| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 10:16:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bf9kq0$ptu@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bf94nf$lif@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;> :news:d4bd1f7c.0307140221.77233a82@posting.google.com...
:> ;> For those who want to see what Huxley really said ...
;> :
:> ;... see Huxley's excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism
and
;> :Christianity," in which Huxley says that agnostics deny and repudiate
:> ;religious belief in the existence of gods:
;> :
:> ;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
;> :doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without
:> ;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the
term
;> :'agnostic', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:> ;http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;>
:> Yes. Claims such as "there is no god" ...
;
:"There is no god" is not a claim,
Yes it is. It is a claim to the effect that there is no god
Not a claim, but the denial of one.
"There is no god" is not a claim, it is the denial, the negation of one.
Nope.
Yep. Denial means denial, the negation in logic (www.m-w.com) of an
assertion. You cannot shift the burden of proof to the denial, knucklehead;
that's a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
"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: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 11:14:48 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bf9kq0$ptu@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:bf94nf$lif@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;> :
;> :> ;"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> ;> :news:d4bd1f7c.0307140221.77233a82@posting.google.com...
;> :> ;> For those who want to see what Huxley really said ...
:> ;> :
;> :> ;... see Huxley's excoriation of the Christian belief, "Agnosticism
:and
;> ;> :Christianity," in which Huxley says that agnostics deny and repudiate
:> :> ;religious belief in the existence of gods:
;> ;> :
:> :> ;"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
;> ;> :doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
:without
;> :> ;logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the
:term
;> ;> :'agnostic', "Agnosticism and Christianity"
:> :> ;http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
;> ;>
:> :> Yes. Claims such as "there is no god" ...
;> ;
:> :"There is no god" is not a claim,
;>
:> Yes it is. It is a claim to the effect that there is no god
;
:Not a claim, but the denial of one.
Nope. The denial of a claim is a dis-claim.
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
Which means either "can't say there is a god", or "can't say there is
no god", depending on which claim that is being denied.
;> "There is no god" is not a claim, it is the denial, the negation of one.
:>
;> Nope.
:
;Yep. Denial means denial, the negation in logic (www.m-w.com) of an
:assertion. You cannot shift the burden of proof to the denial, knucklehead;
;that's a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
Yes, the negation in logic of an assertion (the act), not the negation
in logic of what is being asserted (the statement). The negation in
logic of the act of the asserting there is no god, for example, is
"can't say there is no god".
;"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
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: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 11:50:59 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bge3lo$1vh@neptune.myri-local.com...
... can't say there is no god. ...
Yes I can. Watch this:
There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in evidence,
knucklehead.
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 01:16:19 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bge76l$3gg@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bge3lo$1vh@neptune.myri-local.com...
:
;
:> ... can't say there is no god. ...
;
:
;Yes I can. Watch this:
:
;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in evidence,
:knucklehead.
That of course, does say neither there to be no god nor no ET.
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there are
zero ETs.
What are you doing, still arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there may be one
anyway, though you cannot demonstrate any such thing, because there is no
proof your imaginings about magic invisible sky pixies being real are false?
;Null : of, being, or relating to zero
:www.m-w.com
;(as in, "There are no ETs.")
Precisely. It means making no assertions -- none, zero, nothing. When
it comes to the issue of god, it is "god may exist", as it asserts
nothing. It is the default hypothesis in absence of evidences to
suggest one way or another. The negative of "god may exist" is "god may
non-exist", which you will notice is the same as "god may exist". That
is the principle of 0 -- 0 is its own negative. A property not shared
by either "god exists" or its negative "god does not exist".
;Testing the Null Hypothesis
:by John Marcus, MD
;email
;http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
:
;SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
:encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
;also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
:and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
;method.
:
;[...]
