| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 10:01:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:0TXRa.93681$H17.28095@sccrnsc02...
Bob White wrote
Is the existence of Earth a matter of belief?
The existence of the Earth is not a matter of belief ...
That is correct. Earth is known to exist. Belief (subjective conviction) has
nothing to do with it. Belief is not a category of which knowledge is a
member. Statement of belief (subjective conviction) and public demonstration
of knowledge of the nature of things are two entirely different behaviors.
.
|
|
| User: "jiva" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 02:00:59 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<DhvWa.28698$cF.11214@rwcrnsc53>...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:0TXRa.93681$H17.28095@sccrnsc02...
Bob White wrote
Is the existence of Earth a matter of belief?
The existence of the Earth is not a matter of belief ...
That is correct. Earth is known to exist. Belief (subjective conviction) has
nothing to do with it. Belief is not a category of which knowledge is a
member. Statement of belief (subjective conviction) and public demonstration
of knowledge of the nature of things are two entirely different behaviors.
Eh? The existence of Earth is NOT a matter of belief? Since when is
belief and knowledge mutually exclusively? You say that belief is a
subjective conviction, but since the subject (us) can *never* step
outside of itself into the objective (becoming the objective and
thereby knowing it *directly*), ALL knowledge is *ultimately*
subjective. "Objective" simply means that your subjective knowledge is
shared by everyone else, or at least most people. An "objective
fact/truth" is a point at which subjectivity and objectivity converge.
You also say that "belief is not a category of which knowledge is a
member". This would mean that it is not possible to believe something
that you know to be true. If knowledge does not require belief in
order to be knowledge, then what is it that we, as *subjects*, are
convinced of, after our "subjective convictions" are publicly
demonstrated? If "public demonstration of knowledge of the nature of
things" is required to elevate a belief to a known fact, if I
understand you correctly, then this would seem to indicate that a
belief in a fact must exist *before* the *knowledge* of that fact,
would it not? Therefore, knowledge is something that comes from belief
and requires belief in order to even exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 02:11:48 PM |
|
|
"jiva" <conditionedsoul2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29857638.0308011100.2a88e5b3@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<DhvWa.28698$cF.11214@rwcrnsc53>...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:0TXRa.93681$H17.28095@sccrnsc02...
Bob White wrote
Is the existence of Earth a matter of belief?
The existence of the Earth is not a matter of belief ...
That is correct. Earth is known to exist. Belief (subjective conviction)
has
nothing to do with it. Belief is not a category of which knowledge is a
member. Statement of belief (subjective conviction) and public
demonstration
of knowledge of the nature of things are two entirely different
behaviors.
Eh? The existence of Earth is NOT a matter of belief? Since when is
belief and knowledge mutually exclusively?
Since we have two separate terms denoting two very different behaviors. On
the one hand statements of belief (subjective conviction), and on the other
hand something completely different, demonstration of knowledge of the
nature of things through public, verifiable, reproducible prediction and
control of real events.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
02 Aug 2003 07:45:00 AM |
|
|
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308012357050.28705-100000@cicero.local...
Hi Bob,
nice job! Sorry to interrupt your moving discussion, but I was tempted
to. Let me, for the sake of the name of the game (of words:), argue
against you. It is just a game, yet aren't you curious to see how far
we could get? I am :)
As an aside, note that we don't know whether Jesus did what he did, we
have no other documented evidence to reject the hypothesis that he had
a life.
No proof the hypothesis is false? Now you are simply presenting a fallacious
argument _ad ignorantiam_ just like the Bushies, Ann.
ARI FLEISCHER: I think this remains an issue about did Iraq seek uranium in
Africa, an issue that very well may be true. We don't know if it's true --
but nobody, but nobody, can say it is wrong.
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer 07/14/2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
03 Aug 2003 12:11:19 PM |
|
|
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308012357050.28705-100000@cicero.local...
Hi Bob,
nice job! Sorry to interrupt your moving discussion, but I was tempted
to. Let me, for the sake of the name of the game (of words:), argue
against you. It is just a game, yet aren't you curious to see how far
we could get? I am :)
As an aside, note that we don't know whether Jesus did what he did, we
have no other documented evidence to reject the hypothesis that he had
a life.
Suer he had a life. He was partying and drinking every night. And
getting it on with those hot Chasidic babes.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -455 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -2.5 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -249 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
03 Aug 2003 05:37:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:11:19 GMT, (Yang) posted
in alt.atheism:
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308012357050.28705-100000@cicero.local...
