| 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$cF.73868@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false.
Septic the Capon argues that "there are no gods" is true on no more
evidence than the lack of proof that it is false.
Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
Septic the Capon Septic the Capon would argue that "there are gods"
is false on no more evidence than the lack of proof that it is true.
(Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is
false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific
principle.)" --
But such an assumption is merely a hypothesis, not a demostrated
fact, as Septic the Capon would have it
..
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
When Septic the Capon tries to make a proven fact of his unproven
hypothesis, he violates the principles of valid argument, logic,
morality and ethics.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
30 Aug 2003 07:28:28 PM |
|
|
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63AE6D.20211029082003@news.newsguy.com...
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
No, I simply deny that "A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist,
and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false" is a
valid argument.
As only Septic the Capon has proposed that particular hypothesis, he
is denying his own hypothesis, which puts him on the hook for both
proof and disproof.
You cannot shift the burden of proof to me under any pretext, knucklehead. I
have nothing (no thing) to pove. Get used to it.
I will grant that Septic the Capon has nothing that he can
"pove"[sic], and that I am used to.
Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true.
"There are no gods" is not an argumnt, knucklehead,
If Septic the Capon wishes to give up trying to establish the
falsehood "it is a fact that gods are known to be impossible", fine,
but if he thinks that his sophistries will ever get anyone to
believe that falsehood, he is as green as he is cabbage looking.
It is the denial of one, and therefor another one.
basic scientific
principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
But such an assumption is merely a hypothesis ...
The denial of one, knucklehead, and the burden of proof cannot be sifted to
the denial. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
He taught me to spell. "poved" and "sifted"?
not a demostrated
fact ...
Nobody has to demonstrate it is a fact that "There may be magic invisible
gods" is false, knucklehead, you have to demonstrate it is true.
I din't have to prove it again, since, at least with the meaning
that everyone except Septic the Capon understands it, it has already
bee proved.
As I keep
trying to get through your thick skull, the burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the negation of an existential proposition under any pretext,
knucklehead.
The burden of proof has been met!
The proof has been provided, and it has satisfied everone except
Septic the Capon, whose understanding of proofs has been shown to be
so puerile as to be irrelevant in any serious discussion of proofs.
That Septic the Capon cannot see that validity of that proof is
evidence only of Septic the Capon's incapacity, since everyone else
accepts it.
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.
How many gods are there by your count, genius?
An number unknown ...
How do you know that? Please show your work.
On the contrary, Septic the Capon himself has argues that we MUST
presume that no such number exists:
If someone, such as Septic the Capon, were to propose the existence
of such a number, then the burden of proof, by Septic the Capon's
own arguments, falls on the one proposing that existence and can
never be shifted to the denial.
Since agnostics are satisfied that the denial is the case, and since
Septic the Capon himself assures us that the burden of proof can
never be shifted to us, we are content to presume, in accordance
with Septic the Capon's repeated strictures, that no such number
exists, and let Septic the Capon struggle with proving that it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 03:18:53 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B1723.18282830082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63AE6D.20211029082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <srO3b.223566$cF.73868@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This
fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply
because
it
has not been proved false.
Septic the Capon argues that "there are no gods" is true
No, I simply deny that "A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist,
and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false" is
a
valid argument.
As only Septic the Capon has proposed that particular hypothesis ...
It is the theolog hypothesis you posted here in Usenet, sir.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 09:39:25 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B1723.18282830082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63AE6D.20211029082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <srO3b.223566$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
No, I simply deny that "A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist,
and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false" is
a
valid argument.
As only Septic the Capon has proposed that particular hypothesis ...
It is the theolog hypothesis you posted here in Usenet, sir.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
But you claimed that he posted the so-called 'hypothesis':
"A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist, and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false"
So try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:43:51 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
So try again.
Try what again? I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove. You have to prove your magic invisible sky
pixie is real, and you can't shift the burden to the non-believers,
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: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 11:59:57 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bN35b.255007$Oz4.67412@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
<unsnip>
But you claimed that he posted the so-called 'hypothesis':
"A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist, and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false"
</unsnip>
So try again.
