| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
18 Nov 2005 08:13:27 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132332207.692350.117820@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del.
http://tinyurl.com/d67p6f
You've got the wrong guy
Sounds like you are telling us, "Trust me, I know
it is true that I might not be DotSix."
You've got the wrong guy, Dell.
What do you know of these kinds of proceedings?
For example, do you have to prove you are not a child molester?
A pathetic dodge DotSix.
What do you mean 'dodge'?
Can OS XI prove
This isn't about OS XI,
Ohhh, yes it is, sir. And you can't support _any_ of your statements
evidently, DotSix. Bwahahahahaha.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
18 Nov 2005 04:57:00 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del.
http://tinyurl.com/d67p6f
You've got the wrong guy
Sounds like you are telling us, "Trust me, I know
it is true that I might not be DotSix."
prove you are not a child molester...
A pathetic dodge DotSix. Ad hominem won't help you prove
that you *might not* be DotSix. Now quit deleting my text
and answer the question:
But answer me this one question. (You're not afraid
of a little question are you?) You have also posted
in this thread under the name Squareknot, yes or no? "
Why are you so frightened of a yes or no question?
What do you mean 'dodge'?
LOL! Yes, that is _exactly_ what I mean! Keep 'em
coming, Simple.>
Go figure.
Boring. I'm losing interest in your kneejerk responses.
Unfortunately for you, you can't afford to ignore _my_ posts.
So although I won't be seeing your posts, you will be seeing
mine. I will make fun of you from time to time to remind you
that I know that you know that I know how important I am to
you. I What a pisser for you, eh?
Hahahahahahahahaha!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 08:25:15 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del. I have never been banned from anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 11:46:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del. I have never been banned from anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
You've got the wrong guy, Jeff. I am not DotSix. That is one of Mark
Richardson's (aka 'Ancheta Wis') sock puppets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 01:48:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1132163171.237035.257730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del. I have never been banned from anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
You've got the wrong guy, Jeff. I am not DotSix. That is one of Mark
Richardson's (aka 'Ancheta Wis') sock puppets.
But Septic, aka "os xi" has plenty sock puppets of his own:
Septic 1995 - 2004 (v 2.0)
"ABC" <abc@hotmail.com>
"Abu ben Hogan" <benhogan@nospamhotmail.com>
Ace (dralford@pacificrim.net)
"Al" <arc@nospam.com>
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com>
"Arn" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arno" <arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Arnold" <arnold02165@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art" <art300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Art2" <art2300001@hotmailspamblock.com>
"B. Corporeal" <bcorp392@hotmail.com>
"B. Corporel" <bcorp39874@hotmail.com>
"Ben" <someone @microsoft.com>
"Bill Gates" <billg@microsaused.com>
bfskinner@my-deja.com
"Bo Hica" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Bob D." <bobd2004@comcast.com>
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
"Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
muddyboggs@hotmail.com (Boggs)
"C Ketchikan" <cj@ket.net>
"C. Tailor" <ct98229@hotmail.com>
"Creon" <douglacia@nospamathome.com>
"D. Wolfe" <wolfe@stancion.com>
"D R" <nospam@please.com>
D_R_Alford,dralford-pacificrim.net@carletonbe.ottawa.on.ca
(D R Alford,dralford@pacificrim.net)
"Dan" <abusemail@uunet.com>
"***** Dragon" <Matt-Sweetman-Is-A-Fraud@alloverthe.net>
"***** Dragon" <nospam@all.net>
Diesel <abuse-mail@uu.net>
DRAlford@gnn.com (Donald R. Alford)
"Donald Alford" <donald_alford@email.msn.com>
Donald Alford <dralford@pacificrim.net>
"Donald Alford" <y3kSPAM@uswest.net>
DR Feelgood <drfeelgood3000@hotmailspamblock.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sinster" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
"Dr. Sister" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Dr. Sister" <Slather-is-a-fraud@alloverthe.net>
dtrout@wolfe.net.com (Fish)
"Duck" <quacker@webfoot.net>
"Fish" (David B. Trout) <fish@infidels.invalid>
"Frazier" <fraz@stones.com>
