| 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: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 08:44:56 PM |
|
|
In article <a_udndxK2PfXPhrenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
The way Copi wrote it, the theists said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
It is hypothesis ('might be' conjecture).
Not according to the scholars! Al least not according to what Copi said
the scholars said.
<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_)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
27 Nov 2005 02:42:38 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <a_udndxK2PfXPhrenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
The way Copi wrote it, the theists said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
It is hypothesis ('might be' conjecture).
Not according to the scholars!
Theists you mean, and it is their argument _ad ignorantiam_ Copi is
holding up as an example of logical fallacy, the theists' argument that
theirs is an HYPOTHESIS ('might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove
false, moron.
---
<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.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
27 Nov 2005 01:08:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1133080958.170718.251790@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <a_udndxK2PfXPhrenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
SquareKnot <sk@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
The way Copi wrote it, the theists said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
It is hypothesis ('might be' conjecture).
Not according to the scholars!
Theists you mean,
Copi calls them scholars. In fact, the churchmen were not even a party
to those scholars' claim.
and it is their argument _ad ignorantiam_ Copi is
holding up as an example of logical fallacy, the theists' argument that
theirs is an HYPOTHESIS ('might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove
false, moron.
Where is there any evidence that those scholars argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE" rather than "MUST BE"?
Absent such evidence, that case is irrelevant to the case of Simple
Septic, the True Believer falsely accusing honest agnostics of theism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
28 Nov 2005 01:36:35 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Where is there any evidence that those scholars argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
---
<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.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
28 Nov 2005 09:07:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1133206595.576878.18950@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Where is there any evidence that those scholars argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Did they say "might be"? Or is that SStTB (Simple Septic, the True
Believer) editing for content, as he so often does?
However "migh-be-ish" the truth of an hypothesis is, the actual
statement of that hypothesis need not be at all "might be-ish".
And it is in the form of the statement of an hypothesis that an
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam exists, or does not exist.
If the form of statement is "must be" then arguing it by lack of proof
of falsehood is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
If the form of statement is "might be" then declaring it by lack of
proof of falsehood is tautology.
Of course, in SStTB's (Simple Septic, the True Believer) delusional
world. atheists who do not totally agree with SStTB (Simple Septic, the
True Believer) are theists.
---
<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.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
28 Nov 2005 09:44:41 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133206595.576878.18950@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Where is there any evidence that those theists argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Did they say "might be"?
They said 'hypothesis' which is synonymous
with guess, conjecture, 'might be' speculation, moron.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
---
<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.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
28 Nov 2005 10:14:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1133235881.588704.239990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133206595.576878.18950@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Where is there any evidence that those theists argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Did they say "might be"?
They said 'hypothesis'
So they DIDN'T say "MIGHT BE"!
---
<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.
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
According to Copi, they said "the moon is in fact a perfect sphere".
The difference between "is in fact" and "might be" can easily be seen in
the experiment of Schroedinger's cat.
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html
Where it is perfectly correct to say that the cat might be dead before
opening the box, but an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to insist that the
cat is in fact dead before opening the box.
But that distinction is beyond Septic's capacity to comprehend.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
28 Nov 2005 01:52:46 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Where is there any evidence that those scholars argued that their
"hypothesis" only claimed "MIGHT BE"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess,
Then the scholars were making a _statement_, which Copi (and Septic)
misinterpreted as an hypothesis.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
29 Nov 2005 06:52:36 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are mistaken,
Nope, I've shown how you are misstating argumentum ad ignorantiam
I have shown why you are mistaken.
shown how you misuse the Galileo example
I have shown why you are mistaken.
and how the way you define the
fallacy, nothing that can't be proven true cannot be considered possible.
Just the opposite; conjecture ('might be' hypothesis) remains
conjecture unless you can produce logically satisfactory evidence of
yur hypothetical thing.
An hypothesis can be conjucture. That's why you test hypotheses;
logically, you are suggesting that an hypothesis cannot be an
hypothesis until it's already been tested.
That is absurd as it creates a logical contradiction.
Again, you show utter ignorance about logic and science.
