| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MGodwyn" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2004 05:14:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC905877.2039%dix@nospam.com>...
On 3/25/04 4:41 PM, in article c3vu77$ehh$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca, "MG"
<philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote:
6a) The set of causes cannot extend infinitely into the past [premise]
This assumes your conclusion
No it doesn't.
(begging the question) that the universe has
not always existed, it had to have a beginning, and is an effect caused by
some hypothetical first cause creator (God). That's not allowed, since it is
logical fallacy.
There is nothing in that that is the conclusion of the argument.
MG
.
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
05 Jun 2004 12:17:58 PM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "Theburden of proof" |
08 Jun 2004 10:21:53 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
of the proposed thing, and abundant evidence of the existence of the
universe is not in question, knucklehead, unless you are one of those
silly solipsists. The problem with that is that the only ways to reach a
conclusion that solipsism is true is to take it for granted at the
outset(begging the question), then argue _ad ignorantiam_ there is no
proof it is false. Look at the argument of anyone arguing for solipsism
and you will see that this is the case.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
Jeff
As anybody can planly see, you God boys, Georgie and Jeffie, are just
trying (not too cleverly) to create a diversion away from your inability
to produce any evidence of the existence of your hypothetical God, the
hypothetical first cause, by trying to bring the existence of the
universe into question. We see this kind of logical fallacy here in
Usenet all the time. Go figure.
"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: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
09 Jun 2004 08:32:06 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
The required default presumption is that there is no evidence,
regardless of what you think you have presented. So prove that what
you have presented is in fact evidence. Else the required default
stands -- no evidence exists.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
Jeff
As anybody can planly see, you God boys, Georgie and Jeffie, are just
trying (not too cleverly) to create a diversion away from your inability
to produce any evidence of the existence of your hypothetical God,
As George already points out, what is obvious is that you, Septic, are
wildly trying to divert attention from the issue under discussion --
namely, what evidence you have of the existence of "the set of all
that exists" (i.e. none) -- by insisting on talking about "God"
instead. Project much?
Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely fallacious, mendacious,
sociopathic, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism
and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
14 Jun 2004 11:03:07 AM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406091732.9016e3f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
The required default presumption is that there is no evidence,
regardless of what you think you have presented. So prove that what
you have presented is in fact evidence. Else the required default
stands -- no evidence exists.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried [ie, Dixit - GD] shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
As anybody can planly see, you God boys, Georgie and Jeffie, are just
trying (not too cleverly) to create a diversion away from your inability
to produce any evidence of the existence of your hypothetical God,
As George already points out, what is obvious is that you, Septic, are
wildly trying to divert attention from the issue under discussion --
namely, what evidence you have of the existence of "the set of all
that exists" (i.e. none) -- by insisting on talking about "God"
instead. Project much?
I see that Dixit has run away from this thread; but perhaps when we
can continue the discussion without him. His argument, as I
understand it, is:
1. Everything that exists, is something that exists.
2. The universe is everything that exists.
3. The universe is something that exists. (1,2 HS)
Which is simple equivocation around 'everything that exists:' in the
first premise, it means each and every thing that does exist, and in
the second it means the set or collection of those things.
Notice that a solipsist could be a true believer in Alford's alleged
'universe,' as long as he accepted (was fooled by) the equivocation.
However, notice as well that a solipsist cannot be a theist or vice
versa - unless he believed that he was God, and AFAIK no actual theist
does. A 'solipsist theist' is a contradiction in terms. So calling
someone both a 'solipsist' and a 'theist', as Dixit has been doing wrt
both of us, is simply showing his ignorance of logic again.
Septic Donny AllFried [Dixit - GD] remains the completely fallacious, mendacious,
sociopathic, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism
and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
14 Jun 2004 09:25:10 PM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0406140803.35b247af@posting.google.com>...
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406091732.9016e3f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
The required default presumption is that there is no evidence,
regardless of what you think you have presented. So prove that what
you have presented is in fact evidence. Else the required default
stands -- no evidence exists.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried [ie, Dixit - GD] shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
As anybody can planly see, you God boys, Georgie and Jeffie, are just
trying (not too cleverly) to create a diversion away from your inability
to produce any evidence of the existence of your hypothetical God,
As George already points out, what is obvious is that you, Septic, are
wildly trying to divert attention from the issue under discussion --
namely, what evidence you have of the existence of "the set of all
that exists" (i.e. none) -- by insisting on talking about "God"
instead. Project much?
