| 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: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 08:47:17 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Accepting errors such as 2 + 2 does not always = 4
is ome of those errors that easily subverts
logic and allows us to spin e rrors.
Obviously, it does not work. Its not a useful
idea.
I agree, and that was part of my point, although I may have made it
badly. The proposition "2+2=4" cannot be logically proved outside
the system of number w e use; but we know it's true based on
accumulated
experience. We have no experience, however, of the microinstants
after the Big Bang.
Peano axioms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
2 + 2 = 4 is pro vable.
Within a particular system, using particular rules.
The point I think is that there can be other
systems with other rules.
And there might be an Easter Bunny too.
False analogy, another fallacy.
Might, maybe, perhaps, the world's biggest
weasel words.
Only to people who need their world to be black or white.
Ironic too that you are the only one using those words.
But don't let the fact that you misquote your correspondent,
put words in his mouth, slow you down.
2 + 2 = 4. That is the way reality is.
Go ahead and ignore this again:
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute
certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an
exciting and complex world. *The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they
are NOT about the empirical world.* --Stephen J. Gould
"Evolution as Fact and Theory;" Discover, May 1981
Maybe god could make 2 + 2 = 5 as Descartes thought?
If so god could likewise make man with free will
and who freely only chose to do moral
good. If god could and did not god is responsible
for a ll moral evil.
Sorry, maybe statements just don't work.
You are the only one who said "maybe," remember?
Maybe not is just as equally good an answer.
Straw man.
2 + 2 = 4 is provable by underlying logic,
which is what the Peano axioms were all about.
These underlying realities likewise,
are not to be done away with by mumbling
"maybe".
You are the only one who mumbled "maybe," Charlie.
How do you explain going on and on about something
no one but you said? You're a kook?
Most likley (understatment) not.
Logic is not something that can be jetisoned.
Without that you have nothing.
Not so. You can't just talk about 'logic' as
though it always means the same thing to everyone.
There are loads of different logics. It's a bit
like programming languages; people invent new ones
all the time.
Logic makes it plain, true nothing cannot
yield someting. Something exist s.
Something therefore must have always existed.
How do you show that without assuming your
conclusion? It's not as simple as you might
think.
Charlie just ignores inconvenient facts.
That way he is always right.
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something. Will this be another claim
you can't back up? Like:
"Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence"
Or this:
"Only 7% of imminent [sic] scientists polled believe in
any sort of god. So yes, I speak for science in that
these atheist scientists know as I do, that god does
not exist."
Notice that he characterizes them as knowing
"that god does not exist" which means he assumes
all of them to be "strong" (explicit) atheists, like
himself, even though he knows this isn't true.
He continually gets his science wrong. Look at
this whopper:
"Experts are not in disagreement evolution is the mechanism
by which life as we know has been created. "
Ah no, Charlie. Evolution has nothing to do
with the creation of life: biogenesis.
g
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 10:47:37 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam. It is
entirely up to your side to demonstrate how your hypothesis (your
'might be' conjecture) is known to be true, nobody ever has to prove it
false. You know that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 01:54:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 02:00:23 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Especially when he's the only one who's engaged in it. He's like a
small child who's heard a new term he doesn't understand, and runs
around the house shouting it over and over.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 08:51:26 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
We can guess. Take one pathetic life. Add an obsessive drive for
attention, any kind of attention, plus chronic hostility, mental
and emotional problems and too much free time, half-bake it
and you see the result.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 11:12:58 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
<unsnip Dell's argument ad ignorantiam that he wishes he could make
disappear>
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
We can guess. Take one pathetic life. Add an obsessive drive for
attention, any kind of attention, plus chronic hostility, mental
and emotional problems and too much free time, half-bake it
and you see the result.
Argument ad hominem won't help you establish that there might be a god
who created something from nothing ("Let there be light!"), Dell, it is
just more logical fallacy piled on top of all your other logical
fallacy. But you knew that already, and logical fallacy is all you have
for argument, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 03:08:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1131901978.538580.41690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
<unsnip Dell's argument ad ignorantiam that he wishes he could make
disappear>
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
We can guess. Take one pathetic life. Add an obsessive drive for
attention, any kind of attention, plus chronic hostility, mental
and emotional problems and too much free time, half-bake it
and you see the result.