You have also foolishly tried to define argumentum ad ignorantiam as
meaning that we can't consider possibilities that haven't been proven
or for which science currently lacks the ability to test. Again, that
is utterly absurd, certainly not what Copi was arguing, or what the
logical fallacy is.
I am not a religious person, but in this case you look like you are
treating atheism in the same way a religious extremist treats their
faith -- you deny reality and evade discussions in order to hold on to
your belief. You treat atheism as a faith, you are as much a
fundamentalist as Bin Laden.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
29 Nov 2005 08:17:42 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are mistaken,
Nope, I've shown how you are misstating argumentum ad ignorantiam
I have shown why you are mistaken.
shown how you misuse the Galileo example
I have shown why you are mistaken.
and how the way you define the
fallacy, nothing that can't be proven true cannot be considered possible.
Just the opposite; conjecture ('might be' hypothesis) remains
conjecture unless you can produce logically satisfactory evidence of
yur hypothetical thing.
An hypothesis can be conjucture.
Hypothesis is SYNONYMOUS with conjecture, Scott.
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Now why don't you stop arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a
God because the atheists can't prove that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) false?
---
<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.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
29 Nov 2005 03:22:43 PM |
|
|
In article <1133273862.477929.56790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are mistaken,
Nope, I've shown how you are misstating argumentum ad ignorantiam
I have shown why you are mistaken.
shown how you misuse the Galileo example
I have shown why you are mistaken.
and how the way you define the
fallacy, nothing that can't be proven true cannot be considered
possible.
Just the opposite; conjecture ('might be' hypothesis) remains
conjecture unless you can produce logically satisfactory evidence of
yur hypothetical thing.
An hypothesis can be conjucture.
Hypothesis is SYNONYMOUS with conjecture, Scott.
Not quite!
hypothesis
n 1: a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
Now why don't you stop arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a
God?
When SStTB (Simple Septic, the True Believer) stops his Argumenta ad
Ignorantiam, we will stop decalring our tautologies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
29 Nov 2005 09:58:54 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You are mistaken,
Nope, I've shown how you are misstating argumentum ad ignorantiam
I have shown why you are mistaken.
shown how you misuse the Galileo example
I have shown why you are mistaken.
and how the way you define the
fallacy, nothing that can't be proven true cannot be considered possible.
Just the opposite; conjecture ('might be' hypothesis) remains
conjecture unless you can produce logically satisfactory evidence of
yur hypothetical thing.
An hypothesis can be conjucture.
Hypothesis is SYNONYMOUS with conjecture,
Not always, as you've been shown again and again, Septic. Fallacies of
Hyperbole and Amphiboly from Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 11:12:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132849693.412245.27510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote in message
news:LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some
sort"
is not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium
because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by
it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'??
What part of 'not invalidated' is too complicat3d for Simple Septic the
Secret Theist's tiny mind to comprehend?
..
You are mistaken, your argument that there might be a God
Our "argument" is the agnostic principle that we cannot reject the
possibility of existence of any gods without proof of its being
impossible.
---
<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_)
---
The way Copi wrote it above, the scholars said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
That does not look at all like Copi said they only said
"the moon is POSSIBLY a perfect sphere".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 11:36:25 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-62299E.22122024112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
You are mistaken, your argument that there might be a God
Our "argument" is the agnostic principle that we cannot reject the
possibility of existence of any gods without proof of its being
impossible.
Or, "our" argument is in accord with science and logic; OS XI's is an
absolute faith in a proposition which cannot be proven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 12:33:38 PM |
|
|
In article
<tYHhf.166846$zb5.149767@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-62299E.22122024112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1132880038.333968.9600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
You are mistaken, your argument that there might be a God
Our "argument" is the agnostic principle that we cannot reject the
possibility of existence of any gods without proof of its being
impossible.
Or, "our" argument is in accord with science and logic; OS XI's is an
absolute faith in a proposition which cannot be proven.
Actually. Simple Septic the Secret Theist's argument being that the
agnostic principle generates an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, his argument
is the fallacy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 02:33:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1132849693.412245.27510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote in message
news:LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some sort"
is not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely not
valid inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for
which you theists are famous, as Copi points out:
Nope...