I see that Dixit has run away from this thread; but perhaps when we
can continue the discussion without him. His argument, as I
understand it, is:
1. Everything that exists, is something that exists.
2. The universe is everything that exists.
3. The universe is something that exists. (1,2 HS)
Which is simple equivocation around 'everything that exists:' in the
first premise, it means each and every thing that does exist, and in
the second it means the set or collection of those things.
Oh, I think you've nailed it! The first premise, to be precise,
should really say, "Every thing that exists...", and the elision to
"Everything" is fallacious, as you say. (I've noticed a similar
tendency in written text, such as newspaper articles, to imprecisely
elide "on to" into "onto". They're really not identical.)
Notice that a solipsist could be a true believer in Alford's alleged
'universe,' as long as he accepted (was fooled by) the equivocation.
However, notice as well that a solipsist cannot be a theist or vice
versa - unless he believed that he was God, and AFAIK no actual theist
does. A 'solipsist theist' is a contradiction in terms. So calling
someone both a 'solipsist' and a 'theist', as Dixit has been doing wrt
both of us, is simply showing his ignorance of logic again.
Yep, you've nailed him. And good points.
Septic Donny AllFried [Dixit - GD] remains the completely fallacious, mendacious,
sociopathic, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism
and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "Theburden of proof" |
15 Jun 2004 01:20:12 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
... I see that Dixit has run away from this thread ...
Liar. I am still here, still watching you and Jeffie try to get away
with the logical fallacy of trying to create a diversion.
"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
Let me know when you are ready to give up your attempted diversion and
get back to the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
15 Jun 2004 03:03:58 PM |
|
|
In article <w5Hzc.45347$0y.15631@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
... I see that Dixit has run away from this thread ...
Liar. I am still here, still watching you and Jeffie try to get away
with the logical fallacy of trying to create a diversion.
Let me know when you are ready to give up your attempted diversion and
get back to the issue.
Do you, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, mean the issue of
your lies about what Bertrand Russell said?
Or the issue of your lies about what Thomas Huxley thinks of your ilk?
Or the issue of your lies about what constitutes a theism (which
directly contradicts all dictionary definitions of theism)?
Or is the issue about your lile of KNOWING that there cannot be any God?
Or is the issue one of your other lies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "Theburden of proof" |
24 Jun 2004 04:08:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... KNOWING that there cannot be any God?
That's right, there is no possibility that there might be any such thing
due to the fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of
God, the hypothetical first cause, as Russell points out:
Bertrand Russell, on why there cannot possibly be any such thing as God,
the hypothetical first cause:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. 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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." --
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
24 Jun 2004 06:01:45 PM |
|
|
In article <opHCc.176169$Ly.11015@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... KNOWING that there cannot be any God?
That's right, there is no possibility that there might be any such thing
If Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, KNOWS that there cannot be any cod,
he should be able to demostrate that fact convincingly enough so that
everyone can verify it for themselves.
But all of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, attempts at demonstration so
far have involved a large enough number of false steps to invalidate
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's claim to knowing any such thing.
Note: It is Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's own definition of
knowledge which requires validation by demonstration convincing enough
so that everyone can verify it for themselves, so if he can't convince
us, then his own definition says that he doesn't "know" it.
The engineer , hoist with...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
09 Jun 2004 11:40:56 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
of the proposed thing, and abundant evidence of the existence of the
universe is not in question, knucklehead, unless you are one of those
silly solipsists.
Of course the evidence for your hypothetical 'universe' is in
question, and has been since the start of this disucssion. Now, let's
see some. Ad homs like 'silly solipsists' are not evidence, BTW.
The problem with that is that the only ways to reach a
conclusion that solipsism is true is to take it for granted at the
outset(begging the question), then argue _ad ignorantiam_ there is no
proof it is false. Look at the argument of anyone arguing for solipsism
and you will see that this is the case.
