| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Virgil" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2003 09:21:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
In article <srO3b.223566$cF.73868@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false.
Septic the Capon argues that "there are no gods" is true on no more
evidence than the lack of proof that it is false.
Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
Septic the Capon Septic the Capon would argue that "there are gods"
is false on no more evidence than the lack of proof that it is true.
(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is
false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific
principle.)" --
But such an assumption is merely a hypothesis, not a demostrated
fact, as Septic the Capon would have it
..
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
When Septic the Capon tries to make a proven fact of his unproven
hypothesis, he violates the principles of valid argument, logic,
morality and ethics.
.
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:09:46 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
:
;
:> ... compounding of lies. ...
;
:
;It is not a lie, knucklehead. "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the
:denial of one,
Nope, it is not a denial of a claim. A denial of a claim is a disclaim,
or the uttering of disclaimer:
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
For instance, the denial of the claim "there are no gods" is
"can't say there are no gods".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:30:53 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bj7o4a$4mm@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
:
;
:> ... compounding of lies. ...
;
:
;It is not a lie, knucklehead. "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is
the
:denial of one,
Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and what
words are used to indicate denial in it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:31:06 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bj7o4a$4mm@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> :
:> ;
;> :> ... compounding of lies. ...
:> ;
;> :
:> ;It is not a lie, knucklehead. "There are no gods" is not a claim, it is
;the
:> :denial of one,
;>
:> Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
;
:Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
;denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and what
:words are used to indicate denial in it?
The application of that to the act of claim produces "no" or "false,
can't say there are gods", the disclaim. Learn some English.
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:14:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1NJ5b.264330$cF.83215@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and what
words are used to indicate denial in it?
If it is not a claim, then it is not the denial of one, since the
denial of a claim must itself be a claim. That Septic the Capon
seems unable to learn this simple truth is further evidence of his
deteriorating mental state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:44:19 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-77609E.11145004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <1NJ5b.264330$cF.83215@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and
what
words are used to indicate denial in it?
If it is not a claim, then it is not the denial of one, since the
denial of a claim must itself be a claim.
Balderdash, sophist.
The proposition in question, "It is true that a magic invisible god may in
reality exist" is one thing,
the denial, "False, there are no gods" is something entirely different, and
the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead. Didn't
your daddy teach you the basics?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:35:18 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-77609E.11145004092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <1NJ5b.264330$cF.83215@rwcrnsc53>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
:> >
;> > Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
:> > denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and
;what
:> > words are used to indicate denial in it?
;>
:> If it is not a claim, then it is not the denial of one, since the
;> denial of a claim must itself be a claim.
:
;Balderdash, sophist.
:
;The proposition in question, "It is true that a magic invisible god may in
:reality exist" is one thing,
;
:the denial, "False, there are no gods"
Nope. 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 denial of the claim "there are no gods" for example, is
"can't say there are no gods".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:20:26 PM |
|
|
In article <TRK5b.267511$It4.124936@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-77609E.11145004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <1NJ5b.264330$cF.83215@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nope, it is not a denial of a claim.
Yes it is, knucklehead. The terms, 'no' and 'false' are used to indicate
denial. This is how English works. What is your native language, and
what
words are used to indicate denial in it?
If it is not a claim, then it is not the denial of one, since the
denial of a claim must itself be a claim.
Balderdash, sophist.
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something, so Septic the Capon is
arguing that no statements ever need proof.
The principle which Septic the Capon is trying to mangle is that
whenever anyone proposes any new hypothesis, of any form, without
accompanying proof, one should also consider the negation of that
hypothesis as provisionally true until proof of the original is
forthcoming. But if someone else proposes that negation, neither it
nor the original can be assumed true until proven. Note that such a
negation or default hypothesis is only accepted provisionally and as
as long as no one else is proposing it.
Given a room full of men and women, someone hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a man and someone else hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a women. It is clear that neither can be
presumed true and the other false. Though this is exactly what
Septic the Capon wants to insist on!