Yup. Your argument that there might be a God
because there is no proof the
hypothesis ('might be' theist conjecture) is false is definietely not
valid
inference,
It is tautological, and therefore not suject to argument at all.
it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_)
In Simple Septic the Secret Theist's version of logic, it appers as if
tautologies are fallacies and fallacies are tautologies.
---
<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_)
---
Did those scholars state that in their opinion it just might possibly
be the case that the moon could still be spherical or did they state
that the moon must actually be spherical?
If those scholars merely claimed "might possibly be", then they were
innocent of Copi's charge, and only if they claimed "must be", as Copi
claims, would they have been guilty.
So that it follows that "must be" is fallacious but "might be" is
tautological.
And it also follows that in each of Simple Septic the Secret Theist's
myriads of postings of that Copi quote, Simple Septic the Secret Theist
has been lying about what Copi meant!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 03:02:29 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132849693.412245.27510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote in message
news:LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some sort"
is not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely not
valid inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for
which you theists are famous, as Copi points out:
Nope...
Yup. Your argument that there might be a God
because there is no proof the
hypothesis ('might be' theist conjecture) is false is definietely not
valid
inference,
It is tautological ...
No it isn't, it is just ordinary testbook theist argument _ad
ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy, which you theists are FAMOUS
for, 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_)
---
Did those scholars state that in their opinion it just might possibly
be the case that the moon could still be spherical ...
Of course. That is what the term, 'hypothesis' means, moron, it means
'might be' conjecture, not something known to be a fact. Their argument
_ad ignorantiam_ is identical to yours, that there might be X, and this
hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) person A (atheist) could not prove
false!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 11:05:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1132866149.726974.151660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132849693.412245.27510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote in message
news:LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some
sort"
is not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort
is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider
your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium
because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated
by it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely
not
valid inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_),
for
which you theists are famous, as Copi points out:
Nope...
Yup. Your argument that there might be a God
because there is no proof the
hypothesis ('might be' theist conjecture) is false is definietely not
valid
inference,
It is tautological ...
No it isn't,
Then Simple Septic the Secret Theist reveals himself ignorant of either
the meaning of tautology or the meaning of "possibly" or both.
---
<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.
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)
---
Did those scholars state that in their opinion it just might possibly
be the case that the moon could still be spherical ...
Of course.
The way Copi wrote it , the scholars said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
That does not look at all like they only said
"the moon is POSSIBLY a perfect sphere".
So Simple Septic the Secret Theist has deliberately misrepresented what
Copi ACTUALLY says ad nauseam and ad infinitum.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
23 Nov 2005 11:55:41 PM |
|
|
In article <LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some sort" is
not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely not valid
inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for which you
theists are famous, 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_)
Copi points out that claiming ACTUAL existence from lack or disproof is
a fallacy, but no where says speaking of mere possibility of existence
is anything but speculation.
So that Simple Septic the Secret Theist lies about what Copi says.
And knows he lies.
And hacs been repeating that same lie (and lies are fallacies) ad
nauseam (which is itself a fallacy).
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 10:37:00 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some sort" is
not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely not valid
inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for which you
theists are famous, 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_)
Copi points out that claiming ACTUAL existence from lack or disproof is
a fallacy
The theist stuff is hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), as
Copi points out. See the term, 'hypothesis' in "And this hypothesis
Galileo could not prove false"? They are trying to shift the burden of
proof to the negative, argue _ad ignorantiam_ that their 'might be'
conjucture Galileo could not prove false, just as your side always try
to do, son. Your argument is rejected as logical fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 02:43:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1132850220.867710.248410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some sort"
is
not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium
because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated by
it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely not
valid
inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for which
you
theists are famous, 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_)
Copi points out that claiming ACTUAL existence from lack or disproof is
a fallacy
The theist stuff is hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), as
Copi points out.
It is not its being hypothetical, but what is being hypothesized that
Simple Septic the Secret Theist lies about.
The scholars could state "the moon is possibly a perfect sphere" or they
could state "the moon is necessarily a perfect sphere". These are
different hypotheses. In Galileo's time concrete evidence of their
falsehood, such as having people walk on the moon, was not available.