Argument ad hominem won't help you establish that there might be a god
who created something from nothing ("Let there be light!")
Septic, AKA "OS XI", is off again.
It is not the actual existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
Agnostics acknowledge having too little logical evidence of such
impossibility to be able to declare that impossibility certain, but
Septic declares gods impossible anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 03:15:53 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131901978.538580.41690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
<unsnip Dell's argument ad ignorantiam that he wishes he could make
disappear>
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
We can guess. Take one pathetic life. Add an obsessive drive for
attention, any kind of attention, plus chronic hostility, mental
and emotional problems and too much free time, half-bake it
and you see the result.
Argument ad hominem won't help you establish that there might be a god
who created something from nothing ("Let there be light!")
Septic, AKA "OS XI", is off again.
It is not the existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
No it isn't. You cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the negative. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove, only
you theist true believers do, your hypothetical God who hypothetically
created something from nothing by magic simply by ordering, "Let there
be light."
What an odd notion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 03:43:26 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is not the existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
You cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the negative.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. You
assert that God does not exist. The people you're arguing with don't
assert anything at all; they only state they don't have enough evidence
to say for certain whether god exists; most of them add that the tend to
doubt it. Since you're the one who's making an assertion, the burden of
proof is clearly on you.
The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove, only
you theist true believers do, your hypothetical God who hypothetically
created something from nothing by magic simply by ordering, "Let there
be light."
What an odd notion.
It is indeed an odd notion, and nobody you've been having this
conversation with has claimed that it's true. Here, let's try this one
more time. We'll start with Copi's definition of the argument from
ignorance, which I posted a while back and you ignored:
"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. That's why I'm an agnostic, and you're a
buffoon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 04:16:08 PM |
|
|
In article <2sOdf.150$xD5.291714@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is not the existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
You cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the negative.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. You
assert that God does not exist. The people you're arguing with don't
assert anything at all; they only state they don't have enough evidence
to say for certain whether god exists; most of them add that the tend to
doubt it. Since you're the one who's making an assertion, the burden of
proof is clearly on you.
The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove, only
you theist true believers do, your hypothetical God who hypothetically
created something from nothing by magic simply by ordering, "Let there
be light."
What an odd notion.
It is indeed an odd notion, and nobody you've been having this
conversation with has claimed that it's true. Here, let's try this one
more time. We'll start with Copi's definition of the argument from
ignorance, which I posted a while back and you ignored:
"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. That's why I'm an agnostic, and you're a
buffoon.
Actually, I suspect that Septic's buffoonery is both genetic and
incurable. It is certainly remarkably resistent to logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 03:30:35 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think I might know why. It is like loading a gun, pulling
the trigger and nothing happens. It should work so you keep
pulling the trigger. I submit it you are not used to Septics
kind of invincible stupidity. Reason should prevail. But
Septic relies on this kind of reaction from rational people
to generate the attention he craves.
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is not the existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
You cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the negative.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion. You
assert that God does not exist. The people you're arguing with don't
assert anything at all; they only state they don't have enough evidence
to say for certain whether god exists; most of them add that the tend to
doubt it. Since you're the one who's making an assertion, the burden of
proof is clearly on you.
The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove,
Septic clearly has the need to prove that someone else is shifting
the burden of proof. Otherwise, why does he persist? Just to prove
that he has nothing to prove? LOL!
only
you theist true believers do, your hypothetical God who hypothetically
created something from nothing by magic simply by ordering, "Let there
be light."
What an odd notion.
It is indeed an odd notion, and nobody you've been having this
conversation with has claimed that it's true. Here, let's try this one
more time. We'll start with Copi's definition of the argument from
ignorance, which I posted a while back and you ignored:
"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 no t 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?
Septic will simply delete whatever portion of your post
is damaging to him and pretend you never debunked him.
