the case may be.
To match the 'no guilt' and 'no god' format, that should be 'no guns'.
'No safety'. Firearms are known to be a real danger.
Evidence that firearms pose a real danger allows us to reject the proper
null hypothesis.
*
You still don't get it.
If Setpic means that I don't get his faith in the impossibility in gods
and all his other crap, it would be nice if there could be a god to
protect me from such garbage. Unfortunately, whatever gods there be are
not up to it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
