| 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: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:36:10 PM |
|
|
In article <1132085378.041806.315610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Why would you say there might be mammals?
...
Good question. Mammals are known to exist (and some of them are
elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant
conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
No, he's making an analogy ...
Not a valid analogy, because mammals are known to exist while gods are
not. Gods are hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), mammals are
not.
Okay; we'll add "analogy" to the list of terms you don't understand.
What do you mean, 'don't understand'? You are projecting. This isn't
about the definition of 'analogy'. We all know what that is. This is
about the fact that mammals are known to exist, gods are not, so Virgil
does not have an analogy going, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant
conclusion. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
But Virgil isn't using the existence of elephants to support the
existence of gods ...
Ha ha. That's funny.
Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
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. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants).
On which islands are mammals known to exist?
In what universe are gods known NOT to exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
17 Nov 2005 12:29:35 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <1132085378.041806.315610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Why would you say there might be mammals?
...
Good question. Mammals are known to exist (and some of them
are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil is appealing to an
irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
No, he's making an analogy ...
Not a valid analogy, because mammals are known to exist while
gods are not. Gods are hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture), mammals are not.
Okay; we'll add "analogy" to the list of terms you don't
understand.
What do you mean, 'don't understand'? You are projecting. This
isn't about the definition of 'analogy'. We all know what that
is. This is about the fact that mammals are known to exist,
gods are not, so Virgil does not have an analogy going, Virgil
is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion. See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
But Virgil isn't using the existence of elephants to support the
existence of gods ...
Ha ha. That's funny.
Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there
is no proof that hypothesis is false.
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the
case for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it
"MUST BE" the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
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. Or, equivalently, when it is
argued that something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved
true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until
it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally
assumed innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist.
Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."
But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and
some of them are elephants).
On which islands are mammals known to exist?
In what universe are gods known NOT to exist?
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the
gods are concerned mostly with trees."
- Lao Tse
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:11:54 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:23:39 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:37:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1132086219.257277.20370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
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. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:36:14 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, here's one: how many home runs
did Harmon Killebrew hit in his career?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:47:42 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, here's one: how many home runs
did Harmon Killebrew hit in his career?
I repeat: Any relevant questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:40:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1132087662.413976.258540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, here's one: how many home runs
did Harmon Killebrew hit in his career?
I repeat: Any relevant questions?
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
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. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:56:15 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, here's one: how many home runs
did Harmon Killebrew hit in his career?
I repeat: Any relevant questions?
No, I'm sorry -- that's a logical fallacy. Harmon Killebrew is not, in
fact, a question at all, but a right-handed power hitter who played for
the Washington Senators and the Minnesota Twins in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
You are guilty, sir, of using the argumentum ad killebrewtium in
support of your mythical thingy. Here, read this, it explains everything:
"These ambiguities, redundances, and deficiences recall those attributed
by Dr. Franz Kuhn to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled Celestial
Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge. On those remote pages it is written
that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b)
embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e)
mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included
in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j)
innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush,
(l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those
that resemble flies from a distance."
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:26:16 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false. But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Yes. Is there a movie on this flight?
Any relevant questions?
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yes, here's one: how many home runs
did Harmon Killebrew hit in his career?
I repeat: Any relevant questions?
No, I'm sorry -- that's a logical fallacy. Harmon Killebrew ...
I fully understand why you are trying to change the subject to
baseball now that your argument that there might be a God because there
is no proof that hypothesis is false has been debunked.
Please do continue on. It is amusing to see you theists squirm when
cornered.
I want to wish you the best of luck in the Theist Quotation of the
Month contest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:53:23 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
I fully understand why you are trying to change the subject to
baseball now that your argument that there might be a God because there
is no proof that hypothesis is false has been debunked.
No, I'm just not taking you seriously anymore, Septic. Your arguments
have been thoroughly refuted by at least four different people on this
thread; you continue to ignore the refutation and repost the same
material, again and again. I'd just like to see if you're capable of
responding to ANYTHING.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:33:59 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
But Virgil isn't using the existence of elephants to support the
existence of gods ...
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. It would be if it were an argument
that there *is* a god because there is no proof that the
hypothesis is false. Since no one (at least recently) in
this thread has suggested that there *is* a god, the a.i.
attack doesn't work.
But you can't bring the existence of
mammals into it, because mammals are already known to exist (and some
of them are elephants). Gods are not. So Virgil does not have a valid
analogy, Virgil is appealing to an irrelevant conclusion.
