|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
14 Jun 2005 03:34:25 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:36:12 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> let us all know that:
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118758442.176115.203290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny boy... why do you insist on not getting it? If you really took
classes on logic, then you should know that the burden of proof lies
with the one making the claims.
So, if you claim non-existence the burden of proof lies with the person
making the claim.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the existentially
positive claim.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 08:57:48 AM |
|
|
So, if you claim non-existence the burden of proof lies with the person
making the claim.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the existentially positive claim.
The difference is more subtle in fact: it's not only the existence of
the deity that is in question, but the existence of the proof for that
deity. As we know, circular reasoning is invalid but it is the most
common proof.
Now my question is: in which cases is and in which cases is circular
reason not valid according to Johnny? Surely, anyone will acknowledge
that quoting from the bible to show the bible is true is circular?
If we can't even agree on the axioms of logic, how are we going to have
a constructive dialogue?
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 10:36:59 AM |
|
|
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118843868.631514.88850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if you claim non-existence the burden of proof lies with the person
making the claim.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the existentially positive
claim.
The difference is more subtle in fact: it's not only the existence of
the deity that is in question, but the existence of the proof for that
deity. As we know, circular reasoning is invalid but it is the most
common proof.
Now my question is: in which cases is and in which cases is circular
reason not valid according to Johnny? Surely, anyone will acknowledge
that quoting from the bible to show the bible is true is circular?
If we can't even agree on the axioms of logic, how are we going to have
a constructive dialogue?
You won't, not with the likes of Johnny, Virgil, Duke, DanialSan, Jeff
Young, Richo, and their ilk. They can never agree that there are basic
principles of valid informal argument
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic], because if they did, then
they would not be able to continue to argue _ad ignorantiam_, for example,
that there might be an invisible deity because it is an hypothesis even a
genius like Galileo could not prove false:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 02:31:59 PM |
|
|
In article <p8OdnbcdQMKJ1i3fRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118843868.631514.88850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So, if you claim non-existence the burden of proof lies with the person
making the claim.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the existentially positive
claim.
The difference is more subtle in fact: it's not only the existence of
the deity that is in question, but the existence of the proof for that
deity. As we know, circular reasoning is invalid but it is the most
common proof.
Now my question is: in which cases is and in which cases is circular
reason not valid according to Johnny? Surely, anyone will acknowledge
that quoting from the bible to show the bible is true is circular?
If we can't even agree on the axioms of logic, how are we going to have
a constructive dialogue?
You won't, not with the likes of Johnny, Virgil, Duke, DanialSan, Jeff
Young, Richo, and their ilk. They can never agree that there are basic
principles of valid informal argument
Simple Septic has it wrong agaiin, as usual.
It is not that we do not agree with each other on the basic principles
of valid argument, it is that none of us agree with Simple Septic on
what they are.
We stick to the general standards, but Simple Septic defines his own,
and his rules apparently apply differently depending on who is applying
them and on whom they are being applied.
For example, when we refuse to accept Simple Septic's hypotheses that
gods are impossible because there is no proof of that impossibility,
Simple Septic claims we are committing the fallacy of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, but when he rejects theist of agnostic statements on the
same grounds, he calls it a basic principle of valid argument.
Clearly Simple Septic has a double standard, one set of rules for what
he says and an entirely different set for everyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 11:04:47 AM |
|
|
Nice story. It seems that little has changed since those days. I've
been putting forward equally probably hypotheses to the monotheistic
god stemming from the same evidence, the same logic and the same
argumentation. That's when the bias starts to show and we deteriorate
into a discussion about the rules of logic... in the end having to
teach an unwilling student the philosophical equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2.
As I've tried to explain to Johnny, if his logic were sound then we'd
be in a pointless endless loop where placing the burden of proof
depends on in which iteration you join the debate. It does seem he's
confusing strong atheism with weak atheism.
I'm thinking of starting a nice cross-post like this thread pointing to
http://www.rael.org and asking people "Can anyone refute what they're
saying? Please be polite." If anyone starts vehemently denying alien
involvement, I'll just use it as proof: "they're getting worked up
about it because they know it's true".