It is the true principle, as explained above, which Septic the Capon
is fighting so hard against, since that means that his favorite
hypothesis, "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no
gods" is as much in need of proof as any theist's or gnostic's.
And Septic the Capon has no such proof!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:09:50 PM |
|
|
In article <TRK5b.267511$It4.124936@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
If it is not a claim, then it is not the denial of one, since the
denial of a claim must itself be a claim.
Balderdash, sophist.
That Septic the Capon does not want denials of hypotheses to be
hypotheses does not make it true that they are not. In fact, going
on Septic the Capon's track record, his objections tends to confirm
whatever he objects to.
The denial of any hypothesis is another hypothesis, and neither
hypothisis is _known_ to be true, or false, until one of them has
been proven.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 02:55:49 PM |
|
|
In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie, knucklehead.
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
And that is a lie, since Septic the Capon knows that there is no
such demonstration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:52:42 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-D71A05.13554903092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
... compounding of lies. ...
It is not a lie, knucklehead.
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:20:29 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-D71A05.13554903092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> >
:> >
;> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
:> >
;> >
:> > It is not a lie, knucklehead.
;>
:> Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
;> demonstrated) that there are no gods".
:
;How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
We have counted a number that does not imply there are no gods.
Therefore it is not a fact that there are no gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:03:09 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bj7ood$55c@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-D71A05.13554903092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> >
:> >
;> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
:> >
;> >
:> > It is not a lie, knucklehead.
;>
:> Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
;> demonstrated) that there are no gods".
:
;How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
We have counted a number ...
Demonstrate so that anyone can verify your observations. Your unsupported
testimony alone is not good enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:55:10 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bjb6nu$81@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:bj7ood$55c@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:vmhjr2-D71A05.13554903092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> :> In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
:> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> :>
:> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> :> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> ;> >
;> :> >
:> ;> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
;> :> >
:> ;> >
;> :> > It is not a lie, knucklehead.
:> ;>
;> :> Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
:> ;> demonstrated) that there are no gods".
;> :
:> ;How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
;>
:> We have counted a number ...
;
:Demonstrate so that anyone can verify your observations. Your unsupported
;testimony alone is not good enough.
Why would I want to share it with you if you can demonstrate no
relevence of it? Show that there can be any number that would imply
there to be no god.
0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
15 Sep 2003 03:13:46 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Paul R. Mays" <simatar1@hotmail.Com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bjb6nu$81@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:bj7ood$55c@neptune.myri-local.com...
;> :> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:> ;> :
;> :> ;
:> ;> :"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> :> ;news:vmhjr2-D71A05.13554903092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> ;> :> In article <6Nq5b.261376$Oz4.69135@rwcrnsc54>,
;> :> ;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> ;> :>
;> :> ;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;> :> > news:vmhjr2-AC8F68.19135802092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> :> ;> >
:> ;> :> >
;> :> ;> > > ... compounding of lies. ...
:> ;> :> >
;> :> ;> >
:> ;> :> > It is not a lie, knucklehead.
;> :> ;>
:> ;> :> Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
;> :> ;> demonstrated) that there are no gods".
:> ;> :
;> :> ;How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
:> ;>
;> :> We have counted a number ...
:> ;
;> :Demonstrate so that anyone can verify your observations. Your unsupported
:> ;testimony alone is not good enough.
;>
:> Why would I want to share it with you if you can demonstrate no
;> relevence of it? Show that there can be any number that would imply
:> there to be no god.
;
:
;0
How would that imply there to be no god?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 03:55:24 PM |
|
|
In article <x7L5b.267524$It4.125217@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
We have counted a number ...
Demonstrate so that anyone can verify your observations. Your unsupported
testimony alone is not good enough.
What is it that Septic the Capon wants demonstrated? Since he
carefully snipped out any reference to it, one must assume Septic
the Capon would be embarrassed to have anyone read it.
I can count one two three, and anyone can verify that count. Since
that is quite in accord with what Septic the Capon left unclipped,
that should be enough for him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:57:55 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6E01C5.14552304092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <x7L5b.267524$It4.125217@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
We have counted a number ...
