| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
20 Jun 2004 01:01:29 PM |
| Object: |
Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
Jim:
After reading your comments about me, I've been rereading our earlier
discussions; and I've found a couple of things that are quite relevant
to what we're discussing here; in this case, the Septic Universe (SU).
I've assumed throughout that Dixit, being a person, is rational - he
thinks - though he, like anyone, may not be aware of all his thought
processes at any time. It follows that me had a reason for
postulating SU (which is not the observeable universe but its
superset, the eternally existing 'collection of everything that
exists.' And I've assumed his one reason was to argue that something
existed eternally, and therefore without a cause.
However, this other exchange between the three of us also provides a
possible reason:
<quote>
[Dixit]
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
(Don't forget to demonstrate how you know they exist.)
[Burns]
Put "the world's shortest spy" on your list of things lacking
demonstrability.
If there is no shortest spy, then either (a) there are no spies
or (b) there are an infinite number of spies. Since I can
rule out (a) and (b), I know there is a shortest spy (or, at
least a spy as short as or shorter than every other spy).
What I cannot do is show this spy.
If you think you can either show there is no world's shortest
spy or show there is and you can display this spy, go for it.
[Dixit]
Simple. Get all the spies in the world and measure them.
[GD]
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'?
[Dixit]
It's a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), knucklehead. Ever heard of
those? One doesn't have to actually carry out the experiment, just show how
it could be done in principle.
{GD]
Which has not been shown.
<quote>
If a collection like 'all the spies in the world' existed only as an
idea (ie, if it had only intensional predicates), then one could not
know when one had measured every spy, and therefore never know when
one had found the shortest one.
OTOH, if such a collection existed in reality - if one could actually
point to it and discover facts about it - then one could, in
principle, do Dixit's experiment and know who the shortest spy in the
world was.
Hence Dixit's insistence that collections of real existents are also
real existents; as admitting that there are no such things,
objectively speaking, means admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
- and he cannot admit that.
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
22 Jun 2004 12:08:42 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Then leave this fallacious diversion of yours
["The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp]
and trot out a God, the first cause, so that anybody else can check your
observations.
See how logical, scientific investigation works? Simple, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
22 Jun 2004 12:29:38 PM |
|
|
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says a
shortest spy can be found, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
is the one who bears the burden for finding him.
Those who do not claim that a shortest spy can be found obviously bear
no responsibility for finding one.
See how logical, scientific investigation works? Simple, isn't it?
And the scientific conclusion is that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
is WRONG. AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
22 Jun 2004 02:42:38 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case, it is Virg
and Burns and Dance who say something, they say, "Put 'the world's
shortest spy' on your list of things lacking demonstrability."
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Dance are mistaken. Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
22 Jun 2004 05:10:20 PM |
|
|
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is always saying things, but most of
the time the logical content is zero. In that sense, and that sense
only, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, never says anything.
, it is Virg
and Burns and Dance who say something, they say, "Put 'the world's
shortest spy' on your list of things lacking demonstrability."
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Dance are mistaken. Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
Then Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, must demonstrate how to determine
which people are spies, so that we can determine which of them is the
shortest spy.
The difficulty is that there is no sure way to tell whether a person is
a spy or not, so how does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, know whom to
include in his set of all spies?
Until Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, can demonstrate some infallible
test for spyness, he is WRONG! AGAIN!
There are at most countably many algoriths for determining
(demonstrating) a real number but there are uncountably many real
numbers (vastly more than countably many) so that "almost all" real
numbers which exist are impossible to demonstrate.
Almost as difficult as to demonstrate Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's
sanity.
Just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
First, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple, trot out your spy testing method
so that anyone can check its operation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
23 Jun 2004 10:57:51 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is always saying things ...
No sir, not in this case; in this case it is Virg and Burns and Dance
who say something, they say, "Put 'the world's shortest spy' on your
list of things lacking demonstrability."