"Fred" <someone@amazon.com>
"Fred Skinner" <nospam@all.all>
"Fred Skinner" <y3k@NOSPAMuswest.net>
"Frisbyterian" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Frisbyterian Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Gawud" <dad@home.com>
"Hans" <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Hans Van M." <hansv@hotmail.com>
"Ho Hum" <hohum@weareallone.net>
"Ho Hum" <nospam@forme.please>
Hum <hohum2001@my-deja.com>
"Huxley" <someone@microsoft.com>
"Hy" <hrh@hrh.net>
"I M Notajoiner" <nospam@all.atall>
"Ima Skeptic Too" <Dad@home.com>
int@hotmail.com
"Jaco Bandolim" <jband@sparknode.com>
"Jaco Mandolin" <jmand@sparknode.com>
"John McTavish" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
"JR1" <jr1@jr.com>
"JR2" <jr2@jr.com>
"JR3" <jr3@jr.com>
"KB" <kb@hotmail.com>
"KBC" <kbc@westlink.cop>
"Krait Bungarus Caeruleus" <kbc@wesltink.com>
"Mac" <mac@mac.com>
"Mac Intosh" <macint@mac.com>
"McSweeny" <mcs@hootmon.com>
"Mekkala's Alleged \"Blithering Fucking Idiot\"" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Muddy Boggs" <muddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
"Mudddy Boggs" <mudddyboggs@nospamhotmail.com>
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com>
Navigator <nav@nospam.com>
navigator3001@hotmail.com (Navigator)
"Nick" <nospam@all.all>
Notajoiner (donald_alford@nospamemail.msn.com)
Notajoiner (nospam@all.atall)
Notajoiner (nospam@please.comeon)
"Oil-O-Matic" <aikin@nospam.com>
"one" <one@world.net>
"Otto" <ottumwa3001@hotmailt.com>
"Page Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Paige Downey" <pd98229@hotmail.com>
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net>
PBJ <pbj@nospam.com>
"PsychStudent" <psychstudent@earth.net>
"Proulx" <pru@az.net>
"Ray" <ray@hotmail.com>
"Rhode Island Red" <rirrooster2000@hotmail.com>
"Roger Bush" <roger@bush.com>
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster)
"Romeo" <romeo@shakespear.net>
"Rooster" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Rooster" <nospam@all.all>
"Rooster" <rooster@hotmail.com>
"Salmon Loaf" <sal097236@hotmail.com>
"Sam Spade" <sspade@hotmail.com>
"Shleptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uu.net>
"Skeptic" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <Dad@home.com>
"Skeptic" <nospam@all.all>
"Skeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Skeptic" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Skeptic Schemeptic" <NOSPAMabuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com>
"Smith" <nospam@all.all>
"Spike Nail" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"Stanley Leverlock" <stan@nospam.com>
"Stanley/Oilman/Ben/Septic/Whatever" <stan@nospam.com>
"Steven V. Snyder" <2098snyder360@hootmail.com>
"Sven" <svh@nospam.com>
"T. Jefferson" <abuse-mail@uunet.com>
"The Theeeenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Theenker" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"The Thinkerator" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Threeball Hall" <hall31728@hotmail.com>
Tim <tim3000@nospam.com>
toadfrog3001@hotmail.com (Todd Field)
"Tom Wetsuit" <SkepticsNetNymsLLC@uunet.com>
"Vital Basics" <vb32987@hotmail.com>
"Whitey" <tonyb@hotmail.com>
"Whosya Daddy" <Dad@home.com>
"Wolf Blister" <wolf@uunet.com>
oilomatic@hotmail.com (Y3K)
"Y3K" <y3k@hotmail.com>
"Yoda" <yoda@hotmail.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 12:30:39 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
.... not DotSix.
Yes DotSix. No one was picking on you. You got banned
for a year. Just shut up about it if you don't want it to
become 2 years. Got it?
PS: Give the ad hominem a rest you dumb *****.
LOL!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 08:05:21 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del. I have never been banned from anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
You've got the wrong guy, Jeff. I am not DotSix.
posters to alt.atheism having identical IP address to Dot Six:
Long 16-Jan-2005 67.182.157.6
Incubus 30-Jan-2005 67.182.157.6
Tygasi 2-Feb-2005 67.182.157.6
Atheistagnostic 20-Feb-2005 67.182.157.6
Jake 15-Mar-2005 67.182.157.6
JHC 16-Apr-2005 67.182.157.6
Loadnlock 17-Apr-2005 67.182.157.6
Pesche 9-May-2005 67.182.157.6
Sam Jankis 15-May-2005 67.182.157.6
Deep Thought 5-Jun-2005 67.182.157.6
MagicRub 8-Jun-2005 67.182.157.6
Deep Thought 12-Jun-2005 67.182.157.6
Tiger 12-Jul-2005 67.182.157.6
Jones 5-Aug-2005 67.182.157.6
SquareKnot 7-Oct-2005 67.182.157.6
DotSix/Skeptic switches IP addresses after 8th Nov 2005 - does not
change ISP/personality/ posting style/ vocabulary/"thought" patterns.