Isn't that clever?
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 de finition, 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. That's why I'm an agnostic, and you're a
buffoon.
A hot-air buffoon.
N
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 11:37:21 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132003835.815882.147240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think ...
THERE's your problem, Dell. Give up trying to think until you smarten up (if
you ever do).
Hopefuly you will eventualy learn that atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove in this case, only you theists do.
Best regards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 01:21:46 AM |
|
|
In article <8ICdnfV0vvTD6eTenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
Hopefuly you will eventualy learn that atheists have nothing (no thing) to
prove in this case, only you theists do.
Septic should learn that those who have things to prove are those who
are trying to sell something.
A theist who does is not trying to sell his theism has no more to prove
than an atheist who does not try to sell his atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:14:25 AM |
|
|
Miler wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132003835.815882.147240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think ...
THERE's your problem, Dell. Give up trying to think until you smarten up (if
you ever do).
Septic continues to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best he can do.
?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 09:43:08 AM |
|
|
Del wrote:
Miler wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132003835.815882.147240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think ...
THERE's your problem, Dell. Give up trying to think until you smarten up (if
you ever do).
Septic continues to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best he can do.
?
Del can dish out truckloads but he can't take a thimblefull?
You and Skipper and friends have been told what is wrong with the
argument you are championing, 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 is 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: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:39:25 PM |
|
|
Here is the FAQ on this OS XI troll:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/bf924b48ec8f46f8
This documents the thousands of false accusations of
fallacy commission that he has made, among other
dishonest acts. Conclusion: Twit filter this *****,
STAT.
He just got banned from Wikipedia for an entire year which
indicates level 9 (or above) Trollism (severe).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
Miler wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132003835.815882.147240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think ...
THERE's your problem, Dell. Give up trying to think until you smarten up (if
you ever do).
Septic continues to rely on argument ad hominem because tha t is
the best he can do.
?
Del can dish out truckloads but he can't take a thimblefull?
You and Skipper and friends have been told what is wrong with the
argument you are championing, the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might b e a god because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might
be' theist conjecture) is false.
That is 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 Aristotel ian 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. A nd 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.]t
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 07:05:04 PM |
|
|
Del wrote:
Here is the FAQ on this OS XI troll:
'Troll' is argument _ad hominem_. Give it a rest, Dell, it won't help
you make your case for god, it's logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 10:26:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1132103104.887006.144560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Here is the FAQ on this OS XI troll:
'Troll' is argument _ad hominem_.
Trolling, as Septic does, proves itself that its author is a troll.
Give it a rest, Dell, it won't help
you make your case for god, it's logical fallacy.
Septic trolls his phony case for the impossibility of god to put off
honest agnostics and atheists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 11:41:42 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
Here is the FAQ on this OS XI troll:
http://tinyurl.com/d67p6
p
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:57:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1132069388.736735.53600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Miler wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1132003835.815882.147240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Malibu Skipper wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm still arguing with you; but I'm going to give it
one more try.
I think ...
THERE's your problem, Dell. Give up trying to think until you smarten up
(if
you ever do).
Septic continues to rely on argument ad hominem because that is
the best he can do.
?
Del can dish out truckloads but he can't take a thimblefull?
You and Skipper and friends have been told what is wrong with the
argument you are championing, the argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be a god because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might
be' theist conjecture) is false.
We have been told that lie often, but repetition even ad nauseam of that
falsehood does not alter its falseness.
Copi, and others define Argumentum ad Ignorantiam otherwise.
In valid definitions, arguing "MUST BE" for lack of contrary evidence is
an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, but merely speculating "MIGHT BE" is not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 03:56:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1131916553.842945.204930@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131901978.538580.41690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131814057.842820.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
<unsnip Dell's argument ad ignorantiam that he wishes he could make
disappear>
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam.
It is not at all clear why Septic seems to regard everything that he
does not post himself as an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
We can guess. Take one pathetic life. Add an obsessive drive for
attention, any kind of attention, plus chronic hostility, mental
and emotional problems and too much free time, half-bake it
and you see the result.
