| 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: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 10:05:02 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Would you like to tell me more about if you're going to develop this
further?
How do you feel about your mother?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 11:22:07 AM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Would you like to tell me more about if you're going to develop this
further?
How do you feel about your mother?
Does that question interest you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 01:04:50 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
in which Copi uses precisely that type of theist argument from
ignorance as an example of theist logical fallacy:
---
<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_)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
What do you say to that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 04:32:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1132254290.837345.245000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
in which Copi uses precisely that type of theist argument from
ignorance as an example of theist logical fallacy:
Better logicians than Simple Septic the Secret Theist will note that
while possibility and impossibility are mutually exclusive they are also
inclusive, in that one of them MUST be the case.
Simple Septic the Secret Theist is trying to argue that neither
possibility nor impossibility need be the case, i.e., that without
knowing that gods are impossible we can reject the possibility that
there are any gods.
Simple Septic the Secret Theist's logic need revamping when he argues
such a foolish position.
Particularly when Simple Septic the Secret Theist repeats the same bad
argument ad nauseam.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 04:26:13 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_.
Oh, that reminds me. We need to add "ad hominem" to the list of terms
Septic uses without understanding what they mean.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 01:12:21 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did and you ignored it, just as you ignored the substance
of my observations here. Hence my conclusion that you are
only programmed to pick up on certain key phrases. [Note:
the reason I'm posting this is that I imagine your
programmer is watching your interactions, at least every
now and then. I can give him/her advice if s/he likes.]
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 01:27:22 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did ...
No you did not, son. You are trying to change the subject to your lame
argument ad hominem. Try staying on topic, try dealing honestly with
what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
in which Copi uses precisely that type of theist argument from
ignorance as an example of theist logical fallacy:
---
<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_)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
What do you say to that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 04:34:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1132255642.261353.42290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
OS XI wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
What do you say to that?
Simple Septic the Secret Theist is in a rut. And a fallacious one at
that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 01:31:36 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did ...
No you did not, son. You are trying to change the subject to your lame
argument ad hominem. Try staying on topic, try dealing honestly with
what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
How does your system respond to the phrase "modal logic"?
It ignored it in the past; have you updated it to cope with
it now?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 02:00:18 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did ...
No you did not, son. You are trying to change the subject to your lame
argument ad hominem. Try staying on topic, try dealing honestly with
what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
How does your system respond to the phrase "modal logic"?
It ignored it in the past; have you updated it to cope with
it now?
My "system"??? There you go again with the argument _ad hominem_. It is
the principles of informal (ordinary language) logic (particularly the
one Copi cites, the one you are trying to ignore)that apply to this
situation, right?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
Now why don't you stop trying to change the subject?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 04:37:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1132257618.777222.243510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did ...
No you did not, son. You are trying to change the subject to your lame
argument ad hominem. Try staying on topic, try dealing honestly with
what was said:
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist. See Copi, _Introduction to Logic_,
How does your system respond to the phrase "modal logic"?
It ignored it in the past; have you updated it to cope with
it now?
My "system"??? There you go again with the argument _ad hominem_.
Actually, it is questioning the existence of any homo to argue ad/
It is
the principles of informal (ordinary language) logic (particularly the
one Copi cites, the one you are trying to ignore)that apply to this
situation, right?
Wrong!
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
Because the subject, Simple Septic the Secret Theist, badly need
changing. He has been pooping in his logical panties too long to go
without one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 02:44:22 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians? Ha ha ha. Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ like your side
does is logical fallacy, Mr. Theist.
Okay, I confess. I thought you were a real person for a while,
but then I always tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Now
I see you're just an eliza-type AI project. Not final year,
unless standards have gone down; junior year in the US, second
year perhaps in the UK. On that basis, I'd give you a B in
the US, or around 65 in the UK.
What you need is more variety in the key phrases you pick
up on, and also in the style of response. I know, I know;
it makes the rule base a lot bigger, and you haven't got
time for that within the space of the module. But it's
what you need to do if you're going to develop this
further for a final year project.
Don't try to change the subject with a silly diversion into some kind
of lame argument _ad hominem_. Try staying on topic, try dealing
honestly with what was said:
I did ...