todd 8-Nov-2005 67.182.151.27
OS XI 8-Nov-2005 67.182.151.27
Mac 9-Nov-2005 67.182.151.27
Miller 15-Nov-2005 67.182.151.27
That is one of Mark
Richardson's (aka 'Ancheta Wis') sock puppets.
You are a looney.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
16 Nov 2005 09:31:21 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
... "thought" patterns.
Why the scare quotes? Is there something being said to which you can
state a sound reason for taking exception, or are you just going to
keep on arguing ad hominem, which, as you know, is logical fallacy, Mr.
Weasel?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
17 Nov 2005 12:08:21 AM |
|
|
In article <1132198281.065283.160610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Richo wrote:
... "thought" patterns.
Why the scare quotes?
Perhaps Richo merely was expressing his doubt that what Septic does can
be properly described as thinking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
17 Nov 2005 04:35:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:08:21 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <1132198281.065283.160610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Richo wrote:
... "thought" patterns.
Why the scare quotes?
Perhaps Richo merely was expressing his doubt that what Septic does can
be properly described as thinking.
Bingo!
Virgil gets a special golden star.
OS XI (AKA DotSix) gets to wear the pointed hat and sit facing the
corner.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
17 Nov 2005 06:14:10 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
... got himself banned for a year ...
You've got the wrong guy, Del. I have never been banned from anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
You've got the wrong guy, Jeff. I am not DotSix. That is one of Mark
Richardson's (aka 'Ancheta Wis') sock puppets.
You are lying, Septic. Ho hum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:32:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1132082914.595126.46550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Miler wrote:
You and Virgil and friends hypothesize that there might be X
(whatever you
imagine X to be), and then you argue _ad ignorantiam_
False.
You are mistaken, it is true.
When will you children
Tut tut, Septic. Argumentum ad hominem will not help you make your
case. Bwahahahaha.
Jeff
So Jeff and friends can dish out a truck-load of it, but they cannot
take a thimblefull? Tsk tsk.
But, okay, to be fair, how about BOTH sides dropping the ad hom
completely and holding a frank discussion of the issue, your
hypothetical God thingy (by hypothetical I mean your 'might be'
conjecture)?
What about Septics must not be Argumentum ad Ignorantiam?
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:32:49 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jien...@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Miler wrote:
You and Virgil and friends hypothesize that there might be X (whatever you
imagine X to be), and then you argue _ad ignorantiam_
False.
You are mistaken
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
When will you children
Tut tut, Septic. Argumentum ad hominem will not help you make your
case. Bwahahahaha.
Jeff
So Jeff and friends can dish out a truck-load of it,
Tut tut, Septic. All this Argumentum ad hominem is not helping you to
make your case atall atall. Stick to the issue -- how can we know when
any X is in existence. If the requirement is probative,
objectively-verifiable evidence, so that anyone can check the
observation, as _you_ yourself insist (for "any X atall atall"), then
we're still waiting for your evidence that anyone lacks all belief in
all gods (NO ATHEISTS), and we're still waiting for any such evidence
that you have a brain in your cranium (NO BRAIN). Your evidence goes
here, Septic:
(Hoist, hoist, hoist.)
<snip Septic suggesting to "be fair"; how rich; Bwahahahahaha>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 10:13:50 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 10:22:23 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:03:26 PM |
|
|
In article <1132071743.289290.234540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
Where does Copi say that speculating "MIGHT BE" for lack of opposition
is the same as arguing "MUST BE for lack of opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is NOT.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 10:32:01 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 11:02:05 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
What is it in the above comment, precisely, to which you are taking
exception? Please be specific, and show reasoning (and lay off the
argument _ad hominem_, it won't help you make your case). If you can't
do that, then you are just blowing more smokescreen for your failed
argument that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
You have the floor sir. (Remember, be specific and show your work, show
your reasoning. With all due respect, so far all you have is argument
_ad ignorantiam_ and argument _ad hominem_, both logical fallacy sir.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:15:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1132074125.472663.55890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
What is it in the above comment, precisely, to which you are taking
exception? Please be specific, and show reasoning (and lay off the
argument _ad hominem_, it won't help you make your case). If you can't
do that, then you are just blowing more smokescreen for your failed
argument that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
You have the floor sir. (Remember, be specific and show your work, show
your reasoning. With all due respect, so far all you have is argument
_ad ignorantiam_ and argument _ad hominem_, both logical fallacy sir.)
