| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"C Ketchikan" |
| Date: |
31 Jul 2003 05:12:23 PM |
| Object: |
Re: If ..., then ... argument |
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200531.6c708870@posting.google.com...
wen-king@myri.com (Wen-King Su) wrote in message
news:<bfd7n9$mmt@neptune.myri-local.com>...
In a previous article "D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com> writes:
:
;
:"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.
Why would you do that when it is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Because he cannot answer the actual argument ...
That is precisely your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument in a nutshell,
knucklehead, that there may be an invisible something (still essentially
undefined) you call "god" because (you argue _ad ignorantiam_) there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: If ..., then ... argument |
03 Aug 2003 12:14:19 PM |
|
|
<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:_7WWa.25073$5O3.9351@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
In talk.atheism C Ketchikan <cj@ket.net> wrote:
The multi-headed hydra rears it's illogical head yet again.
<plonk>
Still can't face reality, knucklehead?
[unsnip]
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200531.6c708870@posting.google.com...
wen-king@myri.com (Wen-King Su) wrote in message
news:<bfd7n9$mmt@neptune.myri-local.com>...
In a previous article "D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com> writes:
:
;
:"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.
Why would you do that when it is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Because he cannot answer the actual argument ...
That is precisely your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument in a nutshell,
knucklehead, that there may be an invisible something (still essentially
undefined) you call "god" because (you argue _ad ignorantiam_) there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: If ..., then ... argument |
03 Aug 2003 07:45:36 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
;news:_7WWa.25073$5O3.9351@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
:> In talk.atheism C Ketchikan <cj@ket.net> wrote:
;>
:> The multi-headed hydra rears it's illogical head yet again.
;>
:> <plonk>
;
:Still can't face reality, knucklehead?
;
:[unsnip]
;
:"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
;news:6312c50b.0307200531.6c708870@posting.google.com...
:> (Wen-King Su) wrote in message
;news:<bfd7n9$mmt@neptune.myri-local.com>...
:> > In a previous article "D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com> writes:
;> > :
:> > ;
;> > :"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.
:> >
;> > Why would you do that when it is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
:>
;> Because he cannot answer the actual argument ...
:
;That is precisely your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument in a nutshell,
:knucklehead, that there may be an invisible something (still essentially
;undefined) you call "god" because (you argue _ad ignorantiam_) there is no
:proof that hypothesis is false.
Please, post the quote from Copi, note how Galileo show the theologs'
arguments to be argumentum ad ignorantiam, and do the same to this
argument that you say is also one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: If ..., then ... argument |
01 Aug 2003 12:34:46 AM |
|
|
In article <bvgWa.22269$cF.8949@rwcrnsc53>,
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0307200531.6c708870@posting.google.com...
wen-king@myri.com (Wen-King Su) wrote in message
news:<bfd7n9$mmt@neptune.myri-local.com>...
In a previous article "D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com> writes:
:
;
:"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.
Why would you do that when it is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Because he cannot answer the actual argument ...
That is precisely your not-too-cleverly-disguised argument in a nutshell,
knucklehead, that there may be an invisible something (still essentially
undefined) you call "god" because (you argue _ad ignorantiam_) there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
Septic Capon, with a new name but the same old tired sophistry.
Septic responds to non-existent statements, misquotes, lies, and
generally behaves like a bad boy in a snit because his erratic
essays into illogic are so poorly received.
He repeatedly claims that those who have declared themselves to be
agnostic (in Huxley's sense, not Septic's) are actually believers in
something Septic created out of whole cloth (invisible pixies I
believe is what Septic calls his own personal maculate conception).
In fact, even the most ardent of theists could not believe in any of
Septic's delusions.
If Septic were to take lessons from Huxley, he might learn at least
civility.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