No you did not
Yes he did, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 08:40:04 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I thought this was gonna be a real atheism v. agnosticism debate,
or something.
You won't convince anybody you are undecided by continuing to stick
with the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false, Mr. Theist.
Holy, Crap, DeepSix -- you just got forging somebody else's name and
email address in a pathetic attempt to support your argument, and yet
here you are, posting away as if nothing happened. Aren't you embarassed?
Don't try to change the subject. We are discussing your theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, Mr. Theist.
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians?
Yes, sir.
<snip Fallacies of Argument by Ridicule and Argumentum ad hominem from
Septic, as usual>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 09:51:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I thought this was gonna be a real atheism v. agnosticism debate,
or something.
You won't convince anybody you are undecided by continuing to stick
with the theist argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false, Mr. Theist.
Holy, Crap, DeepSix -- you just got forging somebody else's name and
email address in a pathetic attempt to support your argument, and yet
here you are, posting away as if nothing happened. Aren't you embarassed?
Don't try to change the subject. We are discussing your theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a God because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, Mr. Theist.
Maybe you should realize that most of the people you are
arguing against aren't theists. They're just better logicians
than you are.
Better logicians?
Yes, sir.
And that ain't braggin,' either. I know intelligent pre-schoolers
who are better logicians than him.
<snip Fallacies of Argument by Ridicule and Argumentum ad hominem from
Septic, as usual>
Indeed. Par for the course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
16 Nov 2005 09:24:27 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
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.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
16 Nov 2005 11:34:29 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
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.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Your deceit.
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
I can, and I did.
I didnt say it was a competent or clever forgery.
I have never accussed you of being competent.
Stupid, dishonest, insane. Yes all of that - but never competent.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
17 Nov 2005 11:17:12 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
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.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
I can, and I did.
Don't be stupid. How could it be called forgery when it has a
completely different email address, moron? That doesn't make sense.
Your paranoia is showing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
17 Nov 2005 04:47:50 PM |
|
|
In article <1132247832.183527.41650@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
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.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
I can, and I did.
Don't be stupid. How could it be called forgery when it has a
completely different email address, moron? That doesn't make sense.
Well, Simple Septic the Secret Theist,AKA "OS XI", never makes sense,
so he is hardly the one to judge when others do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination (was: Is Atheism a Safe Bet?) |
17 Nov 2005 04:30:13 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Richo wrote:
Richo wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
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.
Nominated in the "Lamest Arguments That There Might Be A Magic
Invisible God" category.
Seconds?
Seconded.
This is a forgery.
What are you raving about now, Richardson?
Let's check the facts.
Your email is
This other is
You can't call yell "FORGERY!" if it has a totally different email
address, moron.
I can, and I did.
Don't be stupid. How could it be called forgery when it has a
completely different email address, moron?
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 04:33:44 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have suspected
it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for the full arsenal
of net.kookery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 06:28:59 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have suspected
it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for the full arsenal
of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God, son, it is
just more logical fallacy piled on top of your other logical fallacy,
your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might actually be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false. Those are typical theist tactics. We see it all the time in
sci.skeptic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 08:47:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they dont
look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have suspected
it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for the full arsenal
of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and "might
not be".
Simple Septic the Secret Theist apparently cannot stomach that agnostic
position so falsely badmouths it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
17 Nov 2005 11:17:18 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making something look like
something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A
Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - such as yours - will fool people if they
dont look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize
Septic
was a forger as well as a liar and a buffoon. I should have
suspected it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for
the full arsenal of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and
"might not be".
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Again, the class of gods that are creator of all
and omni-everything are disprovable.
They must not be. Again you say stupid things and
won't correct yourself when its pointed out.
You do this repeatly which makes you a liar.
Not that you have ever cared when in the past I have
corrected you repeatedly only to see you spew the
same wrong thing over and over like a broken record.
You rant at Skeptic while lying for years on end.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
Simple Septic the Secret Theist apparently cannot stomach that
agnostic position so falsely badmouths it.
--
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the
gods are concerned mostly with trees."
