| 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: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
17 Nov 2005 12:12:46 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I still do not see any "MIGHT BE" in the theists' claim.
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.
False.
True, moron, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. Hypothesis is
synonymous with conjecture, guess. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
You're leaving out some of the other things it's synonymous with:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dhypothesis
Main Entry: hypothesis
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theory
Synonyms: antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution,
axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data,
deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground,
guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan,
position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal,
proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point,
suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem,
thesis
Source: Roget's New Millennium=99 Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright =A9 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
17 Nov 2005 12:53:17 PM |
|
|
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I still do not see any "MIGHT BE" in the theists' claim.
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.
False.
True, moron, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. Hypothesis is
synonymous with conjecture, guess. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
You're leaving out some of the other things it's synonymous with:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dhypothesis
Main Entry: hypothesis
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theory
Synonyms: antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution,
axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data,
deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground,
guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan,
position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal,
proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point,
suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem,
thesis
Source: Roget's New Millennium=99 Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright =A9 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
So what's your point? The list of synonyms definitely includes
hypothesis, conjecture and guess just as I said. Jef says that is
false. Jeff is lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
17 Nov 2005 03:56:22 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
I still do not see any "MIGHT BE" in the theists' claim.
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.
False.
True, moron, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture. Hypothesis is
synonymous with conjecture, guess. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dconjecture
You're leaving out some of the other things it's synonymous with:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=3Dhypothesis
Main Entry: hypothesis
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theory
Synonyms: antecedent, apriority, assignment, assumption, attribution,
axiom, basis, belief, conclusion, condition, conjecture, data,
deduction, demonstration, derivation, explanation, foundation, ground,
guess, inference, interpretation, layout, lemma, philosophy, plan,
position, postulate, premise, presupposition, principle, proposal,
proposition, rationale, reason, scheme, speculation, starting point,
suggestion, supposition, surmise, system, tentative law, term, theorem,
thesis
Source: Roget's New Millennium=99 Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright =A9 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
So what's your point? The list of synonyms definitely includes
hypothesis, conjecture and guess just as I said. Jef says that is
false. Jeff is lying.
My point is that the term hypothesis can have other connotations than
those implied by "conjecture" or "guess;" for example, "conclusion,"
"data," or "deduction" are also synonyms. It can mean more than just
"guess." Maybe you'd claim the term "theory" also means "'might be'
conjecture," but I'd bet not.
In the quote you repeat ad nauseum, Galileo's critics weren't
suggesting the moon *might* be encased in crystal, they were claiming
"the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent
irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance."
THAT'S what made it an argument ad ignorantum; their claiming it was IN
FACT filled in, not that it "might be" filled in.
http://puffin.creighton.edu/yuan/Logic/Outline/LogicCh4.htm
"R1. The Argument from Ignorance: Argument Ad Ignorantiam
"The mistake is committed when 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.
"e.g. Criticism of Galileo"
Don't see a "might be" there.
http://www.smu.edu/philosophy/Part3.pdf
"Argument ad ignorantiam ("from ignorance"). To commit this fallacy is
to argue that a conclusion should be
accepted because it has not been disproved or that it should be
rejected because it has not been proved.
"Examples are
"Extrasensory perception exists because no one has been able to
prove that it does not.
"Extraterrestrial life does not exist because no one has been able
to prove that it does.
"The ad ignorantiam fallacy is one of irrelevance because the fact that
we lack premisses from which to infer a
conclusion is in general not itself a relevant premiss with respect to
that conclusion."
Don't see a "might be" there.
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/wheeler/fallacies_list.html
"Argument Ad Ignorantium (Argument from Ignorance): Appealing to a lack
of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition
cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An example
of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must exist because no
one has been able to prove that they do not exist."
Don't see a "might be" there. All "might be" means is knowledge is
lacking; the term for that is "agnosticism." To say something "might
be" doesn't draw a conclusion about anything other than lack of
knowledge about that thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topquark" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 05:18:59 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false.