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 12:20:55 PM |
|
|
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven and enjoy the many
benefits that are derived and forthcoming from such pursuits.
The real nuisance comes from people like you who want to deny that real
events are actually occuring.
Why can't we teach old dogs new tricks?
They don't want to learn.
They are content with their old tricks.
They will go out of style.
We will see you types rot as you hold onto invalid positions.
We will not accept leaders who hold to outmoded positions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 01:16:28 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ypZre.125765$J25.78617@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven ...
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist, then how do you account for the fact that
even a genius like Gallileo was unable to prove the nonexistence of the
theists' hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) magic invisible crystalline
substance the hypothetical God has hypothetically used to fill all the
valleys of the moon, as Copi explains in his 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 ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 03:08:42 PM |
|
|
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:J_6dne7tEMzp7S3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ypZre.125765$J25.78617@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny
that it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven ...
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist,
I am not presenting that as though as I can do it myself.
I am taking the safer route of not going out on a limb and not saying it can
not be done since I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record
already.
I pretty much agree that proving a positive is sometimes a necessary task
for some people to accept it.
I also agree that proving a negative is a necessary task for some to believe
it.
Some will believe without as much rigorous proof.
then how do you account for the fact that even a genius like Gallileo was
unable to prove the nonexistence of the theists' hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) magic invisible crystalline substance the hypothetical God has
hypothetically used to fill all the valleys of the moon, as Copi explains
in his 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 ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
Proving the positive that invisible crystals filled the craters would have
been the proper course for the persons who demand proof of positives and
deny the possibility of proving negatives. yes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 04:24:41 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:_N%re.98098$CR5.75443@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:J_6dne7tEMzp7S3fRVn-ig@comcast.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ypZre.125765$J25.78617@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny
that it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea
that non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go
on with life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven ...
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist,
I am not presenting that as though as I can do it myself.
Why can't you do it? Don't you understand the procedure for proving a
statement false? Take for example, the null, "There are no [there are zero]
gods." You understand how that statement is falsifiable, don't you?
And you dodged my question:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist, then how do you account for the fact that
even a genius like Gallileo was unable to prove the nonexistence of the
theists' hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) magic invisible crystalline
substance the hypothetical God has hypothetically used to fill all the
valleys of the moon, as Copi explains in his 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 ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 05:42:58 PM |
|
|
In article <YNKdnbyR_KsMAS3fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist...
He does not argue that.
One more of Simple Septic's STRAW MAN fallacies!
What he actually said is that SOME things can be proved not to exist,
and he gave a specific example, which Simple Septic carefully snipped.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 08:23:17 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F29CC2.16425815062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <YNKdnbyR_KsMAS3fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist...
He does not argue that.
Well where exactly do you two draw the line? Please explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 11:39:00 PM |
|
|
In article <UuudncFMl7HgSS3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F29CC2.16425815062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <YNKdnbyR_KsMAS3fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist...
He does not argue that.
Well where exactly do you two draw the line? Please explain.
By example he argues that some non-existence can be proved, but Simple
Septic snipped the example.
Things which are known to exist cannot be proved not to exist.
The line is beween that which has been proved not to exist and that
which has been proved to exist.
Most people, could, of course, have worked that out on their own, but
Simple Septic apparently needs our help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 12:54:33 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3D3D98.22390015062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <UuudncFMl7HgSS3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F29CC2.16425815062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <YNKdnbyR_KsMAS3fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist...
He does not argue that.
Well where exactly do you two draw the line? Please explain.
By example he argues that some non-existence can be proved, but Simple
Septic snipped the example.
Things which are known to exist cannot be proved not to exist.
Of course. We are 100% in agreement on this. Such things (call them R, for
real) are said to be "known to exist" because there is proof they are real,
where 'proof' is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a
truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by
derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
If there were no R, then there would be no such cogency of evidence that
compels the acceptance of existential statements of the type, "R is real."
www.m-w.com
proof :
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve,
from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth
or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a
statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with
principles of reasoning
The line is beween that which has been proved not to exist and that
which has been proved to exist.
