| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"bowl of petunias" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:15:24 PM |
| Object: |
Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
(Cough)
Compelling as the quote from Russel is, a valid argument is not the
same thing as "the truth". Nor can we rest on the idea that since
something cannot be proved it is nesessarily false. the burden of
proof does rest with the side trying to prove something. However all
the rest of us can do is accept or reject the the attempts. If these
attempts are unsucessful the most that can be claimed is the original
assertion is unsuported by this argument. Imagining anymore is -well-
wishful thinking.
.
|
|
| User: "The Other Alan" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
05 Apr 2004 05:44:42 PM |
|
|
bowl of petunias wrote:
(Cough)
Compelling as the quote from Russel is, a valid argument is not the
same thing as "the truth". Nor can we rest on the idea that since
something cannot be proved it is nesessarily false. the burden of
proof does rest with the side trying to prove something. However all
the rest of us can do is accept or reject the the attempts. If these
attempts are unsucessful the most that can be claimed is the original
assertion is unsuported by this argument. Imagining anymore is -well-
wishful thinking.
Not in this case. As Russel has clearly shown, there cannot be any suuch
thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an inherent special pleading
for that one thing.
If you have any doubt left, just try it for yourself, try crafting an
argument for God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
without the fatal problem Russell points out. It can't be done.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "freethinker" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
06 Apr 2004 12:13:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:44:42 GMT, The Other Alan
<otheralan@nospam.com> wrote:
bowl of petunias wrote:
(Cough)
Compelling as the quote from Russel is, a valid argument is not the
same thing as "the truth". Nor can we rest on the idea that since
something cannot be proved it is nesessarily false. the burden of
proof does rest with the side trying to prove something. However all
the rest of us can do is accept or reject the the attempts. If these
attempts are unsucessful the most that can be claimed is the original
assertion is unsuported by this argument. Imagining anymore is -well-
wishful thinking.
Not in this case. As Russel has clearly shown, there cannot be any suuch
thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an inherent special pleading
for that one thing.
If you have any doubt left, just try it for yourself, try crafting an
argument for God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
without the fatal problem Russell points out. It can't be done.
Excellent point, there has to be a un caused first cause. And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
06 Apr 2004 02:04:26 PM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 10:13 AM, in article 4074e3c5.50856383@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:44:42 GMT, The Other Alan
<otheralan@nospam.com> wrote:
bowl of petunias wrote:
(Cough)
Compelling as the quote from Russel is, a valid argument is not the
same thing as "the truth". Nor can we rest on the idea that since
something cannot be proved it is nesessarily false. the burden of
proof does rest with the side trying to prove something. However all
the rest of us can do is accept or reject the the attempts. If these
attempts are unsucessful the most that can be claimed is the original
assertion is unsuported by this argument. Imagining anymore is -well-
wishful thinking.
Not in this case. As Russel has clearly shown, there cannot be any suuch
thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to
the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an inherent special pleading
for that one thing.
If you have any doubt left, just try it for yourself, try crafting an
argument for God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
without the fatal problem Russell points out. It can't be done.
Excellent point, there has to be a un caused first cause.
The point you are missing is that there cannot be an uncaused first cause
due to this fatal problem (special pleading for this one thing) inherent in
the very idea of it.
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: A"first cause" argument for Septic's brain damage |
06 Apr 2004 04:44:09 PM |
|
|
Dixit, aka The Other Alan, aka Skepticus, aka Navigator,
aka Muddy Boggs, aka Rooster, aka Yoda, aka Roger Bush,
aka ***** Dragon, aka Bill Gates, aka The Theenker, aka
Dr. Sister, aka Tom Wetsuit, aka Skeptic, aka Ho Hum,
aka Hum bent over and blew out of his ignorant *****:
[snip]
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
If you understood English, you'd realize what a dumb-*****
idiot you're proving yourself to be. Russell did not say
it is impossible for a god to exist, he said that "first
cause" isn't a viable argument in trying to prove a god.