:
;The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
:
;There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
:
;... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
:prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
;unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
:
;---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 01:48:20 PM |
|
|
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308021844010.3495-100000@cicero.local...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" wrote
:> ;
;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
;> :
:> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
;> :
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is the
fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence. Got it straight now?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 06:08:35 PM |
|
|
Hi Bob,
frankly I like and read your postings with great interest. I do not
share your extreme ('tolerant') point of view towards hostile
(non-scientific) thought, but that is what a Usenet discussion is all
about: to constantly check the level of our sobriety and on occasion
correct each-other's sweet illusions under which we may suffer. We are
rarely conscious of our delusions, of course, we 'have to' justify the
existence of the sub-conscious mind, "jolly, jolly, Sigmund Freud".
We may read you, but I have the impression that you do not read what
people write to you.
Take me, for example, I wrote many lines in the last two posts to the
"Agnosticism is more logical" thread. One of the skeptic goals was to
show you how real the word 'objective' could be. To me it is an
illusion, a dogmatic belief that contradicts the spirit of general
relativity. Ironically, your certain remarks prove my case: both that
you do not pay attention to the details (or just skip the unpleasant
parts:), and the impartial objectivity of your private knowledge. You
still resort to scholastic rhetoric, i.e. you believe you have found
(or just 'know':) the ultimate truth.
Think about it (towards the end of the letter): does your certain
belief qualify for objective knowledge?
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Bob White wrote:
"Ann" wrote
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is the
fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence. Got it straight now?
Do you believe that your thought was so difficult that I couldn't
comprehend it from the first time? That's really curious: what was it
in my last letter that made you think I didn't get your 'complex'
point?
Or did you just feel the need to say something? (for the special effect
or to win some think time, maybe:)
Come on, be honest, did you read my last two letters at all?
If you do, then you'll see that in the previous one I was crushing the
word 'zero'. That is, I dared to doubt its real and objective existence
in independent Nature outside. To shake a word in my mind means to
adopt a second point of view on the Word. What happens next is a
mystery, did you feel something strange? Was I successful? Is zero
still an objective object, an independent, tangible, physical and
observable thing?
Then I challenged you to defend the 'empty' word before using it in
your consequent statements, assertions and null hypotheses. It is a
matter of principle (I am actually following your example:). Show me
FIRST that the Word really exists in Nature and then "the story ends,
you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe".
The burden of proof is shifted to you in the same way you demand a real
(observable, verifiable even physical:) proof of the existence of God.
Let me 'know' the nullified word 'zero' (or the empty set of the nil)
and then, please, feel free to use it in all your statements.
"God it straight now?"
"This is what was pointed out, Bob. Get real."
Best,
Ann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 08:45:28 PM |
|
|
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308030005510.4819-100000@cicero.local...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Bob White wrote:
"Ann" wrote
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is
the
fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence. Got it straight now?
Do you believe that your thought was so difficult that I couldn't
comprehend it from the first time? That's really curious: what was it
in my last letter that made you think I didn't get your 'complex'
point?
The part where you ask, "'Zero' exists?"
What was pointed out is the fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just
as there are zero ETs in evidence. Got it straight now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 11:12:58 PM |
|
|
In article <YOZWa.37087$It4.22707@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308030005510.4819-100000@cicero.local...
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Bob White wrote:
"Ann" wrote
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is
the
fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence. Got it straight now?
Do you believe that your thought was so difficult that I couldn't
comprehend it from the first time? That's really curious: what was it
in my last letter that made you think I didn't get your 'complex'
point?
The part where you ask, "'Zero' exists?"
What was pointed out is the fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just
as there are zero ETs in evidence. Got it straight now?
What is this invisible sky zero which you, Septic, claim, without
proof, exists? The burden of proof of its existence is entirely on
you, and any attempt by you, Septic, to excape that burden makes you
a knave and a liar and a denier of your own principles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 08:14:11 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308021844010.3495-100000@cicero.local...
:
;> > > :> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> > > :> ;
;> > > ;> :"Wen-King Su" wrote
:> > > :> ;
;> > > ;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
:> > > ;> :
;> > > :> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
:> > > ;> :
;> > > :> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> > > :> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
;>
:> Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
;
:
;That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is the
:fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
;evidence. Got it straight now?
But of course neither say there is no god, or there is no ET.
;Null : of, being, or relating to zero
:www.m-w.com
;(as in, "There are no ETs.")
Nope. As in making no claims, which means "ET may exist".