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 11:13:24 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
What is it in the above comment, precisely, to which you are taking
exception? Please be specific, and show reasoning (and lay off the
argument _ad hominem_, it won't help you make your case). If you can't
do that, then you are just blowing more smokescreen for your failed
argument that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
You have the floor sir. (Remember, be specific and show your work, show
your reasoning. With all due respect, so far all you have is argument
_ad ignorantiam_ and argument _ad hominem_, both logical fallacy sir.)
Well, of course, I've already done this, but I'll go ahead and post it
again. You, of course, will ignore it again; but at this point I'm
still having fun, so here you are, starting with Copi's actual
definition of the argument from ignorance, which I've posted several
times and you've ignored on each occassion:
BEGIN QUOTED ARGUMENT:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."
I assume you're willing to accept this definition, since you've cited
Copi as an authority. On his model, an argument from ignorance might
look like this:
"The existence of God has not been logically disproven; therefore, God
exists."
You can see how silly that is; surely, no rational person would make
such an argument, right?
An alternative framing, using the second part of Copi's definition
("that it is false because it has not been proven true") would look a
little something like this:
"The existence of God has not been logically proven; therefore, God does
not exist."
Again, pretty damned silly, huh? Nobody with a shred of a brain would
make such a silly argument, would they?
On the other hand, the argument we're making is this:
Premise A. Anything that is not logically impossible might exist.
I assume you're willing to accept Premise A; after all, "might exist"
pretty much means the same thing as "is not logically impossible". If
you don't accept the premise, you need to tell us why.
Premise B. The existence of God has not been logically disproven.
Premise B is true as far as I know; if it's not, I'd certainly condede
that God cannot exist. If you know of a proof I've never seen, go ahead
and post it.
Conclusion: God might exist.
The conclusion follows logically from the premises; it's a valid
argument, and there's no fallacy involved. Having read and accepted
Copi's definition, you can see that, can't you? Sure you can. If you
can't, then I'll have to be content with the knowledge that everybody
with a functioning brain who's reading this exchange can.
Of course, the fact that God might exist constitutes absolutely no
reason to assume that he does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 01:22:11 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
What is it in the above comment, precisely, to which you are taking
exception? Please be specific, and show reasoning (and lay off the
argument _ad hominem_, it won't help you make your case). If you can't
do that, then you are just blowing more smokescreen for your failed
argument that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
You have the floor sir. (Remember, be specific and show your work, show
your reasoning. With all due respect, so far all you have is argument
_ad ignorantiam_ and argument _ad hominem_, both logical fallacy sir.)
Well, of course, I've already done this, but I'll go ahead and post it
again. You, of course, will ignore it again; but at this point I'm
still having fun, so here you are, starting with Copi's actual
definition of the argument from ignorance, which I've posted several
times and you've ignored on each occassion:
BEGIN QUOTED ARGUMENT:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."
I assume you're willing to accept this definition, since you've cited
Copi as an authority. On his model, an argument from ignorance might
look like this:
"The existence of God has not been logically disproven; therefore, God
exists."
God is hypothetical ('might be' conjecture), is it not? There is no
proof that it is real is there?
So that example argument should be stated, "There might be a God, and
this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false!" (Compare this to the
example argument _ad ignorantiam_ from Copi below.)
Is it not your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false?
Is that argument _ad ignorantiam_ not identical to the example of
theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ Copi cites in _Introduction to Logic_?
If not, then will you please explain the difference?
Here is Copi's example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ which you
have yet to face up to honestly:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
<snip the rest pending settlement of this, the main issue>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 05:07:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1132082531.306191.39430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is Copi's example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ which you
have yet to face up to honestly:
---
<quote>
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.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
How is this claim of something existing "IN FACT" relevant to a
speculation that something "MIGHT BE"?
Septic conflates "MIGHT BE" with "MUST BE. again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:30:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1132082531.306191.39430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Well, of course, I've already done this, but I'll go ahead and post it
again. You, of course, will ignore it again; but at this point I'm
still having fun, so here you are, starting with Copi's actual
definition of the argument from ignorance, which I've posted several
times and you've ignored on each occassion:
BEGIN QUOTED ARGUMENT:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."