And your argument is that it is true that there might be a god because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false. That is identical to the example argument _ad ignorantiam_ in
Copi:
What your simple-minded argument ignores is the fact that there are
obviously *degrees* of uncertainty or doubt. One can reasonably say
that the existence of hobgoblins or Zeus or the Christian God is so
unlikely that he disbelieves in it. That does not imply that the
existence of *any* form of God is equivalent to hobgoblins or Zeus or
the Christian God. The agnostic position is a reasonable one given the
limits of our knowledge or of any certain knowledge about such issues.
It is not asserting that any God exists or is even likely to exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 05:39:54 PM |
|
|
In article <Gvednceyt8F28efeRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Topquark <nospam@aol.com>
wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam
<quote>
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something MUST be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false.
And your argument is that it is true that there might be a god because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is
false. That is identical to the example argument _ad ignorantiam_ in
Copi:
What your simple-minded argument ignores is the fact that there are
obviously *degrees* of uncertainty or doubt. One can reasonably say
that the existence of hobgoblins or Zeus or the Christian God is so
unlikely that he disbelieves in it. That does not imply that the
existence of *any* form of God is equivalent to hobgoblins or Zeus or
the Christian God. The agnostic position is a reasonable one given the
limits of our knowledge or of any certain knowledge about such issues.
It is not asserting that any God exists or is even likely to exist.
Attempting to reason with Septic is futile, as his goal is
confrontation, not resolution.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 06:50:50 PM |
|
|
Topquark wrote:
...
The agnostic position is a reasonable one ...
Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ as you folks do that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false is not agnosticism, it is theism.
As Thomas Huxley explains, agnostics are those like me who unabashedly
deny and repudiate, on principle, any contrary doctrine like
Christianity for example, that there are propositions like the tenets
of Christianity for example, that people ought to believe without
logically satisfactory evidence.
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 10:30:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1132102250.091691.101760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Topquark wrote:
...
The agnostic position is a reasonable one ...
Arguing _ad ignorantiam_ as you folks do that there might be a God
because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture)
is false is not agnosticism, it is theism.
Only such a theist troll in false clothing as Septic would make such a
foolish argument.
As Thomas Huxley explains,
False statements about what Huxley says deleted.
It was inevitable that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism
and Theology; or rather, I ought to say, between Agnosticism and
Ecclesiasticism. For Theology, the science, is one thing; and
Ecclesiasticism, the championship of a foregone conclusion3 as to the
truth of a particular [313] form of Theology, is another. With
scientific Theology, Agnosticism has no quarrel. On the contrary, the
Agnostic, knowing too well the influence of prejudice and
idiosyncrasy, even on those who desire most earnestly to be
impartial, can wish for nothing more urgently than that the
scientific theologian should not only be at perfect liberty to thresh
out the matter in his own fashion; but that he should, if he can,
find flaws in the Agnostic position; and, even if demonstration is
not to be had, that he should put, in their full force, the grounds
of the conclusions he thinks probable. The scientific theologian
admits the Agnostic principle, however widely his results may differ
from those reached by the majority of Agnostics." -- Thomas Huxley,
who coined the term 'agnostic', in, "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 03:48:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
It is Septic who is the cleverly disguised theist ...
No sir, I do not join you in your standard, textbook theist argument
_ad ignorantiam_ that there might be X, and this hypothesis (this
'might be' conjecture) Galileo could not prove 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_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 05:31:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1132091316.197088.255590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
It is Septic who is the cleverly disguised theist ...
No sir,
Then why does Septic spread his abuse only on honest agnostics and
atheists rather than attacking the truly false arguments of those actual
rabid theists who so often post in our alt.atheism ng?