Argument ad hominem won't help you establish that there might be a god
who created something from nothing ("Let there be light!")
Septic, AKA "OS XI", is off again.
It is not the existence of any god or gods, but whether such
existence is known to be impossible, which is at issue.
No it isn't.
It is to me and to all other agnostics who are are considering the
isssue of whether gods are impossible.
You cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to
the negative.
Those who would declare gods impossible are obligated to give reasons,
at least if they wish others to consider their declaration seriously.
Those, Like me and other agnostics, who refuse to make such a
declaration in the absence of logically convincing proof of its truth,
owe no one anything.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 11:32:18 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam. It is
entirely up to your side to demonstrate how your hypothesis (your
'might be' conjecture) is known to be true, nobody ever has to prove it
false. You know that.
Wow. You really are dumb, aren't you? Mr. Barwell's claim was that the
proposition "something cannot come from nothing" can be demonstrated by
logic. Del is merely asking him to do so. That doesn't even resemble
an argument from ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
12 Nov 2005 01:17:36 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Del wrote:
So go ahead, Charlie, use logic to prove that nothing
cannot yield something.
There you go again, trying to get away with shifting the burden of
proof to the doubters, a form of argument ad ignorantiam. It is
entirely up to your side to demonstrate how your hypothesis (your
'might be' conjecture) is known to be true, nobody ever has to
prove it false. You know that.
Wow. You really are dumb, aren't you? Mr. Barwell's claim was that
the proposition "something cannot come from nothing" can be
demonstrated by
logic. Del is merely asking him to do so. That doesn't even
resemble an argument from ignorance.
It is proven just by stating it.
Why would anybody think something can come from
absolute nothing? It is obvious it must be so.
In logic, there is a lower level below which one
cannot go. This is no surprise and numerous ancient
Greek philosophers realized, that something cannot come
from nothing.
That is why many Greek philosphers stated that the
Universe must be eternal, and had no beginning.
Some Greeks tried to proclaim the Universe was god,
or a god like but impersonal logos.
Earlier myths of Greece talked of an eternal primal
chaos.
Something cannot come from nothing.
It is obvious, therefore it is true.
If somebody thinks absolute nothing can create nothing
it is up to them to show how, and good luck.
That something cannot come from nothing is basic
is as basic as Decarte's I think therefore I am.
If you abandon logioc, and that is what denying
these obvious basic claims is all about, you get
nowhere.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 04:25:48 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
That something cannot come from nothing is basic
is as basic as Decarte's I think therefore I am.
If you abandon logioc, and that is what denying
these obvious basic claims is all about, you get
nowhere.
I think you're wrong on both points here.
First of all, Descartes did not flatly assert "I think
therefore I am". It was the conclusion of an argument
(whether or not you think it's a good argument). He
invented his deceptive demon to point out the difference
between things I could conceivably be deceived about
(such as "I am sitting in a chair") and things I could
not conceivably be deceived about (such as "I am thinking").
His /argument/ was that you cannot be deceived about
existing, because, if you did not exist, there would be
no one to be deceived. Do you have an argument of
some similar level of rigor that something cannot come
from nothing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
Secondly, if one argues about basic claims, one doesn't get
nowhere (although it may be true that where one gets
is nowhere you, in particular, care to go.) Developing
arguments for the "obvious" (or failing to develop these
arguments) is an essential tool for discovering which of
our many assumptions are laws of nature and which are merely
the customs of our tribe.
Please, PLEASE, don't call questioning "Something cannot come
from nothing" the same as "abandoning logic". You really do
sound like Septic when you do that </shudder>. Surely it is
obvious (!) that the absolute worst that it can be called is
"abandoning physics". There are plenty of imaginable universes
(imagined universes!) where a banquet puffs into existence on
top of a magic tablecloth or where a holy man blesses three
small loaves and two fishes and proceeds to feed five thousand
with them. Not this universe, but that's physics, not logic.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 04:31:31 PM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
That something cannot come from nothing is basic
is as basic as Decarte's I think therefore I am.