Try what again?
To support that claim, which you haven't supported.
I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
Oh, I see - this is one of your 'non-claims' that you don't have to
prove; rther, Virgil has to prove that he did not post that so-called
'hypothesis'.
Septic Logic is quite convenient, isn't it? Did your father use it to
sell used cars? "There's nothing wrong with this car, and you can't
afford to pass up this bargain. Those aren't my 'claims' by the way -
they're 'denials', because of the way I've phrased them, so it's not
up to me to prove them - if you have to prove that there is something
wrong with the car, or that you can afford to pass it up; if you
can't, you have to presume I'm right and buy the car - that's logic."
You have to prove your magic invisible sky
pixie is real, and you can't shift the burden to the non-believers,
knucklehead. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
No, my father was an honest man who never tried any such tricks,
AFAIK.
"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
Someone's actually put up a web page? It must be true if it's on a
WEB PAGE. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is no longer a fallacy; now we
have a 'special case,' in which only 'the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise' is a fallacy, while 'the assumption that
something is false unless proven otherwise' is now a logical principle
instead. What a great day for logic!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 12:21:29 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309030859.26c4da2c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bN35b.255007$Oz4.67412@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
<unsnip>
But you claimed that he posted the so-called 'hypothesis':
"A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist, and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove
false"
</unsnip>
So try again.
Try what again?
To support that claim, which you haven't supported.
I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
Oh, I see - this is one of your 'non-claims' ...
I am not the one making the claim, you theists are. I have nothing (no
thing) to prove, you theists do (your proposed 'god' thingy). What is a
'god' if not what it appears to be, an imaginary magic invisible sky pixie
playmate, a figment of theist delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 03:18:36 PM |
|
|
In article <tqp5b.260821$It4.120738@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309030859.26c4da2c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bN35b.255007$Oz4.67412@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
<unsnip>
But you claimed that he posted the so-called 'hypothesis':
"A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist, and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove
false"
</unsnip>
So try again.
Try what again?
To support that claim, which you haven't supported.
I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods"?
Oh, I see - this is one of your 'non-claims' ...
I am not the one making the claim, you theists are.
Three lies in one short sentence:
(1) Septic the Capon is the one making claims,
(2) One of those claims is that anyone who opposes him is a theist,
(3) another is that everyone who opposes him is making claims.
The agnostics opposing his "true-beleiver" anti-theism are the ones
making no claims, they are only refusing to accept claims
unsupported by proof.
Septic the Capon makes and remakes the claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods", but does not supply that
demonstration.
I have nothing (no
thing) to prove, you theists do (your proposed 'god' thingy). What is a
'god' if not what it appears to be, an imaginary magic invisible sky pixie
playmate, a figment of theist delusional disorder (impaired contact with
reality)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-53122E.14183603092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <tqp5b.260821$It4.120738@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods"?
How many gods are there by your count, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:43:11 PM |
|
|
In article <6cK5b.267313$Oz4.69859@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-53122E.14183603092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <tqp5b.260821$It4.120738@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial claim "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods"?
How many gods are there by your count, sir?
At least as many as your proofs, Septic old Capon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 03:35:45 PM |
|
|
In article <bN35b.255007$Oz4.67412@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
So try again.
Try what again? I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
As long as Septic the Capon keeps claiming "It is a fact(can be
demonstraetd) that ther are no gods", he has something to prove.
You have to prove your magic invisible sky
pixie is real, and you can't shift the burden to the non-believers,
knucklehead.
Since Septic the Capon is creator and only supporter of "magic
invisible sky pixies", his is the entire responsibility for them.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Septic the Capon asserts but reneges on "It is a fact(can be
demonstraetd) that ther are no gods".
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.
We agnostics deny Septic the Capon's assertion:"It is a fact(can be
demonstraetd) that ther are no gods", but Septic the Capon keeps
trying to shift the burden of proof to the denial.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Isn't it curious how Septic the Capon's support of any of the
"Principles of Valid Argument(Logic)" vanishes as soon as that
particular PoVA(L) is the least bit inconvenient to Septic the
Capon's latest sophism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 04:51:18 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6FA7E1.14354502092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <bN35b.255007$Oz4.67412@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com...