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Dance are mistaken. Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
24 Jun 2004 11:13:06 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is always saying things ...
No sir, not in this case;
<snip Septic not saying anything>
If Septic is not saying anything, then no one is hearing him say
anything. Self-contradict much, Septic?
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-contradictory,
mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
24 Jun 2004 12:04:03 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is always saying things ...
No sir, not in this case; in this case it is Virg and Burns and Dance
who say something, they say, "Put 'the world's shortest spy' on your
list of things lacking demonstrability."
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Dance are mistaken. Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
You're the one saying that one can 'trot out the shortest spy.' Then
do so, or at least show that it's possible to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
25 Jun 2004 11:34:04 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, "There are things known to exist (such as the
shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist."
So in this case it is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
something, they say, "Put 'the world's shortest spy' on your list of
things lacking demonstrability."
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert) that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken. Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
Otherwise, forget about it, it's just another one of your attempted
diversions away from your hypothetical God thingy which you imply is one
of those hypothetical things of yours, things which can be known to
exist which cannot be demonstrated.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Jim Burns: the Septic universe |
27 Jun 2004 08:00:56 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OY%Bc.96042$0y.35636@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <uIZBc.89178$eu.49701@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
...admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that
anyone else can check your observations.
Since Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the one who says ...
No sir, I am not the one who "says" something in this case
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion,
<unsnip>
Hence Dixit's insistence that collections of real existents are also
real existents; as admitting that there are no such things,
objectively speaking, means admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
- and he cannot admit that.
</us>
So in this case it is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
something, they say,
<unsnip>
Hence Dixit's insistence that collections of real existents are also
real existents; as admitting that there are no such things,
objectively speaking, means admitting that there are things known to
exist (such as the shortest spy) which cannot be demonstrated to exist
- and he cannot admit that.
</us>
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
and prove, as Mr. Burns did.
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Mere assertion.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
More assertion.
just trot out the shortest spy, or whaever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done; the
crickets have been chirping for almost a year now.
Why not use your magic telescope that lets you see (or at least
understand) the 'collection of all the spies,' and the invisible 'webs
of relationships' between all the spies? Has it ever failed you
before?
Otherwise, forget about it
Oho, suddenly you don't want to talk about it? I suppose you'll try a
red herring or similar diversion here, by going on another god-rant.
, it's just another one of your attempted
diversions away from your hypothetical God thingy which you imply is one
of those hypothetical things of yours, things which can be known to
exist which cannot be demonstrated.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that
is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
01 Jul 2004 04:00:43 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
01 Jul 2004 10:19:17 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
Which can't be done; it's impossible to find (and therefore 'trot
out') demonstrate the the shortest spy in the world, because that
would require knowing who all the spies are; and no one can know that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
02 Jul 2004 07:12:47 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead, it is a fact of life, for certain.
If you trot out a god or the shortest spy, so that anybody else can
check your observations, then it is certainly being demonstrated.
There's no doubt about that.
Your proposed thing (not mine, it belongs entirely to your side) can
certainly be demonstrated if it does exist, just as any real thing can
be; just trot out a god or the shortest spy (or whatever other
distraction your side can come up with to try to change the subject away
from your inability to demonstrate your hypothetical god thingy), so
that others can check your observations. Got it straight now who's
proposition the shortest spy is, knucklehead? Let me repeat it for you:
My side didn't come up with it, your side did. As I recall it was your
cohort, Mr. Burns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
02 Jul 2004 10:45:34 PM |
|
|
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found, but continues to decline explaining his methodology for doing so.
it is a fact of life, for certain.
One can only assume that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does not have
a method and is trying to cover up his ignorance.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps challenging those who say it can
not be done to do it, which seems a bit silly of him. If he thinks it
can be done, certainly the last people to ask for help are those who say
nit cannot be done. But good sense is not one of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's attributes.
If you trot out a god or the shortest spy,
Why us? WE are the ones who say we don't know how. Ask for help from
someone, like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who claims to know how.
