| 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: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 10:47:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Are you confused? We are not talking about something that is known to
be a "must be" because there is undeniable proof of its existence like
the Salk polio vaccine or something.
What we are disussing is your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be an invisible X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false. You agree that hypothesis and
conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Here again is the logical fallacy we are discussing, the logical
fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS:
---
<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 |
05 Dec 2005 02:59:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1133801223.942090.42550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture, 'might be'
speculation, moron.
See See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
However the above hypothesis is not logically equivalent as the
hypothesis that a god might exist, regardles of Septics inability to
distinguish between them.
"DOES" is not the same as "MIGHT", however often Septic misrepresents
them as being the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:37:03 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with ... 'might be'
speculation,
False, Septic, as already demonstrated. Stop your fallacious Argumenum
ad Nauseum.
Are you confused?
No.
"Hypothesis that God does exist" is not synonymous with "hypothesis
that God might exist" in any case (i.e. even _if_ your fallacious
definition of "hypothesis" were correct), Septic. You are free to
continue to demonstrate your confusion over basic English language
semantics, however, Septic. Your continued demonstration goes here:
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:46:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess,
conjecture, 'might be' speculation, moron.
False
You are mistaken. Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture,
'might be'
speculation, moron.
See See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Are you confused? We are not talking about something that is known to
be a "must be" because there is undeniable proof of its existence like
the Salk polio vaccine or something.
What we are disussing is your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be an invisible X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false. You agree that hypothesis and
conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Here again is the logical fallacy we are discussing, the logical
fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS:
---
<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 |
05 Dec 2005 03:07:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1133804783.436199.262930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess,
conjecture, 'might be' speculation, moron.
False
You are mistaken.
Then Septic must be asserting that the above hypothesis is logically
equivalent to one which only says that a god might exist. If this were
actually the case, then there either could not be anyone who was
actually thiest or else no one but those claiming gods impossible could
be atheist.
Septic can't have it both ways. Either an hypothesis means what it says,
or no hypothesis ever claims anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:49:39 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with ... 'might be' speculation,
False
Hypothesis is synonymous with ... 'might be' speculation,
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:56:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess,
conjecture, 'might be' speculation, moron.
False
You are mistaken. Hypothesis is synonymous with guess, conjecture,
'might be' speculation, moron.
See See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Are you confused? We are not talking about something that is known to
be a "must be" because there is undeniable proof of its existence like
the Salk polio vaccine or something.
What we are disussing is your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be an invisible X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false. You agree that hypothesis and
conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Here again is the logical fallacy we are discussing, the logical
fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS:
---
<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 |
05 Dec 2005 03:19:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1133805369.649851.240750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with guess,
conjecture, 'might be' speculation, moron.
False
You are mistaken.
Septic is the one who is mistaken. Septic conflates hypothesizing "MUST
BE" with hypothesizing "MIGHT BE".
To insist on "MUST BE" for lack of evidence of "MUST NOT BE" is
legitimately the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. It is a fallacy
often committed by theists (the real ones, not the ones Septic
mislabels).
To allow "MIGHT BE" for lack of evidence of "MUST NOT BE" is a
legitimate tautology. It is a tautology recognised and accepted by all
agnostics and many atheists, but rejected by such true believer
anti-theists as Septic.
Septic is too dense to tell the difference.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 01:11:17 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... "hypothesis that God does exist"
Hypothesis is synonymous with ... 'might be' speculation
False
Hypothesis is synonymous with 'might be' speculation,
False, sir. Three bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 12:11:23 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that DotSix snipped the rest. As usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 05:02:39 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron? Don't you know
that is logical fallacy?
You agree that hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 05:38:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1133737359.735838.313890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of
it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron?
Why doesn't Septic stop calling people who are way more intelligent and
competent than he is, "moron". Doesn't he know that is the fallacy of
Argumentum ad Hominem?
You agree that hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
What we do not agree with is that "MUST BE" and "MIGHT BE" produce the
same hypothesis.
And as long as Septic keeps deliberately conflating the two, he will be
creating more fallacies than ever he claims to be finding in other's
posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 06:27:23 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133737359.735838.313890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of
it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron?