Only someone antagonistic to atheist and agnostic interests could be so
consistently anti-agnostic and anti-atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
15 Nov 2005 11:36:26 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2005 08:30:27 -0800, "OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil and friends, who think they are agnostic, but are actually only
not too cleverly disguised theists, want to argue _ad ignorantiam_ that
there might be a god because there is no proof there isn't. I wonder if
they also argue that there might actually be a Santa Claus, and maybe
even leprechauns, because there is no proof there isn't? If not, then
they are being logically inconsistent, picking and choosing what they
believe in.
When they show my their proof that there's no Santa Claus, I use it to
show that there's no god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
14 Nov 2005 03:51:11 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131921847.273490.106610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
All gods are hypothet ical and there is no evidence for any.
There is no god and nobody is his prophet.
Precisely so!
Prove it.
Don't have to. Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, you do.
Atheists who strongly claim ...
You can stop right there
Now look at this Septic. You broke your promise.
You've admitted to me that you know this is dishonest
and yet now you are doing it again. Wassup wit dat??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 04:55:01 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
All gods are hypothetical and there is no evidence for any.
There is no god and nobody is his prophet.
Precisely so!
Prove it.
Don't have to.
Then your affirmative statement is summarily dismissed as false,
Septic, by _your_own_ criteria. Put up or shut up, or remain the
completely refuted, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot
of alt.atheism, as always. Hoist, hoist, hoist.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 12:56:12 AM |
|
|
In article <1131863092.313766.202360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Can't
Sure you can; it is a very simple questtion: Are gods hypothetical
('might be' theist conjecture),
or are there gods known to be (there is proof) real?
The conjecture that a god or gods might be possible not limited to
theists, but is held by by most agnostics, and even a few atheists.
It is the claim that a god or gods *must* exist that agnostics and
atheists eschew.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 01:05:10 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131863092.313766.202360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Can't
Sure you can; it is a very simple questtion: Are gods hypothetical
('might be' theist conjecture),
or are there gods known to be (there is proof) real?
The conjecture that there might be a god or gods is not limited to
theists ...
Don't be silly, that is what characterizes theism. Atheists do not
argue ad ignorantiam as you do that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, only
you not too cleverly disguised theists do that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 01:27:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1131865510.585352.305490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131863092.313766.202360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Can't
Sure you can; it is a very simple questtion: Are gods hypothetical
('might be' theist conjecture),
or are there gods known to be (there is proof) real?
The conjecture that there might be a god or gods is not limited to
theists ...
Don't be silly, that is what characterizes theism.
Only in the twisted mind of Septic himself.
Agnostics, quite properly, refuse to reject the possibility that gods
might exist for lack of sufficient evidence against it.
It is a principle of Agnosticism not to claim certainty without
persuasive evidence to support such a claim.
Septic would do well to follow their example.
Atheists do not
argue ad ignorantiam as you do that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false
How is it an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to state that one should not draw
a particular conclusion because there is no evidence to support that
conclusion?
Either gods are possible or they are not.
I know of no convincing evidence for or against such possibility, so I
will not claim to know either way.
Septic claims that my refusal to decide in the absence of sufficient
evidence to make such a decision is a fallacy.
only
you not too cleverly disguised theists do that.
As I do not believe in the existence of any gods, I am a remarkably
atheistic theist.
If all theists were as atheistic as I, here would be no need of churchs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 10:13:31 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
<snip>
As I do not believe in the existence of any gods ...
Say whut? Aren't you joining Jeff Young, Maliboo Skipper, Dell, and
others here in the theist argument ad ignorantiam that there might be a
god because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
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_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 02:31:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1131898411.162465.318030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip>
As I do not believe in the existence of any gods ...
Say whut?
For the benefit of such illiterates as Septic, I will repeat:
<quote>
As I do not believe in the existence of any gods
<\q>
Aren't you joining Jeff Young, Maliboo Skipper, Dell, and
others here in the theist argument ad ignorantiam that there might be a
god because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
conjecture) is false?
As there is no such "theist Argumentum ad Ignorantiam", I cannot be
joining anyone in what does not exist.