Your proposed thing (not mine, it belongs entirely to your side) can
certainly be demonstrated if it does exist
What we were asked to came up with was something that can be proved to
exist but that cannot be demonstrated.
We did.
The world's smallest spy is such a thing.
Since the set of spies must be finite, it must have a smallest spy, but
since no one can determine exactly who is, or is not, a spy, no one can
who it is.
All Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has to do to prove us wrong is
demonstrate to us how to find that smallest spy. His usual hand waving
is not an acceptable demonstration.
Your move, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple. Your usual garbage isn't
good enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
04 Jul 2004 10:44:25 AM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-506564.21453302072004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found, but continues to decline explaining his methodology for doing so.
it is a fact of life, for certain.
One can only assume that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does not have
a method and is trying to cover up his ignorance.
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keeps challenging those who say it can
not be done to do it, which seems a bit silly of him. If he thinks it
can be done, certainly the last people to ask for help are those who say
it cannot be done. But good sense is not one of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's attributes.
If you trot out a god or the shortest spy,
Why us? WE are the ones who say we don't know how. Ask for help from
someone, like Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, who claims to know how.
Your proposed thing (not mine, it belongs entirely to your side) can
certainly be demonstrated if it does exist
What we were asked to came up with was something that can be proved to
exist but that cannot be demonstrated.
We did.
The world's smallest spy is such a thing.
Since the set of spies must be finite, it must have a smallest spy, but
since no one can determine exactly who is, or is not, a spy, no one can
who it is.
All Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has to do to prove us wrong is
demonstrate to us how to find that smallest spy. His usual hand waving
is not an acceptable demonstration.
Your move, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple. Your usual garbage isn't
good enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
04 Jul 2004 05:33:14 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims. I don't have any thing to do
with this diversion of yours. This whole idea of the world's shortest
spy Burns from your side came up with as an attempted diversion away
from your inability to demonstrate logically satisfactory evidence of
your magically invisible sky pixie you insist might exist anyway, even
though you cannot produce any logically satisfactory evidence of any
such thing.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
04 Jul 2004 09:58:21 PM |
|
|
In article <KA%Fc.22835$MB3.18534@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed that there could not be
anything that existed that one could not "trot out", or demonstrate.
Someone (I've lost track of exactly who) came up with the brilliant
example of "the world's smallest spy", meeting Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple's challenge.
A smallest spy obviously must exist. Now it is Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple's obligation to show how he/she can be trotted out if he can.
So far, his waffling about seems like prima facie evidence that he
cannot, and so is WRONG! AGAIN!
I don't have any thing to do
with this diversion of yours.
On the contrary, you asked for it.
This whole idea of the world's shortest
spy Burns from your side came up with as an attempted diversion
No! In response to a direct statement by Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, that such a thing could not be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 04:00:32 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <KA%Fc.22835$MB3.18534@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed ...
You are lying again. I haven't made any claims at all. What is in
question is your side's claim that there might be a magically invisible
sky pixie anyway, even though you cannot explain how it is that you know
that, so that anybody else can check your observations.
This whole thing about spies (known to exist) has logically nothing to
do with your hypothetical magically invisible sky pixie (not known to
exist), it is just a fallacious diversion away from the issue genuinely
under discussion between theists and atheists, your inability to
demonstrate any such thing as you insist might exist.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 05:09:47 PM |
|
|
In article <QvZGc.39720$MB3.8278@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <KA%Fc.22835$MB3.18534@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed ...
You are lying again. I haven't made any claims at all.
There's one now! You have just claimed you haven't made any claims.
What is in
question is your side's claim that there might be a magically invisible
sky pixie anyway, even though you cannot explain how it is that you know
that, so that anybody else can check your observations.
I have told everyone multiple times why i believe that ("might be" is
not really something one KNOWs) there MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be a god. It is
the absence of any evidence that there cannot be a god which leads to
there might be one, and that absence of evidence that there is one that
leads to there might not be one.