So try again.
Try what again? I am not "trying" anything in the first place. I have
nothing (no thing) to prove.
As long as Septic the Capon keeps claiming ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial. How many more times do I have to
repeat this for you before it sinks in?
I have nothing (no thing) to prove, you theist true-believers do,
knucklehead. Are you really this dense, or just pretending?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 11:41:12 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0309020639.68c2c90e@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B1723.18282830082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63AE6D.20211029082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <srO3b.223566$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
No, I simply deny that "A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist,
and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false" is
a
valid argument.
As only Septic the Capon has proposed that particular hypothesis ...
It is the theolog hypothesis you posted here in Usenet, sir.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 10:13:33 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B1723.18282830082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"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
No,
Yes:
<quote>
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<JmvZa.114189$Ho3.14724@sccrnsc03>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-59923A.22300409082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <cZgZa.108070$uu5.15606@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is a fact that there are no gods.
Gods are merely hypothetical
That's just theists' delusional disorder
If you disagree, then please demonstrate how many gods there really are
by
your count.
Thus Septic argues, ad ignorantiam, that if there is no proof to the
contrary his claims must be true.
Except that it is not a claim, knucklehead. It is a fact that there are no
gods.
</quote>
And it's a rather bad argument, too: "It is a fact that there are no
gods, because it is a fact that there are no gods." It would be
question-begging, in anything but Septic Logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 12:16:10 PM |
|
|
In article <Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0B1723.18282830082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Uk94b.308837$o%2.141910@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-63AE6D.20211029082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <srO3b.223566$cF.73868@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This
fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply
because
it
has not been proved false.
Septic the Capon argues that "there are no gods" is true
No, I simply deny that "A magic invisible sky pixie may in reality
exist,
and this hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove false" is
a
valid argument.
As only Septic the Capon has proposed that particular hypothesis ...
It is the theolog hypothesis you posted here in Usenet, sir.
If "gods may exist" is the theist hypothesis, then, by symmetry,
"gods may not exist" must be the anti-theist hypothesis, as anything
else is that fallacy of begging the question, and, surely, Septic
the Capon wouldn't want to be guilty of a fallacy.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
And Septic the Capon has been challenged on numerous occasions to
find any theist whose credo contains "gods MAY exist", and Septic
the Capon has failed the challenge on each and every such occasion.
The agnostics, of whom I am one, hold that neither the possibility
or impossibility of gods has been established as fact, and that
until one of them is so established, no honorable person will claim
the truth of either.
That Septic the Capon violates this moral principle proves him less
that honorable and not an agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 12:59:12 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5B3545.11160931082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
The agnostics, of whom I am one ...
But you are theist. You insist that it must be true that an invisible god
may in reality exist, though you cannot demonstrate any such thing, just as
all the other theolog true-believers do, and you make the same fallacious
argment _ad ignorantiam_ that all the other theolog true-believers do.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote
in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
See how you are trying to shift the burden of proof, arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there is no proof your hypothesis is false? That is
theolog logical fallacy, as Copi explains in the 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: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:55:33 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-5B3545.11160931082003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
;
:> The agnostics, of whom I am one ...
;
:
;But you are theist. You insist that it must be true that an invisible god
:may in reality exist, though you cannot demonstrate any such thing, just as
;all the other theolog true-believers do, and you make the same fallacious
:argment _ad ignorantiam_ that all the other theolog true-believers do.
No no. You got it wrong. Those who assert the null hypothesis, the
one that makes no assumptions, are not believers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 10:23:09 PM |
|
|
In article <QHq4b.315864$Ho3.45117@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5B3545.11160931082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Nbi4b.236944$It4.112590@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
The agnostics, of whom I am one ...
But you are theist.
If I am a theist, who does not believe, then Septic the Capon must
be one also, since wwe have the same amount of belief in the
instantiation of any god.