Irrelevant, as no one is arguing for solipsism. Now, will you stop
your diversion and produce your alleged 'abundant evidence.'
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony.
So,
do let's hear St. AllFried's proof that the existence of his
"universe" is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
Hop to it. Or else:
Septic Donny AllFried shall remain the completely self-refuted,
confused, mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying
loser of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. 8)
As anybody can planly see, you God boys, Georgie and Jeffie, are just
trying (not too cleverly) to create a diversion away from your inability
to produce any evidence of the existence of your hypothetical God, the
hypothetical first cause, by trying to bring the existence of the
universe into question.
Hmm ... sounds to me like you have no evidence at all for your alleged
'universe' and are trying to create a diversion by talking about "God"
instead.
We see this kind of logical fallacy here in
Usenet all the time. Go figure.
"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: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "Theburden of proof" |
15 Jun 2004 02:06:07 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
of the proposed thing, and abundant evidence of the existence of the
universe is not in question, knucklehead, unless you are one of those
silly solipsists.
Of course the evidence for your hypothetical 'universe' is in
question ...
The universe isn't hypothetical, it is known to be real, objectively,
knucklehead. Care to meet me in the park so I can demonstrate? What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM Nomination - Re: a "first cause" argument: was "The burden of proof" |
16 Jun 2004 02:53:37 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<lQkxc.19965$Sw.1440@attbi_s51>...
George Dance wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0406041555.63ea7c04@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ew2wc.8166$%F2.3243@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
So let's hear St. Alford's proof that the existence of his "universe"
is 'evident to his understanding' and therefore exists.
The existence of the universe is not in question,
According to St. AllFried, the required default presumption regarding
existential propositions like "the universe exists" is _false_.
Yes, but that presumption can only stand as long as there is no evidence
of the proposed thing, and abundant evidence of the existence of the
universe is not in question, knucklehead, unless you are one of those
silly solipsists.
Of course the evidence for your hypothetical 'universe' is in
question ...
The universe isn't hypothetical, it is known to be real, objectively,
knucklehead.
Which of course explains your total failure to come up with any
evidence, so far.
Care to meet me in the park so I can demonstrate?
There's a universe in your neighborhood park? I think you should be
telling the media about that, not just me.
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No, nor a Septic Solipsist who assumes "False, there is no such thing"
(as an object other than himself) as the 'only default presumption.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
16 Jun 2004 08:01:30 PM |
|
|
On 6/16/04 12:53 PM, in article
6312c50b.0406160742.4e2fd7b1@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No ...
You give every sign of being one by trying to change the question from the
alleged existence of your hypothetical God to the existence of the universe.
That's what characterizes solipsism.
And anyway trying to question the existence of the universe is just fallacy
of diversion away from your inability to produce any evidence of your
hypothetical God, the hypothetical first cause.
"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
Let's get out of this attempted diversion of yours, and back to what we were
originally discussing, your fallacious argument that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can
point to.
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
17 Jun 2004 09:19:15 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCF63B76.22D8%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/16/04 12:53 PM, in article
6312c50b.0406160742.4e2fd7b1@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No ...
You give every sign of being one by trying to change the question from the
alleged existence of your hypothetical God to the existence of the universe.
You give every sign of being an immature sociopath by trying to blame
others for what you have done and they have not done.
And Septic Donny AllFried give every sign of remaining the completely
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying losing
sociopath of alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: St. Alford's argument for God |
18 Jun 2004 10:23:03 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCF63B76.22D8%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/16/04 12:53 PM, in article
6312c50b.0406160742.4e2fd7b1@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No ...
You give every sign of being one
If you had any evidence of that, you'd be producing it, not snipping
it to hide it (as you've done here).
by trying to change the question from the
alleged existence of your hypothetical God to the existence of the universe.
Actually, you were the one who postulated your alleged 'universe', as
evidence that there were eternally-existing things. According to you,
universe : the set of all things relevant to a particular discussion
www.m-w.com
is an both an eternal existent and a physical phenomenon.
That's what characterizes solipsism.
No; one can doubt whether 'the set of all things relevant to a
particular discussion' exists, without concluding that "the only thing
that exists is the self."