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that a god can not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Therefore, God might exist? |
06 Apr 2004 06:24:30 PM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 2:44 PM, in article 407324A9.F6559646@gotcha.com,
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that a god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
If you are going to continue trying to sell the idea that God might exist,
how do you plan to get around this fatal problem Russell points out, the
fatal problem of special pleading for that one thing, God, the hypothetical
first cause/creator of the universe, inherent in the very idea of God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, Septic's brain might exist? |
06 Apr 2004 07:55:47 PM |
|
|
Dixit, aka The Other Alan, aka Skepticus, aka Navigator, aka
Muddy Boggs, aka Rooster, aka Yoda, aka Roger Bush, aka Bill
Gates, aka ***** Dragon, aka Todd Field, aka Tom Wetsuit, aka
The Theenker, aka Dr. Sister, aka Ho Hum, aka Skeptic wrote:
On 4/6/04 2:44 PM, in article 407324A9.F6559646@gotcha.com,
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that a god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way, Septic. His point,
the one that keeps zipping over your pointy little head,
was that the first cause argument is insufficient, & not
that it proves it impossible for god(s) to exist. If you
somehow believe that's what he's saying, go ahead & make
your case based upon his quote, but cutting & pasting it
ad nauseam does nothing to support your argument that it
states it's impossible. He only says first cause doesn't
support the argument that a god actually exists. Get it?
If you are going to continue trying to sell the idea that God might exist,
how do you plan to get around this fatal problem Russell points out, the
fatal problem of special pleading for that one thing, God, the hypothetical
first cause/creator of the universe, inherent in the very idea of God?
You are one monumentally stupid person. Read this again:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that
cannot have any validity. If anything must have a cause,
then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without
a cause, it may just as well be the world [universe, everything
that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Nowhere in the above quote is it argued it is impossible
for a god to exist. He only says a first cause argument,
for the above stated reason, doesn't prove a god exists.
--
"We know that 'dog' is a very meaningful proposition."
- Skepticus Stupidus (aka Dixit)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 01:18:13 AM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that God might exist anyway, in spite
of this fatal problem with the very idea of it which Russell points out.
That's not a rational argument, sir. You can't just wave your hands and make
this fatal problem go away, you have to face up to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 03:35:05 AM |
|
|
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X"), you've just contradicted yourself, dumbass. If
something might exist, it might also not exist, so I
wasn't speculating either way, was I, Oh Septic One?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 01:08:25 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X [read God] might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
08 Apr 2004 02:00:48 AM |
|
|
Dixit (aka Skepticus Stupidus) wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X" [read God] might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Here again is my assessment of brain-dead gibbering idiots:
"He" [read Skepticus] is an idiot, unless proven otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
10 Apr 2004 01:28:33 PM |
|
|
On 4/8/04 12:00 AM, in article 4074F89F.CFF2E357@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skepticus Stupidus) wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X" [read God] might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Here again is my assessment of brain-dead gibbering idiots:
"He" [read Skepticus] is an idiot, unless proven otherwise.
"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: Therefore, God might exist? |
10 Apr 2004 03:35:09 PM |
|
|
In article <BC9D8ADF.38D1%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/04 12:00 AM, in article 4074F89F.CFF2E357@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skepticus Stupidus) wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X" [read God] might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Here again is my assessment of brain-dead gibbering idiots:
"He" [read Skepticus] is an idiot, unless proven otherwise.
"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
Diversion from what? Every word that is posted by Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, amounts to evidence in support of that assessment, so the
assessment is directly on point in every response to a Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, posting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 01:31:31 PM |
|
|
In article <BC9991A8.2D3C%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, demonstrates his ignorance by
misappplying the phrase "argument from ignoance".
It would be an argument fromignorance to claim "X MUST exist, unless
proven otherwise." It is perfectly valid to say that something might
exist if it has not been proven not to exist, as that is exactly what
not proven not to exist means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 06:15:32 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 11:31 AM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AB70D1.12313007042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BC9991A8.2D3C%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, demonstrates his ignorance by
misappplying the phrase "argument from ignoance".