I assume you're willing to accept this definition, since you've cited
Copi as an authority. On his model, an argument from ignorance might
look like this:
"The existence of God has not been logically disproven; therefore, God
exists."
God is hypothetical ('might be' conjecture), is it not? There is no
proof that it is real is there?
Nor any that any god is unreal.
So that example argument should be stated, "There might be a God
The issue is whether there MUST be a god.
If Septic claims that "there MIGHT be a god" constitues a fallacy, he is
declaring that he knows "there MIGHT be a god" to be false because it
hasn't been proven true, which it Septic committting the vary Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam he accuses everyone else of committing.
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:06:34 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
When will you children learn the principle: comment on content, not on
the contributor, because commenting on the contributor is argument ad
hominem, logical fallacy, and will not help you make your case for your
god?
Oh, okay. Septic, your content is utter crap. It shows no
understanding whatsoever of basic logic, and indicates that you believe
the rote repitition of utterly refuted arguments is a good way to
restore them to credibility. Your content appears to be the product of
a high-school student with a deep need for attention, who has happened
across a couple of technical terms in a book and repeats them over and
over, without quite knowing what they mean. In short, your content is
logically invalid, intellectually bankrupt, deeply dishonest and chock
full of witless bufoonery.
That better?
The fact is that the argument _ad ignorantiam_ your side is pushing,
the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' theist conjecture) is
false, that kind of argument is definitely logical fallacy, as Copi
points out:
---
<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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
This is too much fun. I accuse you of reposting refuted argments and
failing to understand your sources, and in response, you repost a
refuted argument, supported by a source you don't understand. You're a
pip, Septic. A true pip.
What is it in the above comment, precisely, to which you are taking
exception? Please be specific, and show reasoning (and lay off the
argument _ad hominem_, it won't help you make your case). If you can't
do that, then you are just blowing more smokescreen for your failed
argument that there might be a god because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
You have the floor sir. (Remember, be specific and show your work, show
your reasoning. With all due respect, so far all you have is argument
_ad ignorantiam_ and argument _ad hominem_, both logical fallacy sir.)
Well, of course, I've already done this, but I'll go ahead and post it
again. You, of course, will ignore it again; but at this point I'm
still having fun, so here you are, starting with Copi's actual
definition of the argument from ignorance, which I've posted several
times and you've ignored on each occassion:
BEGIN QUOTED ARGUMENT:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."
I assume you're willing to accept this definition, since you've cited
Copi as an authority. On his model, an argument from ignorance might
look like this:
"The existence of God has not been logically disproven; therefore, God
exists."
God is hypothetical ('might be' conjecture), is it not? There is no
proof that it is real is there?
So that example argument should be stated, "There might be a God, and
this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false!" (Compare this to the
example argument _ad ignorantiam_ from Copi below.)
Is it not your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false?
You snipped my argument, Septic -- just as I predicted you would. You
did this because you couldn't deal with it, and because you are
fundamentally dishonest.
Is that argument _ad ignorantiam_ not identical to the example of
theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ Copi cites in _Introduction to Logic_?
If not, then will you please explain the difference?
Well, I'll try. I'm pretty sure you won't understand it, though.
The argument that there might be a God because the existence of God has
not been disproven isn't even an argument; it's a tautology. "Might
exist" means the same thing as "hasn't been logically disproven".
If the argument cited below were in the same, tautological form, it
would read "It hasn't been proven that the irregularities of the moon
are filled by an invisible crystalline substance, therefore they might
be." Again this would be a tautology (although a singularly silly and
pointless one) rather than a logical fallacy.
Galileo's opponents, though, took the matter one step further: they
assumed the truth of their unproven hypothesis (that the irregularities
of the moon were filled with an invisible crystalline substance) on the
basis that it couldn't be disproven, and then used it support a further
conclusion (that the moon was perfectly spherical). It was this step
that led them into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
There aren't any "mights" in the argument from ignorance; it consists in
asserting the truth of a proposition on the basis that that proposition
has not been proven false, as stated in Copi's definition of same, which
you (as predicted) snipped. One does not need to prove that something
might exist because it hasn't been logically disproven, since the two
terms of the proposition mean the same thing.
Here is Copi's example of theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ which you
have yet to face up to honestly:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of | | | | | | | |
