"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QihTa.109850$OZ2.21429@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0307220829.5cabe911@posting.google.com...
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> wrote in message
news:<WL0Ta.104147$OZ2.20516@rwcrnsc54>...
George Dance wrote:
"D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com> wrote in message
news:<OxkSa.100257$ye4.71605@sccrnsc01>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307191401.7b9d5e44@posting.google.com...
<quote>
1. There is no known proof of the non-existence of gods.
...
17. There may be a god. (16 Idem)
QED
</quote>
Which is precisely what I pointed out is your argument _ad
ignorantiam_
fallacy, knucklehead.
No, clown, you called it an _ad ignorantiam_; there's a difference.
You cannot reasonably argue that there may be an
undetectable something because there is no proof your hypothesis is
false.
And as you know, that is not what I have done. I have argued it from
your own expressed principle ...
*****, Buckwheat...
George has constructed his argument from your own expressed principles
*****, Buckwheat...
It's simply a fact that you've misstated the argument, as your first
attempt (above) proves. In that one, you snipped most of the steps
(including the principles you have again snipped here, in Jeff Young's
reply and mine - but you forgot to snip the numbering and
justification. It's quite clear from the above evidence that step 17
does not follow from step 1, as you're claiming, but from 16.
... there might be a
magic invisible something because there is no proof that hypothesis is
false...
That might be your reason for believing that 'there might be a magic
invisible something," but it is not mine - as my argument shows.
... 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!
Actually, in normal logic, both Galileo's claim:
"The moon has irregularities."
and your claim, that:
"The moon does not have any irregularities."
both require proof, to be accepted as true.
Only Septic Logic claims that Galileo had the sole burden of proof.
.