This whole thing about spies
"The Shortest Spy" is an example of something that Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, could not be, a thing which obviously exists and just as
obviusly cannot be demonstrated.
As Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, based his current argument for the
impossibility of a god on an argument that such a thing as a shortest
spy could not exist, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again failed to
prove his case.
Now that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's failure is obvious to all, he
wants to bury the evidence, with his claim that we are diverting
attention, when in fact we are focusing attention on Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple's arguments and the one reason for their failure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 05:28:57 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <QvZGc.39720$MB3.8278@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <KA%Fc.22835$MB3.18534@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed ...
You are lying again. I haven't made any claims at all.
There's one now! You have just claimed you haven't made any claims.
Wrong, fruitcake, all I did was deny your claim that I have made claims.
You don't have the mental ability to distinguish between a claim and the
denial (the negation) of a claim? Tsk tsk. The quality of students we
get these days.
Why are you always trying to get away with shifting the burden of proof
to the denial (the negation) of whatever nonsense you come up with, like
your idea that there might be magically invisible sky pixies? Are you
ignorant of the principles of valid argument (logic)?
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 11:03:22 PM |
|
|
In article <JO_Gc.41036$%_6.5167@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <QvZGc.39720$MB3.8278@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <KA%Fc.22835$MB3.18534@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Oh, I think we can discern his method from his other posts: He'll
look in his magic telescope that lets him see collections of things,
and the invisible webs of relations between things - find the
collection of all spies, and trace out the webs of relationships to
find all the individual spies - then measure them all, and demonstrate
the shortest one.
Of course the success of his method depends on there physically
existing (1) a collection of all the spies, (2) a web of relationships
between all the spies, and (3) a magic telescope. Since none of those
have been shown to have physical existence as yet, he's got a long way
to go; but since all of those might physically exist, I don't think we
should dismiss his claim right yet.
You are lying. I haven't made any claims.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, claimed ...
You are lying again. I haven't made any claims at all.
There's one now! You have just claimed you haven't made any claims.
Wrong, fruitcake, all I did was deny your claim that I have made claims.
You don't have the mental ability to distinguish between a claim and the
denial (the negation) of a claim? Tsk tsk. The quality of students we
get these days.
As claiming the negation of a claim does not absolve the negating
statement of claimhood, there is no difference between the claim and its
negation in that respect.
And anyone who would accept Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, as tutor
would be a miserable judge of tuition. As I have seen no evidence that
anyone here has made that particular mistake, perhaps the quality of
students is better than Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, judges.
Why are you always trying to get away with shifting the burden of proof
to the denial (the negation) of whatever nonsense you come up with, like
your idea that there might be magically invisible sky pixies?
Wherever did Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, get the stupid notion that
I have any interest in pixies, invisible or otherwise?
Are you
ignorant of the principles of valid argument (logic)?
A good deal less so than Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, at all events.
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question.
As a speculation that something MIGHT exist FOR ALL WE KNOW, is truly
not an asseertion of anything except the absence of proof that we KNOW
the thing does not exist, it is up to those who claim that there is such
knowledge of non-existence to provide it. So far they have not done so.
Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question.
I deny that anyone KNOWS that there are no gods. Those who claim to know
that there are no gods bear the entire burden. Those who do not claim
that knowledge do not bear that burden.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
<begin quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false, OR, EQUIVALENTLY, WHEN IT IS ARGUED THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PROVED TRUE.
<emphasis added>
<end quote>
Somehow, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, always manages to omit that
last bit of the quote. Probably because it points out exactly what he is
usually doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
08 Jul 2004 05:14:49 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... claiming the negation of a claim ...
You are confused. The denial (the negation), "There is no X" is not a
claim, it is the denial (the negation) of one. Do you have a little
reading disability or something?