:---
;Testing the Null Hypothesis
:by John Marcus, MD
;email
We are smarter than John Marcus, MD. Get over it.
;http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
:
;SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
:encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
;also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
:and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
;method.
:
;[...]
:
;The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
:
;There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
:
;... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
:prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
;unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
:
;---
:
;
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 07:25:27 PM |
|
|
In article <UHTWa.33601$Oz4.10029@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ann" <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308021844010.3495-100000@cicero.local...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" wrote
:> ;
;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
;> :
:> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
;> :
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
:> ;evidence, :knucklehead.
Zero? "There are zero"? 'Zero' exists?
That is not what was pointed out, Ann. Get real. What was pointed out is the
fact that there are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence. Got it straight now?
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
If you are to claim that zero of something exists, Septic, you must
fist establish that zero exists. And, according to your own
frequently stated principles, we must start by assuming that it does
not.
Bootstrap yourself out of that whole hole, oh thou caponified
sophist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 11:42:29 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-D232B0.18252702082003@[63.218.45.211]...
... you must fist establish that zero exists. ...
We are counting things, knucklehead. If you have two balls and I take away
two of them, how many balls have you remaining?
Now count how many ETs and how many magic invisible sky pixies there are in
evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 01:03:54 AM |
|
|
In article <AFhXa.57522$Ho3.8540@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-C808F5.17113103082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <VXaXa.40744$Vt6.15060@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-D232B0.18252702082003@[63.218.45.211]...
... you must fist establish that zero exists. ...
We are counting things, knucklehead. If you have two balls and I take
away
two of them, how many balls have you remaining?
Now count how many ETs and how many magic invisible sky pixies there are
in
evidence.
Until you, Septic, have evidence of the existence of zero, Septic,
you are not in a position to speak of counting at all, Septic, or
other sorts of evidence either.
You never learned how to count sparky?
What I have learned appears, by Septic's standards, not to be
knowledge, so is irrelevant to this discusion.
Think real hard now, if you have two balls and I take away two of them, how
many balls have you remaining?
At a wild guess, as many as you started with, Septic old Capon.
Now count how many ETs and how many magic invisible sky pixies there are in
evidence. (Clue : the answer is the same)
This Septic declares the number of gods, or ETs, is equal to the
number of Septic the capon's balls.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 06:34:57 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfe6a$bi2@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bge76l$3gg@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:bge3lo$1vh@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
:> ;
;> :
:> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
;> :
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence,
;> :knucklehead.
:>
;> That of course, does say neither there to be no god nor no ET.
:
;
:Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there
are
;zero ETs.
But of course our havn't counted any gods or ETs doesn't say
there is no gods or ETs, either.
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there are
zero ETs.
;What are you doing, still arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there may be one
:anyway, though you cannot demonstrate any such thing, because there is no
;proof your imaginings about magic invisible sky pixies being real are
false?
I have never argued that.
That is all you ever argue, knucklehead. See above, where you argue, "But of
course our havn't counted any gods or ETs doesn't say there is no gods or
ETs, either."
;> ;Null : of, being, or relating to zero
:> :www.m-w.com
;> ;(as in, "There are no ETs.")
;> ;Testing the Null Hypothesis
:> :by John Marcus, MD
;> ;email
:
;> ;http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
:> :
;> ;SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
:> :encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
;> ;also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is,
first
:> :and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
;> ;method.
:> :
;> ;[...]
:> :
;> ;The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
:> :
;> ;There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
:> :
;> ;... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try
to
:> :prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
;> ;unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
:> :
;> ;---
:
;
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maria Underwood" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 05:13:50 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BlNWa.32894$cF.11688@rwcrnsc53>...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfe6a$bi2@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bge76l$3gg@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:bge3lo$1vh@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
:> ;
;> :
:> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
;> :
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence,
;> :knucklehead.
:>
;> That of course, does say neither there to be no god nor no ET.
:
;
:Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there
are
;zero ETs.
(sigh) there is a god and I can prove it. My black lab is named god,
he IS god. He is friendly but not omniscient, in fact, he's not very
bright at all. He's also not omnipotent nor omnipresent. But he is
REAL and he does EXIST and I can PROVE it. So the count is ONE, (1),
UNO, (I) god. As for ET's, I've never met one myself so I couldn't
say.