So by drawing the line at the end of the list of things proved to exist (all
R), you are saying that for anything else (call it X), the statement, "There
might be X anyway, though I haven't produced proof yet" can be proved true
simply by producing proof of the hypothetical ('might be') conjecture,
thereby bring it over the line and adding it to the list of existential
statements known to be true (all R)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:31:47 PM |
|
|
In article <PLSdnWBNdb9NISzfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3D3D98.22390015062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <UuudncFMl7HgSS3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-F29CC2.16425815062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <YNKdnbyR_KsMAS3fRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist...
He does not argue that.
Well where exactly do you two draw the line? Please explain.
By example he argues that some non-existence can be proved, but Simple
Septic snipped the example.
Of course.
Then why does Simple Septic continue to argue the point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 04:30:56 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 04:49:53 PM |
|
|
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> writes:
:"Johnny" :
:> I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
:Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
:explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
:being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
That's because he has nothing to discuss - he's interested in people believing
him without question, no matter what he's whining about.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 10:10:14 PM |
|
|
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:tNWdnY2G4v-VAy3fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
Well, if we know that something does not exist, is it invisible to us?
The converse of that is if something is invisible, does that mean it does
not exist?
This is much different question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 10:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:506se.102270$8S5.30806@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:tNWdnY2G4v-VAy3fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
Well, if we know that something does not exist, is it invisible to us?
The converse of that is if something is invisible, does that mean it does
not exist?
This is much different question.
You didn't answer my question. Please try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 02:59:17 AM |
|
|
In article <s9qdnSSuIZOmaC3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:506se.102270$8S5.30806@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:tNWdnY2G4v-VAy3fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
Well, if we know that something does not exist, is it invisible to us?
The converse of that is if something is invisible, does that mean it does
not exist?
This is much different question.
You didn't answer my question. Please try again.
As often as he tries not to answer your question, he will succeed in not
answering it, moron..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deep Thought" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 12:12:47 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-895948.01591716062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <s9qdnSSuIZOmaC3fRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:506se.102270$8S5.30806@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote in message
news:tNWdnY2G4v-VAy3fRVn-3A@comcast.com...
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so,
please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are
just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
Well, if we know that something does not exist, is it invisible to us?
The converse of that is if something is invisible, does that mean it
does
not exist?
This is much different question.
You didn't answer my question. Please try again.
As often as he tries ...
If Johnny doesn't want to try answering it, why don't YOU try answering my
question instead of just trying to change the subject again?
Johnny said:
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
My question is:
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Jun 2005 09:30:14 PM |
|
|
In article <94mdnedI-dCaLizfRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
Johnny said:
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
My question is:
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific.
Why do you ask?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 11:28:08 PM |
|
|
In article <tNWdnY2G4v-VAy3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Johnny" :
I do know that some non-existence proofs are on record already.
Anything comparable to proving there is no invisible God? If so, please
explain the procedure they used. Please be specific. So far you are just
being vague, not giving us anything specific to discuss.
Yes, please help out poor Simple Septic, as he without help he may soon
be reduced to telling the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jun 2005 03:42:07 AM |
|
|
Yes, please help out poor Simple Septic, as he without help he may soon
be reduced to telling the truth.
Hi Virgil. How do you do today? :-)
Isn't it cool btw, how we let the rec.photo.digital guys off the hook?
Regards,
Talence
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jun 2005 04:40:24 PM |
|
|
In article <J_6dne7tEMzp7S3fRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"Deep Thought" <dt@algia.org> wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ypZre.125765$J25.78617@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Non-existence is used so often nowadays, it seems impractical to deny that
it can be proven.
As you or other athiests or philosophers hold to your erroneous idea that
non-existence can not be proven, the rest of us are content to go on with
life, accepting that non-existence is and can be proven ...
If it is true as you argue that it can always be proven that any
hypothetical thing does not exist
Nobody says every non-existence can be proved, but Simple Septic has
been falsely claiming that none of them can be. It is false that
nonon-existence can be proven.
It is equally false that all non-existences can be proven, for example
one cannot prove the non-existence of anything that has been proven to
exist.
Proofs of non-existence are at least limited to those things which
actually do not exist.
But until there is proof either of existence of something or of its
non-existence, no one knows for certain whether it exists or not.
That ignorance is the current status of the issue of existence of gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