On the other hand, I, like Huxley, will not declare that I am certain of
the objective truth of any proposition unless I can produce evidence
which logically justifies that certainty.
And as I cannot produce any evidence that justifies certainty that gods
are NOT possible, I will not declare that it is true that gods are not
possible!
If Septic has any evidence that logically justifies his certainty that
gods are not possible, he has yet to reveal it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 02:53:13 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
If Septic has any evidence that logically justifies his certainty that
gods are not possible, he has yet to reveal it.
Liar. This is not about me, it is about you theists arguing that gods
ARE possible, that there might be a god because there is no proof your
hypothesis (your 'might be' conjecture) is false. Textbook logical
fallacy on your part:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 03:32:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1131915193.098256.129890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If Septic has any evidence that logically justifies his certainty that
gods are not possible, he has yet to reveal it.
Liar.
If Septic claims this is false, perhaps he would be so kind as to give
some reference to this alleged evidence.
This is not about me, it is about you theists arguing that gods
ARE possible
And Septic calls me a liar? All we are saying is that we cannot prove
that gods are impossible.
That means only that, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, gods are possible.
This is only about the state of our knowledge, not about the actuality
of gods.
And I repeat:
If Septic has any evidence that logically justifies his certainty that
gods are not possible, he has yet to reveal it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
14 Nov 2005 03:11:55 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131915193.098256.129890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If Septic has any evidence that logically justifies his certainty that
gods are not possib le, he has yet to reveal it.
Liar.
If Septic claims this is false, perhaps he would be so kind as to give
some reference to this alleged evidence.
This is not about me, it is about you theists arguing that gods
ARE possible
And Septic calls me a liar? All we are saying is that we cannot prove
that gods are impossible.
It is unnecessary to respond to every repetition of his
pathological lying. He has no credibility. He knows it,
which is why he keeps changing his handle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 09:13:17 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131863092.313766.202360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Del wrote:
Can't
Sure you can; it is a very simple questtion: Are gods hypothetical
('might be' theist conjecture),
or are there gods known to be (there is proof) real?
The conjecture that there might be a god or gods is not limited to
theists ...
Don't be silly,
Don't fallaciously Argue by Ridicule.
that is what characterizes theism.
False. Theism is characterized by a belief not a conjecture. And
theism is characterized by a belief "there is a god or gods" not "there
might be a god or gods". So you're wrong, and wrong, Septic; double
Equivocation Fallacy. As usual. Ho hum.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
12 Nov 2005 02:54:32 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<snip>
X/Eggs:
The argument is that it is possible there might be a magic invisible
something, and this hypothesis nobody can prove false.
Virgil:
No! Our argument is that AS FAR AS WE KNOW there might be gods because
we do not KNOW them to be impossible.
X/Eggs:
That's what I said,
Del:
No it's not.
OS XI:
Dell, can I get a straight answer to just one short simple question?
Please check one:
As far as we know aren't gods, like God, Allah, Mars or Zeus for
example just hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), they are not
known (no proof) to be real?
Hypothetical ('might be'
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic. That's not what "hypothetical"
means, as you've already been told. (Also a Fallacy of Equivocation
from you, Septic, between "just hypothetical" (previous paragraph) and
"hypothetical" (just above); something can be _both_ hypothetical
_and_ true, of course; just consider the hypothesis "there exist
particles smaller than atoms", now known to be true, at one time not.)
When you are ready to stop with all the Equivocation Fallacy, Septic,
you just let us all know.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
12 Nov 2005 05:31:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=hypothetical
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
12 Nov 2005 09:02:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
A hypothetical case at law, for example, is for purposes of discussion
and analysis, but there is no requirement that such a case not be real.
Most often, "hypothetical" means "if this were true, what would be the
consequnces?" without any implication that the thing in question is
either true or false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 12:52:48 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which ou have an hypothesis that there might
be a god. In this case it means 'might be' (might exist) conjecture on
your part, and argument ad ignorantiam that there might be a god
because there is no proof your hypothesis (your 'might be' conjecture)
is false. That is argument _ad ignorantiam_ just like the example in
Copi's _Introduction to Logic_.