But Septic the Capon believes that it is a fact (has been proven)
that no such instantiation is possible whereas I believe that it has
not been proven impossible.
Septic the Capon could change my mind by producing the proof he
calims exists.
You insist that it must be true that an invisible god
may in reality exist, though you cannot demonstrate any such thing, just as
all the other theolog true-believers do, and you make the same fallacious
argment _ad ignorantiam_ that all the other theolog true-believers do.
I do not have to prove that there is no evidence showing that the
existence of gods is impposible. Since all I am doing is denying the
existence of such evidence, the burden of proof must lie on those
who assert such existence, preciesly because that is a PoVA(L) much
repeated and emphasized by Septic the Capon.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote
in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
I say what I mean, unlike Septic the Capon.
See how you are trying to shift the burden of proof, arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ that there is no proof your hypothesis is false?
But Septic the Capon insists that, as a 'Principle of Valid
Argument(Logic)" or PoVA(L) for short, when the issue is one of
existence, the denial of that existence must always be presumed, and
the burden of proof is entirely on anyone claiming such existence.
Does Septic the Capon now claim that one of his vaunted PoVA(L)s is
faulty?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Sep 2003 02:38:22 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5962CD.21230831082003@news.newsguy.com...
I do not have to prove that there is no evidence showing that the
existence of gods is impposible.
So, if we straighten out that sentence, and eliminate double negatives, it
boils down to Virgil saying, "I do have to support my assertion that gods
probably exist."
Right on. Now Virgil the dense is beginning to catch on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Sep 2003 02:24:57 PM |
|
|
In article <OHC4b.320411$Ho3.45505@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5962CD.21230831082003@news.newsguy.com...
I do not have to prove that there is no evidence showing that the
existence of gods is impossible.
So, if we straighten out that sentence, and eliminate double negatives, it
boils down to Virgil saying, "I do have to support my assertion that gods
probably exist."
Right on. Now Virgil the dense is beginning to catch on.
If Septic the Capon's transmogrification of my actual statement were
correct, Septic the Capon would be more Catholic than the Popoe.
As usual, Septic the Capon can't, or won't, read simple English.
My statement is about evidence existing, Septic the Capon's
statement is about asserting that gods probably exist, which I did
not do.
Note that I did not say that gods were probable, as Septic the Capon
lyingly insists I did, nor even that they were possible, which
despite Septic the Capon's Dictionary of Delusional Definitions, is
not the same statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:43:51 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic invisible sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it is that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 03:16:25 PM |
|
|
In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic invisible sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it is that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
those who claim "It is a fact(can be demonstrated) that gods cannot
exist". And, since Septic the Capon will try to say that it is not a
claim, in my book (and my dictionaries) what is said to be fact is
being claimed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 04:13:25 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4DCCA4.14162502092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic invisible
sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it is
that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
those who claim ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 02:04:32 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-4DCCA4.14162502092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
;> >
:> >
;> > > My statement is about evidence existing ...
:> >
;> > If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic invisible
:sky
;> > pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it is
:that
;> > you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
:>
;>
:> What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
;> those who claim ...
:
;"There are no gods" is not a claim,
But of course it is a claim. What isn't a claim is the denial of a
claim, the disclaim
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
For example, the denial of the claim "there are no gods" is
"can't say there are no gods".
;it is the denial of one, and the burden
:of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
In article <VJ75b.253180$cF.79607@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4DCCA4.14162502092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic invisible
sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it is
that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
those who claim ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
As Septic the Capon claimed "It is a fact(can be demostrated) that
there are no gods", and not merely "There are no gods", the status
of his weaker claim,"There are no gods", is irrelevant.
But Septic the Capon's claim tht "It is a fact(can be demostrated)
that there are no gods" requires him to provide a demonstration,
which he has not provided.
Since this claim of existence of proof has never been demonstrated,
one must, according to Septic the Capon, presume it to be false.