Why else would we have these two different terms 'claim' and 'denial' if
they did not refer to different things? Under your scheme we would only
need one word, 'claim', right?
And where in the world did you ever get the strange idea you could shift
the burden of proof to the atheists? Atheists have nothing (no thing)
evidence of which to demonstrate, you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
08 Jul 2004 11:56:17 PM |
|
|
In article <tHjHc.14062$WX.10844@attbi_s51>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... claiming the negation of a claim ...
.. The denial (the negation), "There is no X" is not a
claim, it is the denial (the negation) of one.
The logical negation of any sort of statement is a logical statement of
the same sort. If the one is not a claim then neither is the other. If
the one is a claim then so is the other.
The negation of any statement is true if and only if the original is
false, and is false if and only if the original is true., and the truth
or falsity of a negation is known if and only if the truth or falsity of
the original is known.
The original and the negation are in no way logically different types of
statements, and anyone who claims that they are is either grossly
ignorant of logic or lying, or both. It is my considered judgement that
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is both.
That ignorance is revealed in Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's ad
nauseam argumentum ad ignoratiam that "There is no X" must be true
because it hasn't been proven false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
09 Jul 2004 11:04:10 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
If the one is a claim then so is the other.
Don't be silly. Why do you suppose we have these two different words,
'assertion' and 'denial' (the negation) of an assertion (such as 'false'
for example)? I'll tell you why. It's because the denial (the negation)
is not an assertion, it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial of your assertion as
your side is always trying to get away with.
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
09 Jul 2004 05:06:17 PM |
|
|
In article <WlzHc.48336$a24.41286@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If the one is a claim then so is the other.
Don't be silly.
Septic, the Magically Invisible Pixie, accusing others of silliness
after all the nonsense he has posted is the height of chuzpah.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
04 Jul 2004 05:20:24 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found ...
Liar. It's not my proposition, it belongs entirely to your side. All I
said is that if a thing is known to exist, then whoever knows it can
demonstrate publicly how it is known that there is one by trotting one
out so that others can check your observations. My side did't come up
with the idea of the worlds shortest spy, your side did as a diversion
away from your inability to demonstrate this god thingy you insist you
somehow know might exist anyway, even though there is no evidence of any
such thing.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
04 Jul 2004 09:49:25 PM |
|
|
In article <Io%Fc.22810$MB3.16889@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible
god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found ...
Liar. It's not my proposition, it belongs entirely to your side.
Not so. "Our side" has always said that there is no way to find the
shortest spy. It is purely Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's unfounded
claim that there is must be a method guaranteed to find him/her.
We do not even claiim to be able to determine the smallest spy's gender,
much less name.
All I
said is that if a thing is known to exist, then whoever knows it can
demonstrate publicly how it is known that there is one by trotting one
out so that others can check your observations.
We can, and have, proved that there must exist a smallwest spy.
We also have said that knowing that suchj a thing exists does not
guarantee that there is any method of "trotting it out", as Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, has alleged.
Since Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, and only Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, alleges that one can "trot out" the shortest spy, it is up to
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, and only Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, to demonstrate how this may be done.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has a long and dishonorable record of
trying to sneak out from under obligations like this.
My side did't come up
with the idea of the worlds shortest spy, your side did
We were challenged to come up with something which could be shown to
exist but could not be "trotted out". Now we have done that and all
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says is "trot it out".
We say no can do. If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says he can do,
then we say show us.
Your move, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 03:46:21 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Io%Fc.22810$MB3.16889@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible
god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found ...
Liar. It's not my proposition, it belongs entirely to your side.
Not so. "Our side" has always said that there is no way to find the
shortest spy. ...
Don't be silly. Just sort 'em by height. Any questions?