Demonstrate so that anyone can verify your observations. Your
unsupported
testimony alone is not good enough.
What is it that Septic the Capon wants demonstrated?
Susie's number of gods she says she has counted, so that anyone can verify
her observations, knucklehead. Can't you follow a thread of discussion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:29:30 PM |
|
|
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" is now
knownable(can be demonstrated) but offers no evidence in support of
that delusional hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 02:21:19 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" ...
The number of what? Show us what you observe in the way of gods, Verg, so
that anybody can test your observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 09:20:47 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PgM5b.168709$2x.48222@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" ...
The number of what? Show us what you observe in the way of gods, Verg, so
that anybody can test your observations.
You'd have to be God to know that there is no God. And that would negate
your claim that there is no God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 01:18:51 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <no.spam@please.com> wrote in message
news:3qS5b.1270$qJ6.1009910@monger.newsread.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PgM5b.168709$2x.48222@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by your count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" ...
The number of what? Show us what you observe in the way of gods, Verg,
so
that anybody can test your observations.
You'd have to be God to know that there is no God.
Have to be a what? Define your term and demonstrate one.
How many gods can you demonstrate? Zero, right?
Nobody can even produce a meaningful, verifiable definition of the term, so
there is nothing specified to look for, and nothing presented for
consideration. That adds up to a great big zero.
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
That is what stands in need of demonstration, never the negative.
The burden of proof cannot be shifted. Shifting the burden of proof is
logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_). See Copi's logic textbook:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 08:12:44 PM |
|
|
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
As this has never been proposed by anyone except Septic the Capon,
the burden of proof is entirely on him.
Now in the matter of whether gods can or do exist,...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 02:35:39 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4A6E67.19124405092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
As this has never been proposed by anyone except Septic ...
What do you think these theologs mean by the term, 'invisible' then,
knucklehead:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 04:05:57 PM |
|
|
In article <f7g6b.277138$Oz4.74093@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4A6E67.19124405092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
As this has never been proposed by anyone except Septic ...
What do you think these theologs mean by the term, 'invisible' then,
knucklehead:
I do not see "magic invisible" in there anywhere.
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
Without "magic invisible", your quote is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 05:01:53 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B81FA9.15055706092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <f7g6b.277138$Oz4.74093@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4A6E67.19124405092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
As this has never been proposed by anyone except Septic ...
What do you think these theologs mean by the term, 'invisible' then,
knucklehead:
I do not see "magic invisible" in there anywhere.
Oh please. You believe it is real stuff then?
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a
perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued
against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys,
the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this
hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not
prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
Without "magic invisible", your quote is irrelevant.
?How could this ad hoc hypothetically invisible stuff have come to be
[conceivably] filling all the valleys of the moon, if not by an
extraordinary power or influence conceivably from a supernatural source?
What is implied is that Magic Invisible God installed it.
[ magic : an extraordinary power or influence conceivably from a
supernatural source www.m-w.com ]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 08:48:39 PM |
|
|
In article <lPs6b.280776$It4.130920@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B81FA9.15055706092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <f7g6b.277138$Oz4.74093@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4A6E67.19124405092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The proposition in question is that there may in reality be a magic
invisible something.
As this has never been proposed by anyone except Septic ...
What do you think these theologs mean by the term, 'invisible' then,
knucklehead:
I do not see "magic invisible" in there anywhere.
Oh please. You believe it is real stuff then?
It is not my beliefs, which are agnostic, but theists' beliefs that
Septic the Capon is misstating here, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether Septic the Capon has stated anything
that a theist would accept as a fair statement of his beleifs.
And one must see that the judgement on that issue is squarely
against Septic the Capon.
If some theist were to characterize Septic the Capon's beliefs
(though Septic the Capon may deny having any) as a firm faith the
power of Septic the Capon's master, the Devil, that is as fair a
rendering of Septic the Capon's position as Septic the Capon's is
of any theist position
---
<quote>
Some scholars of that age, argued against Galileo that the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities ARE filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
But, according to Septic the Capon those scholars only argued that
the moon MAY be a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities
MAY BE filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.