Hugs & Kisses,
Crafty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: one dog, zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 06:10:48 PM |
|
|
"Maria Underwood" <Crafty_Sistah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ed7dfd7.0308061413.51f903da@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<BlNWa.32894$cF.11688@rwcrnsc53>...
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgfe6a$bi2@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bge76l$3gg@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:bge3lo$1vh@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> ... can't say there is no god. ...
:> ;
;> :
:> ;Yes I can. Watch this:
;> :
:> ;There are zero gods in evidence, just as there are zero ETs in
evidence,
;> :knucklehead.
:>
;> That of course, does say neither there to be no god nor no ET.
:
;
:Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as
there
are
;zero ETs.
(sigh) there is a god and I can prove it. My black lab is named god,
he IS god. He is friendly but not omniscient, in fact, he's not very
bright at all. He's also not omnipotent nor omnipresent. But he is
REAL and he does EXIST and I can PROVE it. So the count is ONE, (1),
UNO, (I) god. As for ET's, I've never met one myself so I couldn't
say.
Hugs & Kisses,
Crafty
OK. Perseverance furthers. You win. I will chalk up one dog just for you and
your baby boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: one dog, zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 07:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:10:48 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
OK. Perseverance furthers. You win. I will chalk up one dog just for you and
your baby boy.
Still waiting for you to answer this, Bobby...
Let's go thru a few simple (for your benefit, not mine) logical steps,
shall we? Take each one in turn and point out the fallacy. Demonstrate
why it is false.
1) Ancient civilisations worshipped the sun as a god.
2) The sun exists.
3) Their god (the sun) exists.
1 is true, 2 is true, ergo 3 is true.
Now, how difficult was that?
In your own time...
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: one dog, zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 09:00:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:25:46 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Still waiting for you to answer this, Bobby...
Please, call him Muddy.
8-)
Let's go thru a few simple (for your benefit, not mine) logical steps,
shall we? Take each one in turn and point out the fallacy. Demonstrate
why it is false.
1) Ancient civilisations worshipped the sun as a god.
2) The sun exists.
3) Their god (the sun) exists.
1 is true, 2 is true, ergo 3 is true.
Now, how difficult was that?
In your own time...
Red Celt
Do you remember the postings of Charles Fiterman?
I am a bit of a fan of his stuff.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: one dog, zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 11:01:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:00:12 GMT, Mark Richardson
<mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:25:46 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
Still waiting for you to answer this, Bobby...
Please, call him Muddy.
8-)
I think of him as Mr Knucklehead. It's his favourite epitaph, the
irony totally lost on him.
Let's go thru a few simple (for your benefit, not mine) logical steps,
shall we? Take each one in turn and point out the fallacy. Demonstrate
why it is false.
1) Ancient civilisations worshipped the sun as a god.
2) The sun exists.
3) Their god (the sun) exists.
1 is true, 2 is true, ergo 3 is true.
Now, how difficult was that?
In your own time...
Red Celt
Do you remember the postings of Charles Fiterman?
I am a bit of a fan of his stuff.
I have to say that the name rings a bell, but not a very loud one.
I really don't see why some atheists feel so threatened at the
prospect of admitting that a very select few gods do exist... those
occasions when theists worship something which has a physical
tangability.
That doesn't endow those physical entities with the attributes
associated with the Abrahamic God (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience or,
indeed, consciousness)... but if a primitive society points at a
carved idol and says "that is my god", then you have to concede that
their god exists.
I see an awful lot of dogmatism (particularly by Mr Knucklehead) which
manifests itself in the quoting of definitions of atheism as given by
infidels.org. I suspect that these people are former theists who can't
quite shake the idea that we don't need tracts of text to define what
we are and what we must believe.
The base definition of the word is a (without) theism (god/religion).
The question of active/passive beliefs about the existence of gods is
a secondary (although popular) attribute of atheism.
To paraphrase the words of a wise man (whose identity I can't
recall)...