It would be an argument fromignorance to claim "X MUST exist, unless
proven otherwise."
It is also argument from ignorance to argue as you and Snipper and Company
do, that it is true that an invisible X (as in MERRY XMAS) might exist
anyway, even though there is no spoor you can point out, unless that
hypothesis is proven false. The very same kind of theist argument from
ignorance is used as an example of logical fallacy in Copi's 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!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[Now watch Virgil and Snipper and Company start their usual hand waving.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 08:59:52 PM |
|
|
In article <BC99D9A3.2DDA%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 11:31 AM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-AB70D1.12313007042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BC9991A8.2D3C%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 1:35 AM, in article 4073BD3A.2D2B087A@youknowit.com, "Sniper"
<septicisstupid@youknowit.com> wrote:
Dixit (aka Skeptic) wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that
God might exist anyway...
Aside from the fact that I never claimed: "God might
exist anyway", (we were talking about a hypothetical
"X") ...
Yes, X as in MERRY XMAS! Who do you think you are fooling?
Here again is your argument from ignorance:
"X might exist, unless proven otherwise." --Snipper
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, demonstrates his ignorance by
misappplying the phrase "argument from ignoance".
It would be an argument from ignorance to claim "X MUST exist, unless
proven otherwise."
It is also argument from ignorance to argue as you and Snipper and Company
do, that it is true that an invisible X (as in MERRY XMAS) might exist
The very same kind of theist argument from
ignorance is used as an example of logical fallacy in Copi's 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
I do not see "the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere", and without "MIGHT"
in there somewhere Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's argument falls flat
on it fanny.
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is too dumb or too pigheaded to
distiguish between "might be" and "is" here, and between "might" and
"must" in other contexts, he should not presume that others are as
handicapped as he is.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
10 Apr 2004 07:52:44 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 6:59 PM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-2102B4.19595207042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
I do not see "the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere" ...
Then you don't understand the meaning of the term, 'hypothesis' in the
theolog's argument from ignorance, "And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false"?
The "invisible crystalline substance" is a hypothetical (speculative, 'might
be') imagining of the theists, just as the entity, God, who hypothetically
installed it is also a hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining of
the theists.
That theists are "absolutely convinced" (believe) their hypothetical things
are real does not have any bearing on the fact of the matter at all, and the
fact is that there is no such thing as God, and no such thing as the
hypothetical invisible crystalline substance the hypothetical God
hypothetically installed on the moon. It's all figments of the imagination
of you theists, evidently, else you would be demonstrating how it is these
things are known to be real, so that others can check your observations, and
doing so without resorting to the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance
as you all are prone to do, as Copi points out:
<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!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
10 Apr 2004 09:45:21 PM |
|
|
In article <BC9DE4EA.38F4%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 6:59 PM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-2102B4.19595207042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
I do not see "the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere" ...
Then you don't understand the meaning of the term, 'hypothesis' in the
theolog's argument from ignorance, "And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false"?
The "invisible crystalline substance" is a hypothetical (speculative, 'might
be') imagining of the theists, just as the entity, God, who hypothetically
installed it is also a hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imagining of
the theists.
The "fact" of the impossibility of gods which Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, swears by so strongly, is equally a hypothetical (speculative,
'might be') imagining of one anti-theist.
That theists are "absolutely convinced" (believe) their hypothetical things
are real does not have any bearing on the fact of the matter at all,
No more does the "absolute conviction" of Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, that his hypothetitcal (speculative, 'might be') imagining have
any bearing on the fact of the matter at all.
It's all figments of the imagination of you anti-theists, evidently,
else you would be demonstrating how it is these things are known to be
real, so that others can check your observations, and doing so without
resorting to the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance that the
absence of proof that gods exist is proof that they don't.