- Lao Tse
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 12:32:43 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making someth ing look like
something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A
Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - su ch as yours - will fool people if they
dont look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize
Septic
was a forger as well as a li ar and a buffoon. I should have
suspected it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for
the full arsenal of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and
"might not be".
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Oh this is a crack up. Cheerful Charlie pretends to
speak for atheists AND science all the time, offering
his embarrassing "proof" of no god while refusing
to address refutations of it. A real embarrassment to
rational atheists.
Again you say stupid things and
won't correct yourself when its pointed out.
You do this repeatly which makes you a liar.
Oh the irony! This is _exactly_ what Cheerful Charlie
does. Smoking gun evidence upon request (which is more
that what CC will ever offer for his accusations). Go
ahead, deny it CC. I dare ya.
Could CC be another Septic sock puppet?
Not that you have ever cared when in the past I have
corrected you repeatedly only to see you spew the
same wrong thing over and over like a broken record.
Damn! Even with my irony meter on lowest sensitivity
CC just smoked it. I'll have to send you the bill for
that one.
You rant at Skeptic while lying for years on end.
It looks like I was right about him being a septic sock puppet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 11:03:38 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making someth ing look like
something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A
Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - su ch as yours - will fool people if they
dont look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize
Septic
was a forger as well as a li ar and a buffoon. I should have
suspected it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for
the full arsenal of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and
"might not be".
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Oh this is a crack up. Cheerful Charlie pretends to
speak for atheists AND science all the time, offering
his embarrassing "proof" of no god while refusing
to address refutations of it. A real embarrassment to
rational atheists.
We know that Del is not atheist. No atheist argues _ad ignorantiam_that
there might be a God because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false. That is typical theist argument from
ignorance, 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_)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
[Now let's watch as Del snips this, and gets back to his argument ad
hominem, hoping that nobody will notice.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 03:39:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1132333418.512145.118820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Oh this is a crack up. Cheerful Charlie pretends to
speak for atheists AND science all the time, offering
his embarrassing "proof" of no god while refusing
to address refutations of it. A real embarrassment to
rational atheists.
We know that Del is not atheist.
Then Septic's "we" *knows* things contrary to fact.
Which casts considerable doubt on the reliability of all his claimed
knowledge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 04:50:08 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making someth ing look like
something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A
Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forg ery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - su ch as yours - will fool people if they
dont look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize
Septic
was a forger as well as a li ar and a buffoon. I should have
suspected it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for
the full arsenal of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and
"might not be".
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Oh this is a crack up. Cheerful Charlie pretends to
speak for atheists AND science all the time, offering
his embarrassing "proof" of no god while refusing
to address refutations of it. A real embarrassment to
rational atheists.
We know
LOL! "We"? Didn't the flea collar work?
that Del is not a theist.
So? Sorry if that offends your irrational religious belief.
Anyway I notice that your dumb-***** one-liner ad hominem
responses aren't getting any better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
18 Nov 2005 01:04:29 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132273739.382870.61200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
Richo wrote:
A forgery is deliberately making someth ing look like
something else -
the differences are what allow a forgery to be spotted. A
Perfect
Forgery is identical and imperfect forgery (such as yours) has
differences.
An imperfect forgery - su ch as yours - will fool people if they
dont look closely enough.
Well it fooled Malibu and Nemo - temporarily.
Yup. I didn't even look at the headers, since I didn't realize
Septic
was a forger as well as a li ar and a buffoon. I should have
suspected it, though -- your typical net.kook tends to go in for
the full arsenal of net.kookery.
Argument ad hominem won't help you make your case for God
And it won't make the case for Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
arguments that agnostic considerations are theist, either.
Agnostics reject both the claim of "must be" and "must not be" re
existence of gods while generally accepting both "might be" and
"might not be".
When did a liar like you speak for all agnostics?
Oh this is a crack up. Cheerful Charlie pretends to
speak for atheists AND science all the time, offering
his embarrassing "proof" of no god while refusing
to address refutations of it. A real embarrassment to
rational atheists.
We know that Del is not atheist.
How do we know that? Your probative objectively-verifiable evidence,
so that anyone can check the observation, goes here, Septic (what you
wrote below | | | | | | | | | | | |