As an aside, note that we don't know whether Jesus did what he did, we
have no other documented evidence to reject the hypothesis that he had
a life.
Suer he had a life. He was partying and drinking every night. And
getting it on with those hot Chasidic babes.
Who didn't even begin to exist until about 1,800 years later.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
02 Aug 2003 09:56:25 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
You yoursels said: "What prevents us from using the logical, sytematic,
scientific method of investigation to investigate the proposition 'there
is no such thing as a god'?"
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition (hence the snip of the rest of your response -- it was
based on a false reading of my words). In logic, a proposition is a
statement that affirms or denies something. "There is no god" is a
proposition. You yourself stated that all propositions should be
investigated using the scientific method. Please proceed.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
03 Aug 2003 05:10:31 AM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:deuoivgolpbnll1uliccuq9d2s7njipjeb@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
You yoursels said: "What prevents us from using the logical, sytematic,
scientific method of investigation to investigate the proposition
'there
is no such thing as a god'?"
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition ...
A statement standing in need of proof? Come come now. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted like that, knucklehead. "There is no god" is not a
proposition or assertion, it is the denial of one.
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
03 Aug 2003 03:56:52 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition ...
A statement standing in need of proof?
Where did I say that?
Learn to read.
"There is no god" is a proposition.
YOU are the one who is claiming that all propositions should be
investigated using the scientific method, not me.
Come come now. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted like that, knucklehead. "There is no god" is not a
proposition or assertion, it is the denial of one.
Look up the logical definition of "proposition".
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something...."
Beside the point, since I am not talking about "assertions", but
propositions.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arn" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
03 Aug 2003 06:17:12 PM |
|
|
Marc Fleury wrote:
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition ...
A statement standing in need of proof?
Where did I say that?
It means the same thing.
Learn to read.
Learn what 'synonym' means.
"There is no god" is a proposition.
No it is not, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial under any pretext, no matter how clever you think
you are being in trying to disguise this logical fallacy.
YOU are the one who is claiming that all propositions should be
investigated using the scientific method, not me.
Propositions like "God exists" stand in need of proof, never the denial,
"False, there are no gods." The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial under any pretext. What is so difficult to understand about this
simple principle of logic?
Come come now. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted like that, knucklehead. "There is no god" is not a
proposition or assertion, it is the denial of one.
Look up the logical definition of "proposition".
proposition : something offered for consideration or acceptance www.m-w.com
In other words, it means the same as 'claim' or 'assertion', a statement
standing in need of proof.
"Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something...."
Beside the point, since I am not talking about "assertions", but
propositions.
Same thing. Look up 'synonym'.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof from the assertion, "God
esists" to the denial of that assertion, "False, there are no gods."
That's a form of the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 02:41:04 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-04BBE7.00473504082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <YJgXa.57138$uu5.5554@sccrnsc04>,
Arn <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com> wrote:
Marc Fleury wrote:
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"There is no god" is not an assertion
I didn't say it's an assertion, I said (using your words) that it's a
proposition ...
A statement standing in need of proof?
Where did I say that?
It means the same thing.
Learn to read.
Learn what 'synonym' means.
"There is no god" is a proposition.
No it is not, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial under any pretext, no matter how clever you think
you are being in trying to disguise this logical fallacy.
In logic, only propositions can be true or false
What are you talking about. Any meaningful statement of any kind is either
true or false, one or the other (law of the excluded middle).
If "there is no god" is not a proposition ...
What do you mean, "if"??
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denal.
In English we have different words for totally different things,
knucklehead, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
YOU are the one who is claiming that all propositions should be
investigated using the scientific method, not me.
Propositions like "God exists" stand in need of proof, never the denial,
"False, there are no gods." The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial under any pretext. What is so difficult to understand about this
simple principle of logic?
Who made you God, able to say where the burden of proof can or
cannot fall.
It falls where the principles of valid argument (logic) put it, knucklehead.
I didn't write them. They were here long before you and I came on the scene.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 11:38:24 AM |
|
|
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:xxCdnYcbQ7Wt6LOiXTWJjw@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-04BBE7.00473504082003@[63.218.45.211]...
No it is not, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext, no matter how
clever you think you are being in trying to disguise this logical
fallacy.
In logic, only propositions can be true or false
What are you talking about. Any meaningful statement of any kind is
either true or false, one or the other (law of the excluded middle).