And anyway trying to question the existence of the universe is just fallacy
of diversion away from your inability to produce any evidence of your
hypothetical God, the hypothetical first cause.
"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
Let's get out of this attempted diversion of yours, and back to what we were
originally discussing, ... God ...
Oh, yes, let's. You insist that:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion.
You're also insisting that:
3. The set of all things relevant to a particular discussion really
exists.
Now, do you agree or disagree that:
4. A set really exists, only if its elements really exist.
?
If you disagree, of course, it's up to you show why and how.
If you agree, then it follows that, as:
5. The things relevant to a particular discussion really exist. (3,4
HS)
and
6. God is relevant to a particular discussion.
therefore:
7. God really exists. (5,6 HS)
That's a really bad argument for God, but of course it follows from
your premises, not mine. So we'll have to call it St. Alford's proof
of God, in your honour.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
18 Jun 2004 11:13:34 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCF63B76.22D8%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/16/04 12:53 PM, in article
6312c50b.0406160742.4e2fd7b1@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No ...
You give every sign of being one
by trying to change the question from the
alleged existence of your hypothetical God to the existence of the universe.
Actually, you were the one who postulated your alleged 'universe', as
evidence that there were eternally-existing things.
Alleged universe? The existence of the universe is not in question,
knuckleehead, unless you are one of those silly solipsists who believe
that the only thing that exists is the self. And the fatal problem with
the very idea of solipsism is that the only way to get there is to do as
you do, take it for granted at the start (begging the question), then
argue _ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false. Diagram it out.
You'll see that I am right.
And anyway trying to question the existence of the universe is just fallacy
of diversion away from your inability to produce any evidence of your
hypothetical God, the hypothetical first cause.
"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
Let's get out of this attempted diversion of yours, and back to what we were
originally discussing, your fallacious argument that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can
point to.
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
Oh, yes, let's. You insist that:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it. As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. 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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Any questions, or will you just try to change the subject again, Georgie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
20 Jun 2004 04:58:43 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<OwEAc.50791$Hg2.2489@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCF63B76.22D8%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/16/04 12:53 PM, in article
6312c50b.0406160742.4e2fd7b1@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<zMHzc.110018$Ly.40966@attbi_s01>...
What are
you, one of those silly solipsists who argue _ad ignorantiam_ that that
the only thing that exists is the self, because there is no proof that
proposition is false?
No ...
You give every sign of being one
by trying to change the question from the
alleged existence of your hypothetical God to the existence of the universe.
Actually, you were the one who postulated your alleged 'universe', as
evidence that there were eternally-existing things.
Alleged universe? The existence of the universe is not in question,
knuckleehead, unless you are one of those silly solipsists who believe
that the only thing that exists is the self. And the fatal problem with
the very idea of solipsism is that the only way to get there is to do as
you do, take it for granted at the start (begging the question), then
argue _ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false. Diagram it out.
You'll see that I am right.
If you can't 'diagram' it yourself, why should I do it? So far you've
given me no reason to even take that claim seriously.
And anyway trying to question the existence of the universe is just fallacy
of diversion away from your inability to produce any evidence of your
hypothetical God, the hypothetical first cause.
"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
Let's get out of this attempted diversion of yours, and back to what we were
originally discussing, your fallacious argument that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can
point to.
Since you brought up this whole notion of an eternally-existing
physical 'universe', it's of course untrue and unfair for you to
accuse me of any 'diversions' here. Though I will agree to not
discuss it anymore if you don't.
George Dance wrote:
In fact, I gave you three arguments for "There may be a God," ...
(All three of those arguments entailed logical fallacy, either special
pleading, begging the question, or not too cleverly disguised argument
_ad ignorantiam_. See for yourself. Read George's arguments for God.)
Oh, yes, let's. You insist that:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it.
Then what are we discussing here?
As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.
I've used that line on a few teenagers myself. Of course it's not a
good argument, as Russell knows or should know; so it's no reason to
conclude anything.
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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Now, that's an argument:
1. Either everything has a cause, or something has no cause.
2. If everything has a cause, then God has a cause; so God cannot be
the First Cause.
3. If anything has no cause, it can as easily be the world as God; so
there is no reason to think God was the cause of the world.
---------
4. Either God cannot be the first cause, or there is no reason to
think God was the cause of the world.