Why doesn't Septic stop calling people who are way more intelligent and
competent than he is, "moron". Doesn't he know that is the fallacy of
Argumentum ad Hominem?
You agree that hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
What we do not agree with is that "MUST BE" and "MIGHT BE" produce the
same hypothesis.
Are you confused? We are not talking about something that is known to
be a "must be" because there is undeniable proof of its existence like
the Salk polio vaccine or something.
What we are disussing is your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be an invisible X because there is no proof that hypothesis (that
'might be' conjecture) is false. You agree that hypothesis and
conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Here again is the logical fallacy we are discussing, the logical
fallacy for which you theists are FAMOUS:
---
<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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 08:12:32 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133737359.735838.313890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of
it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron?
Why doesn't Septic stop calling people who are way more intelligent and
competent than he is, "moron". Doesn't he know that is the fallacy of
Argumentum ad Hominem?
No comment, Septic?
You agree that hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
What we do not agree with is that "MUST BE" and "MIGHT BE" produce the
same hypothesis.
Are you confused?
No, it's not Virgil who is confused. Add "synonymous" to the list of
terms that Septic does not understand. Synonymy does not help Septic's
case atall atall, since no amount of synonymy of terms makes
"hypothesis that a God does exist" synonymous with "hypothesis that a
God might exist".
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 06:55:00 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron? Don't you know
that is logical fallacy?
I'm not changing the subject, DotSix. The subject I was addressing was
your habit of dishonestly snipping posts to avoid arguments you're
incapable of dealing with.
You agree that hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous, don't you?
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Some senses of "hypothesis" are synonymous with some senses of
"conjecture", yes. None of these senses support your argument in the
least, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 07:59:46 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection=
of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculatio=
n),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron? Don't you know
that is logical fallacy?
I'm not changing the subject
Yes you are, moron, you and your theist pals are trying to get away
with argument _ad hominem_ against anyone who questions your lame
argument that there might be a god. That is just another form of the
fallacy of trying to create a diversion:
Argument _ad hominem_ is just another form of the fallacy of diversion,
an attempt to change the subject, to create a diversion away from the
issue in question.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
=E2=80=A8characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue th=
at
is =E2=80=A8genuinely under discussion." --
=E2=80=A8http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
Now, to get this back on topic:
You lot are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
And you cannot argue _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an invisible
god because there is no proof that hypothesis is false. That is logical
fallacy for which you theists are famous:
---
<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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 09:33:24 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
It's a typo, moron. Now stop trying to change the subject.
You are mistaken. Hypothesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Note that OS XI snipped the rest. As usual.
Why don't you stop trying to change the subject, moron? Don't you know
that is logical fallacy?
I'm not changing the subject
Yes you are,
No he's not, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 01:51:17 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133669309.115130.81190@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1133662912.892283.14630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is that "transparently stupid" in your opinion?
YES, since Septic is continually considering that particular
agnosticism, even if only to proclaim his anti-agnostic rejection of it.
'There might be a god' is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation),
moron.
Not by any definition ...
You are mistaken. Hypohesis and conjecture are synonymous.
See: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Hypohesis is a new one to me.
Now stop trying to change the subject.
He's not trying to change the subject, as evidenced by what you snipped
out, Septic, evidently because you cannot deal with it:
<begin snipped section from Malibu>
DotSix, of course, completely
misrepresents what Copi's example below means, but that's no surprise;
DotSix misrepresents everything. I'm still waiting for him to explain
what the argument below, conducted as it was by Galileo (a theist) and
the leading astronomers of his time (also theists) has to do with the
existence of God. He won't, of course.
<end snipped section>
And Malibu was right, of course, that Septic wouldn't give the
requested explanation. Wouldn't even try. Ho hum. <and cue the
chirping crickets>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 01:37:08 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Hypohesis is a new one to me. DotSix, of course, completely
misrepresents what Copi's example below means, but that's no surprise;
DotSix misrepresents everything. I'm still waiting for him to explain
what the argument below, conducted as it was by Galileo (a theist) and
the leading astronomers of his time (also theists) has to do with the
existence of God. He won't, of course.
His understanding of the argument from ignorance is that anything that
isn't proven or can't be proven therefore cannot be considered
possible.
It is absurd, and if taken seriously, would stymie science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 10:37:21 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
...