Yes..I think Virgil got a bit mixed up. The definition of proposition is
that it is a statement which can be qualified with a value of True or
False.
If "there is no god" is not a proposition ...
What do you mean, "if"??
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition,
it is the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible
god" is the proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the
denal.
The statement, "there are no gods," is NOT the denial (negation) of the
statement "there may be invisible gods."
Yes it is, knucklehead. "False" is the denial of "True."
(By the way, in logic, a negation
(denial) of a proposition is still a proposition).
No it is not, knucklehead. Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites. "False" is the denial of "True."
The proposition in question here is "It is true that there may be an
invisible god."
"False" is the denial of that proposition, and the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 12:21:44 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:xxCdnYcbQ7Wt6LOiXTWJjw@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-04BBE7.00473504082003@[63.218.45.211]...
No it is not, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext, no matter how
clever you think you are being in trying to disguise this logical
fallacy.
In logic, only propositions can be true or false
What are you talking about. Any meaningful statement of any kind is
either true or false, one or the other (law of the excluded middle).
Yes..I think Virgil got a bit mixed up. The definition of
proposition is that it is a statement which can be qualified with a
value of True or False.
If "there is no god" is not a proposition ...
What do you mean, "if"??
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition,
it is the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible
god" is the proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the
denal.
The statement, "there are no gods," is NOT the denial (negation) of
the statement "there may be invisible gods."
Yes it is, knucklehead. "False" is the denial of "True."
And "True" is the denial of "False." Big fucking deal. I showed you, in
the parts you snipped, that the logic that "there are no gods" is the
negation of "there may be an invisible god" is incorrect. You need to
retake your logic courses. Of course, you snipped the work which shows your
errors. By the way, your argumentum ad hominem noted and ignored.
(By the way, in logic, a negation
(denial) of a proposition is still a proposition).
No it is not, knucklehead. Proposition is proposition and denial is
denial. The two are polar opposites. "False" is the denial of "True."
No, because the statement "There are no gods" may have a truth value of true
or false. Therefore, it is a proposition (by the definition of
proposition), with the negation "There are gods." Once again, negation is
implicit in the statement, for case "there are gods" is true, case "there
are no gods" is false, and for case "there are gods" false, case "there are
no gods" true.
The proposition in question here is "It is true that there may be an
invisible god."
"There may be an invisible god" is not a proposition, because the
probability of that statement being true is 1. It is not possible for that
statement to be false, and therefore, by definition, is not a proposition.
You don't know anything about logic, do you?
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 01:17:25 PM |
|
|
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:zo2cnUHzosa0C7OiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:xxCdnYcbQ7Wt6LOiXTWJjw@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> posted
this drivel:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-04BBE7.00473504082003@[63.218.45.211]...
No it is not, it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial under any pretext, no matter how
clever you think you are being in trying to disguise this logical
fallacy.
In logic, only propositions can be true or false
What are you talking about. Any meaningful statement of any kind is
either true or false, one or the other (law of the excluded middle).
Yes..I think Virgil got a bit mixed up. The definition of
proposition is that it is a statement which can be qualified with a
value of True or False.
If "there is no god" is not a proposition ...
What do you mean, "if"??
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition,
it is the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible
god" is the proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the
denal.
The statement, "there are no gods," is NOT the denial (negation) of
the statement "there may be invisible gods."
Yes it is, knucklehead. "False" is the denial of "True."
And "True" is the denial of "False." ...
It doesn't work that way, knucklehead. In this case where the assertion is
"It is true that an invisible magic sky pixie may in reality exist," the
denial, "False" never stands in need of proof since shifting the burden of
proof is logical fallacy.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Semler" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 10:46:17 PM |
|
|
At some point in the past, Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> posted this
drivel:
In article <VqxXa.44910$cF.16696@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
And "True" is the denial of "False." ...
It doesn't work that way, knucklehead. In this case where the
assertion is "It is true that an invisible magic sky pixie may in
reality exist," the denial, "False" never stands in need of proof
since shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy.
More proof of Septic's illiteracy.
Of course, he never addressed my proof that his claim that "'there are no
gods' is the denial of 'there may exist an invisible god'" is actually
incorrect.
Septic claims that "false" is the denial of "true" but rejects the
possibility that "true" must then be the denial of "false".
otherwise Septic has a multiple valued logic with more that the two
values "true" and "false".