Premise 2 is true but irrelevant; no one argues that 'everything' must
have a cause.
Premise 3 is relevant but untrue; as the evidence indicates that the
world had a beginning, and something that evidently had a beginning is
not just as likely to be uncaused as something that did not evidently
have a beginning.
As one premise is false, Russell's argument is unsound.
It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Any questions, or will you just try to change the subject again, Georgie?
Why are you convinced by such poor reasoning? Are you always so
gullible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
20 Jun 2004 11:26:14 PM |
|
|
On 6/20/04 2:58 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406200158.28066cdb@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<OwEAc.50791$Hg2.2489@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it.
Then what are we discussing here?
We are discussing your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, and this hypothesis, you argue
_ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could not prove false.
As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.
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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Now, that's an argument
You are mistaken again, it's not an argument, no argument for the denial
(the negation) is even required. This just highlights the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the theist argument for God the hypothetical
first cause.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
21 Jun 2004 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCFBB175.253A%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/20/04 2:58 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406200158.28066cdb@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<OwEAc.50791$Hg2.2489@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it.
Then what are we discussing here?
We are discussing your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, and this hypothesis, you argue
_ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could not prove false.
That doesn't make sense. How can we discuss an argument that there
might be a God without God being relevant to the discussion?
As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Now, that's an argument:
<UNSNIP>
1. Either everything has a cause, or something has no cause.
2. If everything has a cause, then God has a cause; so God cannot be
the First Cause.
3. If anything has no cause, it can as easily be the world as God; so
there is no reason to think God was First Cause.
---------
4. Either God cannot be the first cause, or there is no reason to
think that God was the First Cause. (1,2,3 CD)
Premise 2 is true but irrelevant; no one argues that 'everything' must
have a cause.
Premise 3 is relevant but untrue; as the evidence indicates that the
world had a beginning, and something that evidently had a beginning is
not just as likely to be uncaused as something that did not evidently
have a beginning.
As one premise is false, Russell's argument is unsound.
</unsnip>
You are mistaken again, it's not an argument,
Not a sound one, anyway; but certainly a Constructive Dilemma, which
is a valid argument.
no argument for the denial
(the negation) is even required.
Non sequitur. Whether Russell's argument was 'required' has nothing
to do with whether he made one or not.
This just highlights the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the theist argument for God the hypothetical
first cause.
No special pleading. The world evidently had a beginning, and
therefore a cause, so it is not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as
something (like God) that did not evidently have a beginning. Russell
was wrong on this point, so his argument is unsound.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
21 Jun 2004 11:40:58 AM |
|
|
On 6/21/04 9:05 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406210805.14d99252@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCFBB175.253A%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/20/04 2:58 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406200158.28066cdb@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<OwEAc.50791$Hg2.2489@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it.
Then what are we discussing here?
We are discussing your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, and this hypothesis, you argue
_ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could not prove false.
That doesn't make sense. How can we discuss an argument that there
might be a God without God being relevant to the discussion?
If you want to quit trying to ague for God, the hypothetical first cause,
that's fine with me. Your sophistry won't work on me anyway. I didnšt just
fall off the turnip truck.
As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Now, that's an argument:
<UNSNIP>
[unsnip the part where I take exception to you calling what Russell writes
an argument. It is not an argument, sir, Russell is ssimply pointing out the
fatal problem inherent in your argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause.]
You are mistaken again, it's not an argument,
no argument for the denial
(the negation) is even required.
This just highlights the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the theist argument for God the hypothetical
first cause.
No special pleading.
Yes special pleading, a special pleading for God, the hypothetical first
cause, inherent in the very idea of it. You insist that the universe must
have a cause but God does not have to have a cause. Google special pleading.
Since nobody knows, to be logically consistent and avoid the logical fallacy
of a special pleading for one thing, if there can be anything without a
cause, it might as well be the universe, which you would see that Russell
points out, if you would only read for understanding.
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be a
God anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for God, the
hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does not run into
this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
22 Jun 2004 11:22:39 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCFC5DA9.2648%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/21/04 9:05 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406210805.14d99252@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCFBB175.253A%dix@nospam.com>...