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>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
07 Apr 2004 01:52:21 AM |
|
|
In article <BC98EB35.2BDE%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 5:55 PM, in article 40735193.5C562254@gotcha.com, "Sniper"
<sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
Dixit wrote:
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Russell isn't speculating either way ...
You are. You are definitely insisting that God might exist anyway, in spite
of this fatal problem
The only fatal problem here is with Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's
underdtanding of what Russells actually said.
with the very idea of it which Russell points out.
Where? I don not see that Russell said anything that prevents a god from
existing.
That's not a rational argument, sir.
The one by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is not a rational argument.
You can't just wave your hands and make
this fatal problem go away, you have to face up to it.
That's our line, not Septic's.
The fatal problem in understanding that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
has about the difference betwen "might" and "must" has scuttled a great
many of his arguments, and it is the only fatal problem that occurs in
his arguments re Russell.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one
that cannot have any validity. If everything must have
a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be
anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God."
-- Lord Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
This says nothing about whether there MIGHT be a first cause, which mean
that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, flunks logic again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Therefore, God might exist? |
06 Apr 2004 07:51:03 PM |
|
|
In article <BC988A3D.29F6%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 2:44 PM, in article 407324A9.F6559646@gotcha.com,
"Sniper" <sniper@gotcha.com> wrote:
In other words, he's saying the argument was insufficent
to prove there is a god, _not_ that a god can not exist.
Therefore, God might exist?
Why not?
We all know that it is not known that a god cannot exist (even Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, knows this in his saner moments), so what is
there that prohibits a god from existing?
If you are going to continue trying to sell the idea that God might exist,
how do you plan to get around this fatal problem Russell points out
I simply read what Russell _actually_ said, and see that this alleged
fatal problem is in the reading by Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, and
not in the writing by Bertrand Russell. The "fatal problem' is in the
head of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, and nowhere else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
06 Apr 2004 04:44:06 PM |
|
|
In article <BC984D49.28DE%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit,
AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
The point you are missing is that there cannot be an uncaused first cause
due to this fatal problem (special pleading for this one thing) inherent in
the very idea of it.
Wrong.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is falsely claiming that Russell argues
against the possibility of a first casue, What Russell argues against is
the necessity of a first cause.
Russell does not say (see below for full quote) "The argument that
there MIGHT be a first cause is one that cannot have any validity"
Russell actually says "The argument that there MUST be a first cause is
one that cannot have any validity"
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has a long and disreputable history of
conflating (mixing up) the meanings of "might" and "must" whenever he
finds it convenient to help him ignore the truth. He also uses it to
garble the distinctions between theism and agnosticim or athiesm.
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing.
The agnostic principle says tht one should not say one is certain of
anything for which one has no proof. Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
seems to be certain of the above, but he has shown no proof, so he is in
violation of that agnostic principle. On the other hand, Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, often says that he is a practicing agnostic. He
outdoes the red queen.
Quote from Russell proving Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, wrong:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "freethinker" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
06 Apr 2004 06:42:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:04:26 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
And you of course are welcome to believe that Russell, is
infallible.
So either the universe, or God or both were not caused, just
happened to arise from nothing. Or the universe is infinite in scope
and duration. But then again god could also be infinite. Nothing
wrong with holding a God belief, wrong is forcing others to live
according to your God beliefs.
The God of many christians a self righteous, bigot, certainly
doesn`t exist,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 12:58:01 AM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 4:42 PM, in article 40733e3e.11220126@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:04:26 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
And you of course are welcome to believe that Russell, is
infallible.
Straw man. Nobody says Russell is infallible -- and the fatal problem with
the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
certainly does not depend on Russell being infallible, sir, it is a problem
(special pleading for that one thing, God) inherent in the very idea of God.
Any mere mortal of average intelligence can understand this, without too
much difficulty. It doesn't require infallibility.
The point you are missing is that, as Russell has clearly shown, there
cannot be any such thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of
everything, due to the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an
inherent special pleading for that one thing.