Depends on the logic system. In computer science, we sometimes work with
four-value logic system, true, false, undetermined (uninitialized), and
undetermined (transition state). :)
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
04 Aug 2003 11:15:52 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote
(By the way, in logic, a negation
(denial) of a proposition is still a proposition).
No it is not, knucklehead.
Any logic text will disagree with you.
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
So ... if proposition is proposition, and denial is denial, you should
be able to tell me if A is the proposition and B is the denial, or
vice versa. So which is it? (The correct answer, of course, is that
they are both propositions. But this contradicts your other
statements, so I'd like to see how you get out of this one!)
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
05 Aug 2003 05:32:52 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:cq70jv8aof7pjjhe590sjkevgqe03bfn26@4ax.com...
Marc Fleury wrote:
Bob White wrote:
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
C'mon Septic ... don't be shy. Which is which?
Why are you trying to divert attention away from the theist proposition that
it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the denial of that, "False,"
knucklehead?
"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/ignoratio.asp
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
In English we have different words for totally different things,
knucklehead, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
05 Aug 2003 06:00:45 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
Marc Fleury wrote:
Bob White wrote:
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
Why are you trying to divert attention away from the theist proposition that
it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the denial of that, "False,"
knucklehead?
It's not a diversion. If you will kindly answer the question, I will
demonstrate how your answer proves that you are full of *****.
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
In English we have different words for totally different things,
knucklehead, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial.
I'm still waiting for you to show ANYTHING from ANY logic text that
demonstrates that "there are no gods" is not a proposition.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
05 Aug 2003 07:00:24 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vld0jvohj4orgu8tvap0pcg7p9bsvev1i5@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
Marc Fleury wrote:
Bob White wrote:
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
Why are you trying to divert attention away from the theist proposition
that
it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the denial of that,
"False,"
knucklehead?
It's not a diversion. If you will kindly answer the question, I will
demonstrate how your answer proves that you are full of *****.
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is
the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
In English we have different words for totally different things,
knucklehead, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial.
I'm still waiting for you to show ANYTHING from ANY logic text that
demonstrates that "there are no gods" is not a proposition.
That's the denial of one, knucklehead.
I am still waiting for you to show anything from any logic text that permits
you to shift the burden of proof from those who are party to the assertion
that it is necessarily true that something ad hoc hypothetically invisible
may in reality exist (like the theologs for instance) to those who question
or deny that assertion (like Galileo for instance):
---
<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)
---
See, the principle is that the theologs can't reasonably shift the burden of
proof to Galileo. The full burden of proof in the matter is always on those
who are party to the proposition in question.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
05 Aug 2003 10:05:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote
(By the way, in logic, a negation
(denial) of a proposition is still a proposition).
No it is not, knucklehead.
Any logic text will disagree with you.
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
So ... if proposition is proposition, and denial is denial, you should
be able to tell me if A is the proposition and B is the denial, or
vice versa. So which is it? (The correct answer, of course, is that
they are both propositions. But this contradicts your other
statements, so I'd like to see how you get out of this one!)
Even better example:
A. It is the case that there are no gods.
or
B. It is not the case that there are no gods.
According to his "logic" B would be the denial but that would parse to
"there are gods." I'm almost temped to unkillfile him long enough to see how
he squirms on this hook.
--
Marc.
--
Mike atheism: a non-prophet organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
The multi-named one posting under rooster/bob white/sceptic and various other
names (identifiable by the header line reading "NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.231.81.82")
might as well ignore this post. He is a lying, illogical troll who has been
kill-file'd and any posts of his will not be seen or replied to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
05 Aug 2003 10:57:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In talk.atheism Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
Even better example:
A. It is the case that there are no gods.
or
B. It is not the case that there are no gods.
According to his "logic" B would be the denial but that would parse to
"there are gods." I'm almost temped to unkillfile him long enough to see how
he squirms on this hook.
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad, really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 06:25:23 AM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dvu0jvovo9b87qm9n4qffkls749rspte3i@4ax.com...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:
In talk.atheism Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
The two are polar opposites.
Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
opposites, you should have no problem at all.
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
Even better example:
A. It is the case that there are no gods.
or
B. It is not the case that there are no gods.
According to his "logic" B would be the denial but that would parse to
"there are gods." I'm almost temped to unkillfile him long enough to see
how
he squirms on this hook.
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad, really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the denial
of that, false?