Spies are known to exist, gods are not, so this has logically nothing to
do with gods, it is just a not too cleverly conceived fallacy of
diversion on the part of Burns of your side, and the rest of you are
just trying to keep it going. But it won't work, it's just more logical
fallacy on your part.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Since humans are known to exist, and it is known that some of them are
secret agents, "There is a secret agent who is shorter than all the
others" is not even an existential proposition, which is the issue
genuinely under discussion here, it is a comparison proposition between
things known to exist, like the world's tallest building or something,
so this has logically nothing to do with your existential proposition
that there might exist a magically invisible sky pixie anyway, even
though you cannot produce any logically satisfactory evidence of one.
This whole thing about humans who are secret agents is simply a
fallacious diversion away from the inability of your side to demonstrate
anything like a god, which you insist might exist anyway, even though
you cannot point out anything reasonable justifying your conviction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
07 Jul 2004 04:41:04 PM |
|
|
In article <xiZGc.40700$%_6.28051@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Io%Fc.22810$MB3.16889@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking
exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible
god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found ...
Liar. It's not my proposition, it belongs entirely to your side.
Not so. "Our side" has always said that there is no way to find the
shortest spy. ...
Don't be silly. Just sort 'em by height. Any questions?
Yes! How does one decide whether a person is, or is not, a spy?
You pick 'em out first, and we will sort them.
But we do not claim, as you do, to be able to "pick 'em out".
How does one determine who is to be sorted? WE know there are spies,
and a few of them have been publicly identified, but the whole point of
being a spy is not to be identifiable as a spy, so how does Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, know who is and who is not.
None of the rest of us claim Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's
omniscience in this matter. Is it a God given gift to descern so easily
who is and who is not a spy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
08 Jul 2004 05:06:34 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <xiZGc.40700$%_6.28051@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Io%Fc.22810$MB3.16889@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <3SmFc.16015$IQ4.4354@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<%X_Ec.9700$%_6.452@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<0uYCc.109134$eu.99002@attbi_s02>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<3MhCc.99496$0y.38134@attbi_s03>...
Virgil wrote:
In that case, who did say "Yes it can be demonstrated; just trot out
the shortest spy so that anyone else can check your observations"?
That is not making an assertion, Mr. Troll, it is just taking
exception
to _your_ assertion, that there are things like a magically invisible
god
known to exist which cannot be demonstrated.
It is Virg and Burns and Dance who say (assert)
that there are things
known to exist (such as the shortest spy and their hypothetical God
thingy, presumably) which cannot be demonstrated.
You and Burns and Virgil are mistaken.
Anything known to exist can be
demonstrated;
just trot out the shortest spy, or whatever, so that anyone
else can check your observations.
We're still waiting for you to demonstrate how that can be done ...
Not my problem. Check the thread. My side didn't came up with the idea,
your side did.
We checked; it was definitely you who asserted, "Yes it can be
demonstrated; just trot out the shortest spy so that anyone else can
check your observations"?
That's not an assertion, knucklehead,
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, alleges that "the shortest spy" can be
found ...
Liar. It's not my proposition, it belongs entirely to your side.
Not so. "Our side" has always said that there is no way to find the
shortest spy. ...
Don't be silly. Just sort 'em by height. Any questions?
Yes! How does one decide whether a person is, or is not, a spy?
That's not my problem. Changing the subject from gods (not known to
exist) to spies (known to exist) is a diversion created by your side,
not mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: My side didn't came up with the idea, your side did. |
08 Jul 2004 11:44:36 PM |
|
|
In article <KzjHc.14020$WX.12213@attbi_s51>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Don't be silly. Just sort 'em by height. Any questions?
Yes! How does one decide whether a person is, or is not, a spy?
That's not my problem.
It is exactly and precisely Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's problem.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, raised the issue of whether there could
exist anything that could not be demonstrated, taking the side that no
such thing could exist.
He was countered by the example of the world's shortest spy, who clearly
must exist, but whose existence canot be demonstrated by "trotting
him/her out.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, wishes to claim that the shortest
spy can be "trotted out", he is obligated to provide a description of
how one can do it. So far, all Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has done
is beg off.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