If you still believe there might be one anyway, just try it for
yourself, try crafting an argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe, without the fatal problem Russell points
out. It can't be done.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sniper" |
|
| Title: Re: a "Septic brain" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 02:14:57 AM |
|
|
Dixit, aka Skepticus, aka Navigator, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Yoda,
aka Rooster, aka Roger Bush, aka T. Jefferson, aka Skeptic wrote:
[snip]
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
The point you are missing is that, as Russell has clearly shown, there
cannot be any such thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of
everything, due to the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an
inherent special pleading for that one thing.
Russell didn't believe that any gods exist, but he certainly
did not make the claim that there can not be any such thing.
You have this amazing capacity to read things into something
that were never there to begin with. He merely asserted that
the "first cause" didn't have validity in his opinion, _not_
that it's impossible for a god to exist. Learn some English.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 02:08:03 AM |
|
|
In article <BC98E679.2BDA%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 4:42 PM, in article 40733e3e.11220126@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:04:26 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
And you of course are welcome to believe that Russell, is
infallible.
Straw man. Nobody says Russell is infallible
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, cites Russell as though an ultimate
authority, and then claims him falliable.
-- and the fatal problem with the very idea of God,
Which problem exists only in the mind of Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, and exists nowhere in Russell's work
The point you are missing is that, as Russell has clearly shown, there
cannot be any such thing as God,
As Russell shows no such thing, nothing was missed.
the hypothetical first cause/creator of everything, due to the fatal
problem with
The fatal problem is with the mental processes of Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, which have created out of nothing an allegation of some
fatal problem, which Russell does not mention.
While the idea that a god MIGHT exist may be repellant to Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, he has no evidence of its impossibility, and
particularly not from the citation from Russell.
If you still believe there might be one anyway, just try it for
yourself, try crafting an argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe, without the fatal problem Russell points
out. It can't be done.
It was done, and I quote:
In article <6312c50b.0404060848.64d24b14@posting.google.com>,
(George Dance) wrote:>
Dixit AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
<dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC9059D1.203B%dix@nospam.com>...
Can you produce a valid argument that there might be a first cause without
running into the fatal problem of special pleading pointed out by Russell?
Please post one.
Child's play:
1. Every physical object has a beginning.
2. Whatever has a beginning has a cause.
4. The cause of a physical object is either (a) solely physical or (b)
at least partly non-physical.
5. If 4a, then: there has been an infinite series of physical objects.
(by 1 and 2, recursively)
6. If 4b, then: there is at least one non-physical object capable of
causing physical events.
7. Either: there has been an infinite series of physical objects, or
there is at least one non-physical object capable of causing physical
events. (4,5,6 CD)
8. There might not have been an infinite series of physical objects.
9. There might be a non-physical object capable of causing physical
events.
QED
Now, it's up to you to demonstrate either logical inconsistency or
special pleading in the argument.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
Those who read Russell's quote will note that Rusell objects to "there
MUST be a first cause" but says nothing about "there MIGHT be a first
cause". The objections to the later statemment are all by Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, and are without any evidence beyond his own demented
rantings whatsoever.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "freethinker" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 11:55:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:58:01 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/6/04 4:42 PM, in article 40733e3e.11220126@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:04:26 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
And you of course are welcome to believe that Russell, is
infallible.
Straw man. Nobody says Russell is infallible -- and the fatal problem with
the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
certainly does not depend on Russell being infallible, sir, it is a problem
(special pleading for that one thing, God) inherent in the very idea of God.
Any mere mortal of average intelligence can understand this, without too
much difficulty. It doesn't require infallibility.
In the beginning, there was nothing, then with out any intelligent
cause, an act of nature. The universe came into being. A un-caused
event is essential. Now God or the universe has to be un-caused. The
universe does in fact exist, God is believed to exist, by a good
number of people. That beliefs is based on faith. If god were
provable, then it would become knowledge. Faith is not needed if
knowledge is present.