---
<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)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 01:07:09 AM |
|
|
In article <1131864768.143370.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which ou have an hypothesis that there might
be a god.
That is not my hypothesis. My "hypothesis", as far as it belongs to
anyone and as far as it is an hypothesis at all, is that, as far as we
know, a god or gods are possible. But I have no belief that any gods
actually exist.
In this case it means 'might be' (might exist) conjecture on
your part, and argument ad ignorantiam that there might be a god
because there is no proof your hypothesis (your 'might be' conjecture)
is false. That is argument _ad ignorantiam_
It is hardly an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to say that until some
statement is proved false it is improper to claim it false, but that is
precisely the "argument" that Septic is misrepresenting as an Argumentum
ad Ignorantiam.
So that Septic is again totally wrong, and again committing his own oft
repeated selection of logical fallacies to bolster his fatally flawed
position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 10:56:35 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131864768.143370.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which you have an hypothesis that there might
be a god.
That is not my hypothesis. My "hypothesis", as far as it belongs to
anyone and as far as it is an hypothesis at all, is that, as far as we
know, a god or gods are possible. ...
You left off the 'because there is no proof this hypothesis is false'
part of your argument this time.
That is what is known as a distinction without a difference.
Substituting 'a god is possible' for 'there might be a god' does not
change the meaning.
And your argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there might be a god because
there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false
is textbook logical fallacy:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 02:48:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1131900995.135459.88040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131864768.143370.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which you have an hypothesis that there might
be a god.
That is not my hypothesis. My "hypothesis", as far as it belongs to
anyone and as far as it is an hypothesis at all, is that, as far as we
know, a god or gods are possible. ...
You left off the 'because there is no proof this hypothesis is false'
part of your argument this time.
NO! That is the logically convincing reason why the hypothesis is
considered valid by all agnostics, but is not a necessary part of the
hypothesis itself.
That is what is known as a distinction without a difference.
Substituting 'a god is possible' for 'there might be a god' does not
change the meaning.
Nor does it falsify what is, to the best of anyone's knowledge, true.
And your argument _ad ignorantiam_
Septic has been claiming for a long time now that the valid argument
that absence of proof of impossibility does not prove impossibility is
an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
But such false claims, no matter how often repeated, remain lies.
Famous in the history
Is Septics penchant for lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 03:20:45 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131900995.135459.88040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131864768.143370.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which you have an hypothesis that there might
be a god.
That is not my hypothesis. My "hypothesis", as far as it belongs to
anyone and as far as it is an hypothesis at all, is that, as far as we
know, a god or gods are possible. ...
You left off the 'because there is no proof this hypothesis is false'
part of your argument this time.
NO! That is the logically convincing reason ...
No, that does not qualify as a reason to be convinced there might be a
God. It is textbook logical fallacy to argue as you do that there might
be a God because there is no proof that hypothesis (that 'might be'
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_, p. 117)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Aren't gods hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)? |
13 Nov 2005 04:07:27 PM |
|
|
In article <1131916845.946737.184570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131900995.135459.88040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131864768.143370.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <1131838313.761234.163810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
That's not what "hypothetical" means ...
Hypothetical means conjectural, it means 'might be' conjecture.
It can mean, and often does mean, other things.
Not in this case, one in which you have an hypothesis that there might
be a god.
That is not my hypothesis. My "hypothesis", as far as it belongs to
anyone and as far as it is an hypothesis at all, is that, as far as we
know, a god or gods are possible. ...
You left off the 'because there is no proof this hypothesis is false'
part of your argument this time.
NO! That is the logically convincing reason ...
No, that does not qualify as a reason to be convinced there might be a
God.
It is reason enough to reject the claim that gods are known to be
impossible, thus one may conclude that, as far as anyone can tell from
the evidence available, gods might be possible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