On 6/20/04 2:58 AM, in article
6312c50b.0406200158.28066cdb@posting.google.com, "George Dance"
<georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<OwEAc.50791$Hg2.2489@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
1. We're discussing God, and therefore
2. God is relevant to the discussion. ...
Your hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') God, your hypothetical first
cause/creator of the universe? Forget about it.
Then what are we discussing here?
We are discussing your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, and this hypothesis, you argue
_ad ignorantiam_, even a genius like Galileo could not prove false.
That doesn't make sense. How can we discuss an argument that there
might be a God without God being relevant to the discussion?
If you want to quit trying to ague for God, the hypothetical first cause,
that's fine with me.
I want you to answer the question: How can we discuss an argument
that there might be a God without God being relevant to the
discussion? Not so fine with you, I take it, as you haven't answered.
Your sophistry won't work on me anyway. I didnšt just
fall off the turnip truck.
As I have explained
several times now, no such thing is possible due to the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, as pointed out by
Bertrand Russell:
Bertrand Russell on how the theist first cause argument has an inherent
fatal problem (a special pleading for God):
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 as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument.
Now, that's an argument:
<UNSNIP>
<UNSNIP>
1. Either everything has a cause, or something has no cause.
2. If everything has a cause, then God has a cause; so God cannot be
the First Cause.
3. If anything has no cause, it can as easily be the world as God; so
there is no reason to think God was First Cause.
---------
4. Either God cannot be the first cause, or there is no reason to
think that God was the First Cause. (1,2,3 CD)
Premise 2 is true but irrelevant; no one argues that 'everything' must
have a cause.
Premise 3 is relevant but untrue; as the evidence indicates that the
world had a beginning, and something that evidently had a beginning is
not just as likely to be uncaused as something that did not evidently
have a beginning.
As one premise is false, Russell's argument is unsound.
</unsnip>
[unsnip the part where I take exception to you calling what Russell writes
an argument. It is not an argument, sir, Russell is ssimply pointing out the
fatal problem inherent in your argument for God, the hypothetical first
cause.]
[Actually, you're not 'unsnipping' anything here. All of that 'part'
was in the earlier post, along with my replies; all you did was snip
the replies]
You are mistaken again, it's not an argument,
<us>
Not a sound one, anyway; but certainly a Constructive Dilemma, which
is a valid argument.
</us>
no argument for the denial
(the negation) is even required.
<us>
Non sequitur. Whether Russell's argument was 'required' has nothing
to do with whether he made one or not.
</us>
This just highlights the fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the theist argument for God the hypothetical
first cause.
<us>
No special pleading. The world evidently had a beginning, and
therefore a cause, so it is not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as
something (like God) that did not evidently have a beginning. Russell
was wrong on this point, so his argument is unsound.
</us>
No special pleading.
Yes special pleading, a special pleading for God, the hypothetical first
cause, inherent in the very idea of it. You insist that the universe must
have a cause but God does not have to have a cause. Google special pleading.
No, I said that the world evidently had a beginning, and therefore the
world is not just as likely to be a First Cause as God (as God did not
evidently have a beginning).
Since nobody knows, to be logically consistent and avoid the logical fallacy
of a special pleading for one thing, if there can be anything without a
cause, it might as well be the universe, which you would see that Russell
points out, if you would only read for understanding.
Russell doesn't mention any 'universe'. Sounds like you're reading
your own thoughts into what he actually said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
24 Jun 2004 10:57:53 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
I want ...
This is not about what you want it to be about, Georgie, as much as you
would love to create a diversion, it is about your hypothesis that there
might be a magic invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, anyway,
even though there is no evidence of any such thing (usually with an
argument _ad ignorantiam_ such as yours and Virgil's attached, to the
effect that there is no proof that hypothesis is false). That's logical
fallacy, a textbook case of it. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
26 Jun 2004 05:13:35 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<5SCCc.87882$Hg2.45931@attbi_s04>...
George Dance wrote:
<unsnip>
That doesn't make sense. How can we discuss an argument that there
might be a God without God being relevant to the discussion?
If you want to quit trying to ague for God, the hypothetical first cause,
that's fine with me.