His understanding of the argument from ignorance is ...
Why don't you theists give up trying to build a straw man, moron? Don't
you all know that is logical fallacy?
You don't get to tell me what my understanding of anything is, I get to
tell you. Understood?
My understanding of the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_ comes from
_Introduction to Logic_ by Copi (see below), that you theists cannot
get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god
because there is no proof your hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture) is false. As Copi points out, that is logical fallacy for
which you theists are FAMOUS:
---
<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
Got it all straight now, sonny?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:42:36 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
...
His understanding of the argument from ignorance is ...
Why don't you theists
Fallacy of Argumentum ad hominem won't help you, Septic.
You don't get to tell me what my understanding of anything is,
Yes, we do, Septic. You provide objectively-verifiable evidence of
your (mis)understanding, so that everyone can check the observation,
with every post.
My understanding of the fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_ comes from
_Introduction to Logic_ by Copi
<snip Septical demonstration that he completely misunderstands Copi;
Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum, Septic; again>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 11:52:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
... misunderstands ...
What's to misunderstand? This is a no-brainer. You theists are trying
to get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible X because there is no proof the hypothesis is false. As Copi
points out, that is logical fallacy for which you theists have been
FAMOUS for hundreds of years!
---
<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 |
05 Dec 2005 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
In article <1133805126.786202.207540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... misunderstands ...
... misunderstand?
Septic misunderstands!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 03:09:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1133805126.786202.207540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... misunderstands ...
What's to misunderstand? This is a no-brainer.
While Septic certainly is using no brains, that does not mean it is a
no-brainer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 03:15:10 PM |
|
|
In article <1133805126.786202.207540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... misunderstands ...
What's to misunderstand? This is a no-brainer. You theists are trying
to get away with arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be an
invisible X because there is no proof the hypothesis is false.
Septic conflates hypothesizing "MUST BE" with hypothesizing "MIGHT BE".
To insist on "MUST BE" for lack of evidence of "MUST NOT BE" is a
legitimate Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
To allow "MIGHT BE" for lack of evidence of "MUST NOT BE" is a
legitimate tautology.
Septic is too dense to tell the difference.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
05 Dec 2005 01:12:31 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... misunderstands ...
What's to misunderstand?
Add "misunderstand" to the terms that Septic does not understand.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 01:47:35 PM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Hypohesis is a new one to me. DotSix, of course, completely
misrepresents what Copi's example below means, but that's no surprise;
DotSix misrepresents everything. I'm still waiting for him to explain
what the argument below, conducted as it was by Galileo (a theist) and
the leading astronomers of his time (also theists) has to do with the
existence of God. He won't, of course.
His understanding of the argument from ignorance is that anything that
isn't proven or can't be proven therefore cannot be considered
possible.
It is absurd, and if taken seriously, would stymie science.
Yeah. That's why he trims the post everytime anybody actually responds
to him, as he did this one of mine, and replied only to bits and pieces.
He's ignorant, and dishonest.
He'll reply to this by claiming I'm engaging in ad hominem arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 05:47:12 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
He'll reply to this by claiming I'm engaging in ad hominem arguments.
What would any reasonable person call it when you lot try to change the
subject to the character of the one questioning your argument rather
than limiting your comments to the issue at hand?
Argument _ad hominem_ is just another form of the fallacy of trying to
change the subject, the fallacy of trying to create a diversion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue genuinely under discussion between us is your argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a gawud because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 08:56:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1133740031.980678.318220@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
He'll reply to this by claiming I'm engaging in ad hominem arguments.
What would any reasonable person call it
Reasonable people would call what Malibu Skipper does correct, but
Septic does fallacious.
But Septic is not a reasonable person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - TQOTM nomination |
04 Dec 2005 06:52:14 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
He'll reply to this by claiming I'm engaging in ad hominem arguments.
What would any reasonable person call it when you lot try to change the
subject to the character of the one questioning your argument rather
than limiting your comments to the issue at hand?
See? He's like my own personal little puppy dog.
Roll over, DotSix.
Argument _ad hominem_ is just another form of the fallacy of trying to
change the subject, the fallacy of trying to create a diversion.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue genuinely under discussion between us is your argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be a gawud because there is no proof that
hypothesis is false.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