"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/ignoratio.asp
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
In English we have different words for totally different things,
knucklehead, denial means denial, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 03:26:14 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f0m2jv4oociabrjbvbfu9fjsu8rem636rq@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4u62jvsokskblefsq29jsddbim8uaffui0@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that
I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad,
really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Once.
[note here, that he has still failed to answer]
Note that I have posted the only reasonable answer several times.
Mark just doesn't like my answer, since it doesn't suit his agenda.
Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the
denial
of that, false?
I'm not. That's not the topic under discussion. The topic under
discussion is "what is a proposition?"
The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead.
I know. The word means "a statement that affirms or denies something
That can't be right, since the burden of proof can't be shifted to the
denial under any pretext.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 09:26:10 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
[Which is a proposition, and which is not:]
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Once.
[note here, that he has still failed to answer]
Note that I have posted the only reasonable answer several times.
Really? You actually said which of those statement was a proposition,
and which was not? Where? What message ID? Or better yet, just answer
it here.
It's easy. Watch: "A is, but B is not". Is that your answer?
Mark just doesn't like my answer, since it doesn't suit his agenda.
I haven't seen it yet. You are simply lying that you have answered.
The topic under
discussion is "what is a proposition?"
The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead.
I know. The word means "a statement that affirms or denies something
That can't be right, since the burden of proof can't be shifted to the
denial under any pretext.
So what does the word mean, then? Please tell us the source of your
definition.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 03:46:59 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
;news:f0m2jv4oociabrjbvbfu9fjsu8rem636rq@4ax.com...
:> Bob White wrote:
;> >"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
:> >news:4u62jvsokskblefsq29jsddbim8uaffui0@4ax.com...
;> >> Bob White wrote:
:> >> >"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
;> >> >> A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
:> >> >> B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
;> >> >>
:> >> >> He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that
;I
:> >> >> chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
;> >> >> fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad,
:really --
;> >> >> it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
:> >> >>
;> >> >> Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
:> >>
;> >>
:> >> >How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
;> >>
:> >> Once.
;>
:> [note here, that he has still failed to answer]
;
:Note that I have posted the only reasonable answer several times.
;
:Mark just doesn't like my answer, since it doesn't suit his agenda.
;
:> >>
;> >> >Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
:> >> >proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the
;> >denial
:> >> >of that, false?
;> >>
:> >> I'm not. That's not the topic under discussion. The topic under
;> >> discussion is "what is a proposition?"
:> >
;> >The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead.
:>
;> I know. The word means "a statement that affirms or denies something
:
;That can't be right, since the burden of proof can't be shifted to the
:denial under any pretext.
Not according to the quote you gave, which applies only to claims
(assertions). And the denial of a claim is, as we all know by now,
a disclaim, not the opposite of what is claimed.
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
:"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
;the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
:fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
;the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
:true unless proven otherwise."
;http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
:
;
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 08:37:34 PM |
|
|
In article <GvdYa.54884$Oz4.14806@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not. That's not the topic under discussion. The topic under
discussion is "what is a proposition?"
The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead.
It certainly is, but not in the way that Septic would like.
I know. The word means "a statement that affirms or denies something
That can't be right, since the burden of proof can't be shifted to the
denial under any pretext.
This is a backswards argument, the EFFECT does not rule the CAUSE.
Septic simply refuses to accept a definition, however correct, which
will make him wrong.
According to my Webster's Unabridged, the definition of a
proposition includes the following:
A declarative sentence; an expression in language, symbols
or signs of something capable of being believed, doubted or
denied; a verbal expression that is either true or false
-- also called a statement.
It is clear from this definition that the denial of one proposition
of the above type is another proposition of the same type,
regardless of how loudly or often Septic denies it.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
In this thread tha is always Septic the Capon.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the
fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
otherwise."
And is a form of behaviour much practiced by Septic the silly
Sophist.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 11:42:38 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
;news:dvu0jvovo9b87qm9n4qffkls749rspte3i@4ax.com...
:> wrote:
;> >In talk.atheism Marc Fleury <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:> >> Bob White wrote:
;> >>>Proposition is proposition and denial is denial.
:> >>>The two are polar opposites.
;> >
:> >> Which, of the following, is the proposition, and which is the denial.
;> >> I seriously want to you identify which is which. If they are polar
:> >> opposites, you should have no problem at all.
;> >
:> >> A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
;> >> B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
:>
;> >Even better example:
:> >
;> >A. It is the case that there are no gods.