"Atheist to Christian; we are both atheists, you and I. I just happen
to disbelieve in one more god than you."
Which, whilst being an excellent truism, also introduces the idea that
atheism can be directed at selected gods (the ones whose followers
can't provide evidence of existence). An atheist is no less an atheist
by conceding that the sun has a physical presence.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
07 Aug 2003 08:10:51 AM |
|
|
(Maria Underwood) wrote:
="Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote...
--snip--
=> > So far the count is zero gods, just as there are zero ETs.
=
=(sigh) there is a god and I can prove it. My black lab is
=named god,
That's a dog. Fork, spoon, etc.
=he IS god.
He is a dog. You are using non-standard definitions of
words, which is fine until you have to communicate.
=He is friendly but not omniscient, in fact, he's not very bright
=at all. He's also not omnipotent nor omnipresent. But he is
=REAL and he does EXIST and I can PROVE it.
Nobody questions that your dog is real. The question is --
read carefully -- what makes you think your dog is a god?
=So the count is ONE, (1), UNO, (I) god.
Not from your example. You have a dog you're calling "God".
If I call it a hippo, does that mean it's really a hippo?
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Greater is the authority of Scripture than all
human capacity" - St. Augustine
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 09:55:37 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
You yourself 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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 05:22:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:55:37 -0400, Marc Fleury
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
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.
Unlimited existentially negative propositions ("there's no god
anywhere in time or space") require, at the very least, a god to
investigate them.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arn" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 06:00:36 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:55:37 -0400, Marc Fleury
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
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.
Unlimited existentially negative propositions ("there's no god
anywhere in time or space") require, at the very least, a god to
investigate them.
"There are no gods" is not a proposition (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof can never 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: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
04 Aug 2003 10:09:31 PM |
|
|
Arn wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:55:37 -0400, Marc Fleury
<marcfleury@sympatico.ca> posted in alt.atheism:
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.
Unlimited existentially negative propositions ("there's no god
anywhere in time or space") require, at the very least, a god to
investigate them.
"There are no gods" is not a proposition ...
Please back this up with, say, Copi's definition of "proposition".
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
05 Aug 2003 04:18:14 PM |
|
|
Marc Fleury wrote:
Arn wrote:
"There are no gods" is not a proposition ...
Please back this up with, say, Copi's definition of "proposition".
Perhaps you missed this request, Septic.
Please, back up your claim with a logic text.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 10:13:20 AM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rl70jv81nknt993gl1n6u19q31g04m61ts@4ax.com...
Marc Fleury wrote:
Arn wrote:
"There are no gods" is not a proposition ...
[unsnip]
"There are no gods" is not a proposition (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial of one, and the burden of proof can never be
shifted to the denial under any pretext.
Please demonstrate that THAT is what a proposition is. I've asked you
for this ... what ... ten times?
Please back this up with, say, Copi's definition of "proposition".
What's wrong with the citation given telling you the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial?
What's wrong with it is that it does not mention propositions. We're
STILL waiting for you to demonstrate thet you know what that word
means. With ever post, you demonstrate with greater and greater
accuracy the extent of your ignorance of the meaning of the word.
You want Copi telling you you can't shift the burden of proof to the denial
of an existential statement?
No. I want Copi saying that a statement structured in the form of a
denial is not a proposition, as you have been claiming.
The fascinating thing is, I have a quote of his stating quite the
opposite. I suspect that you KNOW that fact, which is why you have
been avoiding the question.
You got Copi telling you you can't shift the
burden of proof to the denial of an existential statement:
Yep. Now you need to come back to the actual topic that we are
discussing, which is "Is a 'denial' a proposition?"
Existential statement: "It is necessarily true that something magically
invisible we just made up may in reality exist even though you don't see
it."
Denial of that statement: "False."
Are those the only statements in the world that you can apply your
rule to, or is your rule more generally applicable?
For instance:
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
Is the first one a proposition, while the second is not?
Still waiting for your answer on that one. Failing to answer, of
course, is evidence that you are committing the fallacy of special
pleading.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Fleury" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 02:40:43 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote
... "Is a 'denial' a proposition?"