I want you to answer the question: How can we discuss an argument
that there might be a God without God being relevant to the
discussion? Not so fine with you, I take it, as you haven't answered.
</us>
This is not about what you want it to be about, Georgie, as much as you
would love to create a diversion, it is about your hypothesis that there
might be <snip irrelevancy>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
27 Jun 2004 01:54:57 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
I want ...
This is not about what you want it to be about, Georgie, as much as you
would love to create a diversion, it is about your hypothesis that there
might be a magic invisible God, the hypothetical first cause, anyway,
even though there is no evidence of any such thing (usually with an
argument _ad ignorantiam_ such as yours and Virgil's attached, to the
effect that there is no proof that hypothesis is false). That's logical
fallacy, a textbook case of it. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
27 Jun 2004 04:08:41 AM |
|
|
In article <5buDc.103349$Hg2.22169@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
I want ...
This is not about what you want it to be about
Actually it always seems to come back to Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple's delusions. But since they have been seen so many times already
I will spare you all another repetition of them.
[Snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
24 Jun 2004 02:13:23 PM |
|
|
In article <5SCCc.87882$Hg2.45931@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
I want ...
This is ... love ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
24 Jun 2004 02:14:57 PM |
|
|
In article <5SCCc.87882$Hg2.45931@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
I want ...
This is... proof ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David K. Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
22 Jun 2004 12:22:33 PM |
|
|
In article (George Dance) writes:
No special pleading. The world evidently had a beginning, and
therefore a cause,...
This is a joke right? What makes you think the matter/energy
making up the universe (and our world) had a beginning? It
could just be an endless state change.
Please state what the beginning was as many scientists would
love to investigate it. Thusfar, they haven't even been
able to get back to the big bang which even if true may or may
not be the first bang and thus not the beginning.
...so it is not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as
something (like God) that did not evidently have a beginning.
Russell was wrong on this point, so his argument is unsound.
He is not wrong nor is his argument unsound, only your
analysis of it is unsound. If something can exist without a
beginning then posing a god doesn't help solve the issue
because either god or the universe could have existed forever.
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
24 Jun 2004 11:19:45 AM |
|
|
(David K. Lewis) wrote in message news:<cb9psp$jmk$1@srv38.cas.org>...
In article (George Dance) writes:
No special pleading. The world evidently had a beginning, and
therefore a cause,...
This is a joke right?
Oh, sure. The idea that the world had a beginning must be a joke.
What makes you think the matter/energy
making up the universe (and our world) had a beginning? It
could just be an endless state change.
Please state what the beginning was as many scientists would
love to investigate it.
I can't even tell you what the 'beginning' of the coffee cup I'm
holding right now. That doesn't mean I have to conclude that it's an
eternally existing coffee cup, does it?
Thusfar, they haven't even been
able to get back to the big bang which even if true may or may
not be the first bang and thus not the beginning.
They have been able to get back to Planck time (at which the universe
had a size of 10^-34 cm). And they have been able to calculate the
size of an atom (10^-8 cm). It's a simple matter of math to figure
out how many objects 10^-8 cm can fit in a space 10^-34 cm; so simple
that I'll let you do it yourself.
...so it is not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as
something (like God) that did not evidently have a beginning.
Russell was wrong on this point, so his argument is unsound.
He is not wrong nor is his argument unsound, only your
analysis of it is unsound.
If something can exist without a
beginning then posing a god doesn't help solve the issue
because either god or the universe could have existed forever.
Or my coffee cup, presumably.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: George keeps arguing for God |
25 Jun 2004 10:51:50 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
dkl28@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote in message news:<cb9psp$jmk$1@srv38.cas.org>...
Thusfar, they haven't even been
able to get back to the big bang which even if true may or may
not be the first bang and thus not the beginning.
...so it is not 'just as likely' to be uncaused as
something (like God) that did not evidently have a beginning.
Russell was wrong on this point, so his argument is unsound.
He is not wrong nor is his argument unsound, only your
analysis of it is unsound.
If something can exist without a
beginning then posing a god doesn't help solve the issue
because either god or the universe could have existed forever.
Or my coffee cup, presumably.
No doubt your cup is an artifact, but what justifies your assumption the
universe is an artifact? Isn't that just begging the question?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