:> >or
;> >B. It is not the case that there are no gods.
:> >
;> >According to his "logic" B would be the denial but that would parse to
:> >"there are gods." I'm almost temped to unkillfile him long enough to see
;how
:> >he squirms on this hook.
;>
:> He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that I
;> chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
:> fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad, really --
;> it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
:>
;> Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
:
;How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
:
;Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
:proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the denial
;of that, false?
We know no theist who is making that claim, and we know no one who
is denying that claim (dis-claim) either. So why would we want to
be focusing on that.
;"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/ignoratio.asp
;
:
;The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
:the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
;proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
:
;In English we have different words for totally different things,
Yes. For example, the quote you give below talked about claims
(assertions), not propositions.
:knucklehead, denial means denial, and in logic the burden of proof cannot be
;shifted to the denial.
:
;"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
:the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
;fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
:the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
;true unless proven otherwise."
:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Precisely the way I understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore
the only logically sound position for one to take in absence of
evidences is the null hypothesis of "god may exist". Neither "there
is god", or its negative "god does not exist" may stand without proof.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 01:29:00 PM |
|
|
In article <DA5Ya.52595$cF.19146@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad, really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Once, correctly, would be sufficient, rather than the current
multiple avoidances of answering anything that shows the holes in
Septic logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 04:51:25 PM |
|
|
In article <PJbYa.55217$Vt6.20171@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The statement, "There are no gods" is definitely not a proposition, it is
the denial of one. The proposition, "There may be an invisible god" is the
proposition, and the denial, "There are no gods" is the denial.
According to my Webster's Unabridged, the definition of a
proposition includes the following:
A declarative sentence; an expression in language, symbols
or signs of something capable of being believed, doubted or
denied; a verbal expression that is either true or false
-- also called a statement.
It is clear from this definition that the denial of one proposition
of the above type is another proposition of the same type,
regardless of how loudly or often Septic denies it. His denial, in
fact, forms a provably false proposition.
When anyone except Septic uses, or sees, the word "proposition" in
these discussions, the above Webster definition is what they have in
mind.
What Septic has in his hypothetical mind when he uses the word has
never been made clear, except that it conflicts with both the common
usage above and the more technical but compatible usage in logic,
and seems to vary according to the needs of septic's current
argument.
So far, Septic seems unable to find any authority to back him up in
his screams about the denial of a proposition not being a
proposition, so one suspects that he cannot find any authority who
agrees with him in this.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 02:07:33 PM |
|
|
In article <PJbYa.55217$Vt6.20171@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4u62jvsokskblefsq29jsddbim8uaffui0@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad, really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Once.
Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the
denial
of that, false?
I'm not. That's not the topic under discussion. The topic under
discussion is "what is a proposition?"
The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead. So is the term
'denial' of a proposition. What we are questioning is what is this
hypothetical invisible god thingy in the theist proposition?
There isn't *a* definition of a proposition, there are many. Some
define a proposition to be any statement affirming or denying something.
Others take a more restrictive view. Some take a much more restrictive
view (no universals, etc.)
Which definition are you using? Can you provide a reference? Don't
say that the term is already well defined and assume that that settles
it because that manifestly isn't true.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann argues _ad ignorantiam_ |
06 Aug 2003 03:26:13 PM |
|
|
"Alan Morgan" <amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:bgrjll$l5p$1@Xenon.Stanford.EDU...
In article <PJbYa.55217$Vt6.20171@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4u62jvsokskblefsq29jsddbim8uaffui0@4ax.com...
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
He will simply ignore the question, as he has been. The example that
I
chose has a greater significance than it first appears to have. The
fact that Septic will never address my question is too bad,
really --
it would be the perfect evidence that he is talking out of his *****.
Hence, he will never answer. He's too much of a *****.
How many times do you want me to answer it, knucklehead?
Once.
Why are you still trying to divert attention away from the theist
proposition that it is true that an invisible god may exist, and the
denial
of that, false?
I'm not. That's not the topic under discussion. The topic under
discussion is "what is a proposition?"
The term, 'proposition' is already well defined, knucklehead. So is the
term
'denial' of a proposition. What we are questioning is what is this
hypothetical invisible god thingy in the theist proposition?
There isn't *a* definition of a proposition, there are many. Some
define a proposition to be any statement affirming or denying something.
That can't be right, since the burden of proof can't be shifted to the
denial under any pretext.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