The proposition of an argument is the statement that is in question, the
statement that stands in need of proof (logical proof or material evidence)
that it is true (in accord with the actual state of affairs).
For the 12th time ... please back that up with a quote from any text
on logic.
A proposition need not be part of an argument. A proposition is simply
a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or
false (or the meaning of such a statement). You will never find any
logic text that claims that a statement, or proposition, must be
expressed in an affirmative structure to qualify as a proposition.
If you insist on disagreeing, please provide evidence, in the form of
a quote from Copi, or whoever else you'd like to quote.
Is the denial ("False") a statement that stands in need of proof?
Irrelevant. I never said that it was.
I said that "there are no gods" is a proposition.
Stop changing the subject. The subject is: "Is 'there are no gods' a
proposition?"
The correct answer is "yes." Your answer is "no." You are wrong.
Meanwhile, you are still being a total chicken (and demonstrating
either your ignorance or your willful deception) by refusing to answer
this question:
Which of the following is a proposition:
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
As I indicated in the last post, your refusal to answer is evidence
that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 04:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6jk2jv8l8os3b3n22599pmknavbkdgvgjv@4ax.com...
I said that "there are no gods" is a proposition.
And I have pointed out about ten times now that you are mistaken; the
existential proposition concerning gods is "A god exists."
"False, there are no gods" is the denial, the negation in logic
(www.m-w.com), 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: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 05:54:35 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
;news:6jk2jv8l8os3b3n22599pmknavbkdgvgjv@4ax.com...
:
;> I said that "there are no gods" is a proposition.
:
;And I have pointed out about ten times now that you are mistaken; the
:existential proposition concerning gods is "A god exists."
Just saying it is not does not constitute pointing it out.
:"False, there are no gods" is the denial, the negation in logic
;(www.m-w.com), and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
The quote you gave concerns claims, and the denial of a claim is
a disclaim;
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 disclaim for the claim "there are no gods" is, for example,
"can't say there are no gods".
; "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: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
06 Aug 2003 09:01:05 PM |
|
|
Once again, you snipped out all the parts that prove you are a lying
piece of chicken-*****.
Bob White wrote:
"Marc Fleury" <marcfleury@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6jk2jv8l8os3b3n22599pmknavbkdgvgjv@4ax.com...
I said that "there are no gods" is a proposition.
And I have pointed out about ten times now that you are mistaken; the
existential proposition concerning gods is "A god exists."
And you have yet to back that up with a definition of "proposition"
from a logic text. Who do you think you're fooling? It's one thing to
contiually talk out of your ***** because you're afraid to face reality,
but I sincerely hope that you don't actually believe that you're
convincing anyone.
"False, there are no gods" is the denial, the negation in logic
(www.m-w.com), and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
Please let me know what any of this has to do with my request for you
to quote a text on logic on the definition of "proposition".
Here is an important part that you snipped, you chicken-*****:
Meanwhile, you are still being a total chicken (and demonstrating
either your ignorance or your willful deception) by refusing to answer
this question:
Which of the following is a proposition:
A) "Human laws forbid all vices"
B) "Human laws do not forbid all vices"
As I indicated in the last post, your refusal to answer is evidence
that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
--
Marc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
02 Aug 2003 06:55:39 PM |
|
|
In article <BlNWa.32894$cF.11688@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course our havn't counted any gods or ETs doesn't say
there is no gods or ETs, either.
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there are
zero ETs.
Nont acceptable. Septic asserts the existence of zero, but the
default position is that no such thing exists.
When Septic can prove the physical existence of whatever it is he is
calling zero, then he can speak of there being zero of something,
but not until then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the count: zero gods and zero ETs so far |
03 Aug 2003 05:23:38 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-336EB2.17553802082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <BlNWa.32894$cF.11688@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course our havn't counted any gods or ETs doesn't say
there is no gods or ETs, either.
Yes it does, knucklehead. So far the count is zero gods, just as there
are
zero ETs.
Nont acceptable. Septic asserts the existence of zero ...
We are just counting things here, knucklehead, and the number of gods so far
stands an zero, just as the number of ETs stands at zero. Got it now,
knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