Which everyone but Septic the Capon does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 06:48:13 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-837799.15490102092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <VJ75b.253180$cF.79607@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4DCCA4.14162502092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic
invisible
sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it
is
that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
those who claim ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the
burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
As Septic the Capon claimed ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 11:06:33 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-837799.15490102092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <VJ75b.253180$cF.79607@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-4DCCA4.14162502092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <bN35b.255008$Oz4.67638@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-BF6868.13245701092003@news.newsguy.com...
My statement is about evidence existing ...
If you have observed some evidence that the hypothetical magic
invisible
sky
pixie you are championing is something real, please describe what it
is
that
you have observed so that anyone can test your observations.
What I have observed is a total lack of evidence being produced by
those who claim ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim, it is the denial of one, and the
burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, knucklehead.
As Septic the Capon claimed ...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also. Septic inhabits his own little world, quite
separate from that of the rest of us.
Septic remains the completely delusional, mendacious, and discredited
old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Demonstrated fact.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 12:11:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is? They are those pets you see everywhere,
panting and barking and wagging their tails.
What's that "God" proposition in your argument below? How about a
meaningful, testable explanation of precisely what it is you imagine it to
be?
---
Jeffie's argument for God from atheism:
http://tinylink.com/?UK4MWfdQEE
Message 1 in thread
From: Jeffrey A. Young (jyoung@ultra0.rdrc.rpi.edu)
Subject: If you're atheist, God exists.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
View this article only
Date: 1999/10/28
Premises:
P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
treated equally as regards their truth.
P3. There is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Lemma:
L1. There can be no empirical evidence that anyone lacks any given
belief. (Argued conclusively by Sinister et al.)
Conclusion:
C. The assertion "God exists" must be treated equally with
"I am atheist" as regards their truth.
Or, less formally, if you're atheist, then God exists.
Q.E.D.
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:05:59 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Ggp5b.162143$2x.46219@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is?
I know it is not a proposition. And neither is "dog".
You still don't know what a proposition is, Septic?
<snip yet another attempt at distraction>
Septic remains the completely clueless, confused, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. As demonstrated
daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:26:55 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040705.606ecf34@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Ggp5b.162143$2x.46219@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is?
I know it is not a proposition.
Oh? You know that? But you still insist that you know that the denial of
your proposition, "God exists," "There is no God" is a proposition standing
in need of proof? You may believe that you know a lot, but do you know that
d-o-g is your G-o-d proposition spelled backwards? We already know what
'dog' means. Now, how about you producing a meaningful, testable explanation
of what you have observed in connection with your 'G-o-d' proposition so
that anyone can test your observations.
Your lame argument from the existence of atheists you gave for the existence
of G-o-d does not do that. Your G-o-d letter string is still essentially
undefined. What is it, precisely, you believe that you have proven exists
here?
---
Jeffie's argument for God from atheism:
http://tinylink.com/?UK4MWfdQEE
Message 1 in thread
From: Jeffrey A. Young (jyoung@ultra0.rdrc.rpi.edu)
Subject: If you're atheist, God exists.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
View this article only
Date: 1999/10/28
Premises:
P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
treated equally as regards their truth.
P3. There is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Lemma:
L1. There can be no empirical evidence that anyone lacks any given
belief. (Argued conclusively by Sinister et al.)
Conclusion:
C. The assertion "God exists" must be treated equally with
"I am atheist" as regards their truth.
Or, less formally, if you're atheist, then God exists.
Q.E.D.
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 09:33:06 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3RI5b.168454$2x.46918@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040705.606ecf34@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Ggp5b.162143$2x.46219@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030806.5dd748c@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1%95b.158315$2x.44156@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"There are no gods" is not a claim,
On planet Skeptune maybe. Where "dog" is a very meaningful
proposition also.
You still don't know what a dog is?
I know it is not a proposition.
Oh?
A dog is not a proposition. And neither is "dog" a proposition.
"There are no gods" is a claim. Unless you live on planet Skeptune.
<snip yet another confused attempt at diversion by Septic>
Septic remains the completely confused, fallacious, refuted,
mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Demonstrated daily as fact.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
