| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2003 08:47:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
wrote in message news:<x%hQa.7753$Sf1.1445@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
[...]
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
(Don't forget to demonstrate how you know they exist.)
Put "the world's shortest spy" on your list of things lacking
demonstrability.
If there is no shortest spy, then either (a) there are no spies
or (b) there are an infinite number of spies. Since I can
rule out (a) and (b), I know there is a shortest spy (or, at
least a spy as short as or shorter than every other spy).
What I cannot do is show this spy.
If you think you can either show there is no world's shortest
spy or show there is and you can display this spy, go for it.
Simple. Get all the spies in the world and measure them.
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'? To
even believe that you have them all, you need a demonstrable criterion
x such that if A satisfies x, then A is a spy; and if A does not, then
A is not a spy; and in addition, to know that you have them all, you
must know that your criterion is the correct one.
There's a
difference between "can't do X" and "can do X but with GREAT difficulty."
Yes, but this is not just a problem of getting 'all the spies'
together (which can be stipulated to be possible but difficult) but
also of knowing just who is a spy and who is not (which may or may not
be possible).
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 01:49:56 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020547.593eb099@posting.google.com...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message
news:<x%hQa.7753$Sf1.1445@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
[...]
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
(Don't forget to demonstrate how you know they exist.)
Put "the world's shortest spy" on your list of things lacking
demonstrability.
If there is no shortest spy, then either (a) there are no spies
or (b) there are an infinite number of spies. Since I can
rule out (a) and (b), I know there is a shortest spy (or, at
least a spy as short as or shorter than every other spy).
What I cannot do is show this spy.
If you think you can either show there is no world's shortest
spy or show there is and you can display this spy, go for it.
Simple. Get all the spies in the world and measure them.
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'?
It's a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), knucklehead. Ever heard of
those? One doesn't have to actually carry out the experiment, just show how
it could be done in principle. Get it?
The point is that humans (including spies) are known to exist, so all this
from you morons about the world's shortest spy is simply fallacy of
diversion:
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Aug 2003 09:12:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oJTWa.34574$Vt6.13893@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020547.593eb099@posting.google.com...
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message
news:<x%hQa.7753$Sf1.1445@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
[...]
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
(Don't forget to demonstrate how you know they exist.)
Put "the world's shortest spy" on your list of things lacking
demonstrability.
If there is no shortest spy, then either (a) there are no spies
or (b) there are an infinite number of spies. Since I can
rule out (a) and (b), I know there is a shortest spy (or, at
least a spy as short as or shorter than every other spy).
What I cannot do is show this spy.
If you think you can either show there is no world's shortest
spy or show there is and you can display this spy, go for it.
Simple. Get all the spies in the world and measure them.
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'?
It's a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), knucklehead. Ever heard of
those? One doesn't have to actually carry out the experiment, just show how
it could be done in principle.
Which has not been shown.
Get it?
Certainly: on your view, a 'thought experiment' requires neither
thought nor experiment - all that's needed is to formulate a
hypothesis, and argue _ad ignorantiam_ that the hypothesis is a proof.
The point is that humans (including spies) are known to exist,
If you're inferring 'spies exist' from 'humans exist,' then you do not
know that. All you have is an unjustified belief, once again.
so all this
from you morons about the world's shortest spy is simply fallacy of
diversion:
Perhaps; but it's your diversion:
<quote>
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
</quote>
As it's your diversion, it's your fallacy. QED
"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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 07:45:30 PM |
|
|
In article <oJTWa.34574$Vt6.13893@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'?
It's a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), knucklehead. Ever heard of
those? One doesn't have to actually carry out the experiment, just show how
it could be done in principle. Get it?
That seems to be how Septic does all his investigations, he
gedankens it and it always comes out just as he thought it would.
But when Septic mentions principles, I know he is off base, cause he
hasn't any of his own, and he inevitably missapplies those he has
cribbed from others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Aug 2003 04:33:42 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote in message news:<x%hQa.7753$Sf1.1445@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
In talk.atheism Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
[...]
Can you produce eight or ten examples of real things which are
known to exist and are undeniably an integral part of the
universe, yet lack this alleged "property of demonstrability"?
(Don't forget to demonstrate how you know they exist.)
Put "the world's shortest spy" on your list of things lacking
demonstrability.
If there is no shortest spy, then either (a) there are no spies
or (b) there are an infinite number of spies. Since I can
rule out (a) and (b), I know there is a shortest spy (or, at
least a spy as short as or shorter than every other spy).
What I cannot do is show this spy.
If you think you can either show there is no world's shortest
spy or show there is and you can display this spy, go for it.
Simple. Get all the spies in the world and measure them.
How would you know when you've got 'all the spies in the world'? To
even believe that you have them all, you need a demonstrable criterion
x such that if A satisfies x, then A is a spy; and if A does not, then
A is not a spy; and in addition, to know that you have them all, you
must know that your criterion is the correct one.
There's a
difference between "can't do X" and "can do X but with GREAT difficulty."
Yes, but this is not just a problem of getting 'all the spies'
together (which can be stipulated to be possible but difficult) but
also of knowing just who is a spy and who is not (which may or may not
be possible).
If someone is a spy, there'd be records, etc. of that fact. So you'd have to
get all the secret records of all the govornments (why can't I ever remember
how to spell that d*mned word?), etc. So again, it'd be an EXTREMELY
difficult task but, in theory, do-able.
--
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