The point you are missing is that, as Russell has clearly shown, there
cannot be any such thing as God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of
everything, due to the fatal problem with the very idea of it, an
inherent special pleading for that one thing.
Russell is confused by believers claiming belief to be the same as
knowledge.
If you still believe there might be one anyway, just try it for
yourself, try crafting an argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe, without the fatal problem Russell points
out. It can't be done.
Replace belief with knowledge, prove God to exist, and lose faith.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
There is no need for a first cause other than the nature of nature,
the beginning had to have been a first cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
And it could have just as well been God. Who created the universe.
The Universe does exist, does God? I don`t know, but I believe he does
in fact exist. And realize that I may be wrong, what the hell I`ve
been wrong before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 06:24:19 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 9:55 AM, in article 40742dee.583813@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
... Who created the universe?
Loaded question.
The universe does not require a creator; in fact, it cannot possibly have
one. The universe is just everything there is. There cannot be a first
cause/creator due to the fatal problem (special pleading for that one thing)
inherent in the very idea of it, as Russell explains:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
07 Apr 2004 09:13:16 PM |
|
|
In article <BC99DBB2.2DDB%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/04 9:55 AM, in article 40742dee.583813@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
... Who created the universe?
Loaded question.
The universe does not require a creator; in fact, it cannot possibly have
one.
Russell (below) argues that the universe does not require a creator, but
is careful not to argue that it cannot possibly have one.
Russell knew a lot more about logic and reasoning that Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, has any idea of (the image of Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, struggling with Principia Mathematica is hysterically funny),
and as a practicing atheist would have made the argument for
impossibility if there were any logically sound way to do it.
That Russell, with all his talent, did not make the argument that Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, falsely attributes to him, is reasonable
evidence that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, a person of distinctly
inferior logical talents, cannot come up with any logically sound
argument to support his claims of the impossibility of any god.
Note: to assert that Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is distinctly
inferior to Bertrand Russell in logical talents does not qualify as an
argumentum ad hominem. Almost everyone falls in that same category.
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from first cause |
07 Apr 2004 12:41:12 PM |
|
|
On 4/7/04 9:55 AM, in article 40742dee.583813@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:58:01 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/6/04 4:42 PM, in article 40733e3e.11220126@news.airmail.net,
"freethinker" <Freethinker@utopia.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:04:26 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
And God may
have been that first cause, then God and rest of the Universe could
have occurred at the same time I.E. God and the universe are parts of
the same thing. The Universe is God, God is the universe.
There is no God who is anything, and there is no possibility there might be
any such thing. You are just trying to get away with being equivocal by
co-opting the universe, something known to exist, and calling it God. God
with a capital G is alleged to be the first cause, the creator of the
universe. The fact is that there cannot be any such thing due to this fatal
problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it which Russell
points out:
And you of course are welcome to believe that Russell, is
infallible.
Straw man. Nobody says Russell is infallible -- and the fatal problem with
the very idea of God, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe,
certainly does not depend on Russell being infallible, sir, it is a problem
(special pleading for that one thing, God) inherent in the very idea of God.
Any mere mortal of average intelligence can understand this, without too
much difficulty. It doesn't require infallibility.
In the beginning, there was nothing ...
That can't be right. There had to be something, either the universe or God,
and as Russell points out, if anything can have always existed, it might as
well be the universe as God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from first cause |
07 Apr 2004 01:25:13 PM |
|
|
In article <BC998B47.2D38%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
In the beginning, there was nothing ...
That can't be right.
No doubt Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, was there watching!
.
|
|
|
| User: "GRGaud" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from first cause |
08 Apr 2004 07:20:29 AM |
|
|
In article
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-2AC103.12251307042004@[63.218.45.211]>,
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BC998B47.2D38%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
In the beginning, there was nothing ...
That can't be right.
No doubt Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, was there watching!
What the ***** is it with you and this Septic capon guy? Get the *****
over it, will ya?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