Now I ask everyone, is that an hoest paraphrase?
If it is, then Septic the Capon can only believe that there MAY not
But, according to Septic the Capon those scholars only argued that
the moon MAY be a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities
MAY BE filled in by an invisible crystalline substance.
Now I ask everyone, is that an honest paraphrase?
If it is, then Septic the Capon can only believe that there MAY not
be any gods. Septic the Capon can't believe that there ARE no gods
because it is only hypothetical until is is proved. be any gods.
Septic the Capon can't believe that there ARE no gods because it is
only a hypothetical statement until is is proved.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 08:08:50 PM |
|
|
In article <fs46b.269338$cF.85091@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You'd have to be God to know that there is no God.
Have to be a what?
Has Septic the Capon has been skipping his optometrist appointments
again?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:35:31 PM |
|
|
In article <PgM5b.168709$2x.48222@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" ...
The number of what? Show us what you observe in the way of gods, Verg, so
that anybody can test your observations.
What number? Septic the Capon implies that there is such a thing,
but can offer no evidence in support of his claim of existence,
which must therefore be denied.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 11:40:30 PM |
|
|
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" is now
knownable(can be demonstrated) but offers no evidence in support of
that delusional hypothesis.
Are you saying any claim with the form "it is not the case that there
is some X" are always of indeterminate truth value? You do realize
you are arguing in favor of a three value logic. In the logic that is
generally accepted, claims are either true or false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 01:31:42 AM |
|
|
In article <17105b22.0309052040.4b93c8a3@posting.google.com>,
wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" is now
knownable(can be demonstrated) but offers no evidence in support of
that delusional hypothesis.
Are you saying any claim with the form "it is not the case that there
is some X" are always of indeterminate truth value? You do realize
you are arguing in favor of a three value logic. In the logic that is
generally accepted, claims are either true or false.
Not at all. As I said above Septic the Capon has claimed something
to be a "fact", which he has previously defined as something which
can be demonstrated, but neither Septic the Capon, nor anyone else
has provided any such demonstration.
I believe that any sufficiently well-formed statement must either be
true or false, but I also believe that there are such statements
whose truth or falsehood have not yet been determined. Various
statements about the existence of extra-terrestial life, for example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
06 Sep 2003 02:25:55 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-93AD2F.00314106092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <17105b22.0309052040.4b93c8a3@posting.google.com>,
kwag7693@hotmail.com wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-007663.11293004092003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <edJ5b.168531$2x.48112@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Septic the Capon has repeatedly claimed "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods".
How many gods are there by our count, knucklehead?
Septic the Capon implies that "the number of gods" is now
knownable(can be demonstrated) but offers no evidence in support of
that delusional hypothesis.
Are you saying any claim with the form "it is not the case that there
is some X" are always of indeterminate truth value? You do realize
you are arguing in favor of a three value logic. In the logic that is
generally accepted, claims are either true or false.
Not at all. As I said above Septic the Capon has claimed something
to be a "fact",
"There are no gods" is not a 'claim' (statement standing in need of proof),
knucklehead, it is the denial of one, 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
which he has previously defined as something which
can be demonstrated,
What stands in need of demonstration is your alleged deity. The burden of
proof cannot be shifted under any pretext, knucklehead.
but neither Septic the Capon, nor anyone else
has provided any such demonstration.
Because it is not required. The burden of proof cannot be shifted, as much
as you would love to be able to get away with it.
I believe that any sufficiently well-formed statement must either be
true or false, but I also believe that there are such statements
whose truth or falsehood have not yet been determined. Various
statements about the existence of extra-terrestial life, for example.
And the only reasonable presumption is the null, "There are no ETs." See the
SETI website.
Can't have a default presumption that the theory is true. That would be
begging the question, 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. ...
---
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