If you abandon logioc, and that is what denying
these obvious basic claims is all about, you get
nowhere.
I think you're wrong on both points here.
First of all, Descartes did not flatly assert "I think
therefore I am". It was the conclusion of an argument
(whether or not you think it's a good argument). He
invented his deceptive demon to point out the difference
between things I could conceivably be deceived about
(such as "I am sitting in a chair") and things I could
not conceivably be deceived about (such as "I am thinking").
His /argument/ was that you cannot be deceived about
existing, because, if you did not exist, there would be
no one to be deceived. Do you have an argument of
some similar level of rigor that something cannot come
from nothing?
Don't try to shift the burden of proof to the negative, that is logical
fallacy, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
13 Nov 2005 07:55:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1131921091.560335.20760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
That something cannot come from nothing is basic
is as basic as Decarte's I think therefore I am.
If you abandon logioc, and that is what denying
these obvious basic claims is all about, you get
nowhere.
I think you're wrong on both points here.
First of all, Descartes did not flatly assert "I think
therefore I am". It was the conclusion of an argument
(whether or not you think it's a good argument). He
invented his deceptive demon to point out the difference
between things I could conceivably be deceived about
(such as "I am sitting in a chair") and things I could
not conceivably be deceived about (such as "I am thinking").
His /argument/ was that you cannot be deceived about
existing, because, if you did not exist, there would be
no one to be deceived. Do you have an argument of
some similar level of rigor that something cannot come
from nothing?
Don't try to shift the burden of proof to the negative, that is logical
fallacy, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
It the theist argument that something CAN come from nothing (um Gott
willen), so that Septic is arguing the theist case here.
So that Septic is now arguing that the atheist position is an Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 11:56:06 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131921091.560335.20760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
That something cannot come from nothing is basic
is as basic as Decarte's I think therefore I am.
If you abandon logioc, and that is what denying
these obvious basic claims is all about, you get
nowhere.
I think you're wrong on both points here.
First of all, Descartes did not flatly assert "I think
therefore I am". It was the conclusion of an argument
(whether or not you think it's a good argument). He
invented his deceptive demon to point out the difference
between things I could conceivably be deceived about
(such as "I am sitting in a chair") and things I could
not conceivably be deceived about (such as "I am thinking").
His /argument/ was that you cannot be deceived about
existing, because, if you did not exist, there would be
no one to be deceived. Do you have an argument of
some similar level of rigor that something cannot come
from nothing?
Don't try to shift the burden of proof to the negative, that is logical
fallacy, a form of argument _ad ignorantiam_.
It the theist argument that something CAN come from nothing (um Gott
willen), so that Septic is arguing the theist case here.
No, you have it bass ackwards, I am questioning the theist conjecture.
I don't buy the theist conjecture that God might have created the
universe from nothing. That conjecture has no basis in fact. And now
Jim Burns is trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative. ("Do
you have an argument of some similar level of rigor that something
cannot come from nothing?") Trying to shift the burden of proof to the
negative isn't allowed, it is logical fallacy. You understand this,
don't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
14 Nov 2005 03:15:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1131990966.471223.161850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
No, you have it bass ackwards, I am questioning the theist conjecture.
So Septic, once he realizes what is actually going on, reverses his
filed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 12:15:52 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-756A23.14152714112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1131990966.471223.161850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
No, you have it bass ackwards, I am questioning the theist conjecture.
So OS XI, once he realizes what is actually going on, reverses his
filed.
Where do you see any reversal? Your imagination running away with you again,
son? You just had it bass ackwards is all. Your apology for your ***** up
goes here:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 01:30:08 AM |
|
|
In article <NpKdnYCZ5Jvf4OTeRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
So OS XI, once he realizes what is actually going on, reverses his
field.
Where do you see any reversal?
Well, among other things, Septic has in the past claimed "there are no
gods" but is unable to provide logically convincing evidence for that
claim, which reverses his claim to be agnostic, which would require that
he eschew such anti-agnostic behaviour.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