So that that absence of evidence justified "possibly" but did not
justify "necessarily" as hypotheses.
See the term, 'hypothesis'
Which hypothesis? the one the scholars actually proposed or the one that
Simple Septic the Secret Theist misrepresents them as having proposed?
Their Argumentum ad Ignorantiam was to propose "neccessarily". If they
had merely proposed "possibly" they would have been in the clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 05:26:03 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DED1CC.13433824112005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1132850220.867710.248410@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <LfOdnUXBQ47U2hjeRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
"Miler" <miler@miler.org> wrote:
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message
news:Gj3hf.85273$qk4.7657@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132772703.486901.51790@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
...
The claim "It is logically possible that there is a god of some
sort"
is
not
the same as saying "it must be true that."
Aren't you folks arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that a god of some sort
is
logically possible ('might be') because there is no proof that
hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false?
But you folks haven't given us any sound reason to even consider
your
hypothesis, as Chris Lee points out:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
I notice you cut the information about argumentum ad ignorantium
because,
well, it clearly demonstrated that such a claim is not invalidated
by
it.
What do you mean, 'not invalidated'?? Your argument is definietely
not
valid
inference, it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_), for
which
you
theists are famous, 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_)
Copi points out that claiming ACTUAL existence from lack or disproof is
a fallacy
The theist stuff is hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), as
Copi points out.
It is not its being hypothetical, but what is being hypothesized that
Simple Septic the Secret Theist lies about.
In any event, the way he twists argumentum ad igorantiam around, anything
that can't be absolutely proven cannot be considered possible without the
use of a logical fallacy. That is absurd, and would consider most
scientific investigation to be based on a fallacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 10:29:30 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
... he twists argumentum ad igorantiam around ...
I haven't "twisted" anything, moron, all I have done is quote from
_Introduction to Logic_ by Copi and Cohen, the typical textbook theist
logical fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS, your argument that
there might be X, even though there is no such thing you can point to
and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about" so that anybody can
check your observations, all you can do is argue _ad ignoratiam_ that
there might be X because there is no proof your hypothesis (your 'might
be' theist conjecture) is false:
---
<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.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 11:40:16 AM |
|
|
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132936170.716604.104980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
... he twists argumentum ad igorantiam around ...
I haven't "twisted" anything, moron,
My, my, getting touchy. I proved that the way you falsely assert what the
argument is, you make it so that anything which cannot be tested cannot be
considered possible. You make it sound like it's a logical fallacy to
consider any conjecture to be possible. If that were the case, most of
scientific development would not have happened.
You've already been schooled on your misuse of the Galileo example. Yet you
just repeat yourself like a true believer, defending his faith against
supposed heretics.
You have the mind of a religious extremist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
25 Nov 2005 12:19:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1132936170.716604.104980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
... he twists argumentum ad igorantiam around ...
I haven't "twisted" anything
Except logic, language and the truth.
<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_)
---
The way Copi wrote it above, the scholars said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
That does not look at all like Copi said they only said
"the moon is POSSIBLY a perfect sphere".
And Copi also says that their reasons for saying it were not merely that
it was't proved false, but were actually derived from Aristotle and the
doctrines of the church. That their sources were wrong makes their error
the fallacy of relying on authority, not Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
And Simple Septic the Secret Theist is WRONG, AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 02:53:59 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... If they had merely proposed "possibly" ...
What do you mean 'if'? 'Possibly' ('might be' conjecture, hypothesis)
IS their proposition. That is what the term, 'hypothesis' means, moron.
It means 'might be' theist conjecture, the kind you theists are famous
for, 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.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
24 Nov 2005 11:01:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1132865639.615075.171930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... If they had merely proposed "possibly" ...
What do you mean 'if'? 'Possibly' IS their proposition.
Where in that Copi quote does it say anything like that?
The way Copi wrote it , the scholars said
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
That does not look at all like they only said
"the moon is POSSIBLY a perfect sphere".
---
<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_)
---
In this case, their hypothesis in fact was
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere",
and not even possibly was it
"the moon is POSSIBLY a perfect sphere".
.
|
|
| | | | | |