Look. Analogies are *never* valid arguments, unless both
sides in a dispute agree that they hold over the relevant
properties; that is, unless both sides agree with the
shared premises. They are used as intuition pumps, as
ways of trying to convey viewpoints. While this is
often a useful endeavour, it is not part of logic, and
should never be taken as such.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#elenchi
Any questions on this point?
Why are you trying to use false arguments against a viewpoint
that doesn't exist, at least here?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:46:26 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
But Virgil isn't using the existence of elephants to support the
existence of gods ...
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
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)
---
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact.]
See it now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:40:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1132087584.649060.158950@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Malibu Skipper wrote:
But Virgil isn't using the existence of elephants to support the
existence of gods ...
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
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)
The above irrrelevant but oft repested citataion from COpi proves Septic
wrong as there is no "MIGHT" involved.
Where does Copi say that speculating that something "MIGHT BE" the case
for lack of opposing evidence is the same as arguing that it "MUST BE"
the case for lack of such opposition?
The later IS Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, the former is not.
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. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something MUST be false because it hasn't been proved true.
(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it
has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed
innocent until proven guilty.)
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
<unquote>
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody
has shown any proof that they are real."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 02:56:58 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
in Copi's _Introduction to Logic_:
No it is not.
---
<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.]
See it now?
If the leading astronomers of his time had argued that there
*might*be* such a thing because Galileo could not prove it
false, they would have been on safe ground. Note the phrase
"is in fact", however.
There is a distinction between arguing that something might
be, and arguing that it is in fact. You seem to miss this
point.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:14:47 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
in Copi's _Introduction to Logic_:
No it is not.
Yes it is. Read for understanding:
---
<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.]
See it now?
If the leading astronomers of his time had argued that there
*might*be* such a thing because Galileo could not prove it
false ...
That is precisely those theists' argument.
"And this HYPOTHESIS Galileo could not prove false!" (emphasis added)
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.
Hypothesis, conjecture, and guess are all synonyms. See your nearest
thesaurus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:49:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1132089287.394642.286240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
Ha ha. That's funny. Virgil is trying to justify the argument _ad
ignorantiam_ of your side that there might be a god because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
in Copi's _Introduction to Logic_:
No it is not.
Yes it is. Read for understanding:
---
<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.]
See it now?
If the leading astronomers of his time had argued that there
*might*be* such a thing because Galileo could not prove it
false ...
I seem to read that what Copi actually wrote that they argued
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
How does Copi's "IN FACT" become transmogrified into "MIGHT BE"?
Because Septic is lying about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 04:56:01 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
---
<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.]
See it now?
If the leading astronomers of his time had argued that there
*might*be* such a thing because Galileo could not prove it
false ...
I seem to read that what Copi actually wrote that they argued
"the moon is IN FACT a perfect sphere".
Yup; that's what it says. 7th line of the quote.
How does Copi's "IN FACT" become transmogrified into "MIGHT BE"?
Because Septic is lying about it.
I'm more generous than you. I think s/he simply can't read
very well and doesn't understand logical principles. So
I wouldn't call it lying; I'd call it being childishly
mistaken (and of course egotistical enough to refuse to
admit to error).
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 05:33:33 PM |
|
|
chris.holt wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Yup; that's what it says. 7th line of the quote.
How does Copi's "IN FACT" become transmogrified into "MIGHT BE"?
Because Septic is lying about it.
I'm more generous than you. I think s/he simply can't read
very well and doesn't understand logical principles. So
I wouldn't call it lying; I'd call it being childishly
mistaken (and of course egotistical enough to refuse to
admit to error).
He's apparently been doing this for a long, long time. It's difficult
to imagine what sort of mental condition would leave him unable to
understand the absurdity of the things he says, and still able to type
semi-coherent sentences. It appears that he's either mad, deluding
himself that he's a lone genius surrounded by an implacable conspiracy,
or he's the most remarkably persistent troll I've ever run across.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 05:40:11 PM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
I'm more generous than you. I think s/he simply can't read
very well and doesn't understand logical principles. So
I wouldn't call it lying; I'd call it being childishly
mistaken (and of course egotistical enough to refuse to
admit to error).
He's apparently been doing this for a long, long time. It's difficult
to imagine what sort of mental condition would leave him unable to
understand the absurdity of the things he says, and still able to type
semi-coherent sentences.
You've lost me here. It seems to me that you've described
most of the human condition.
It appears that he's either mad, deluding
himself that he's a lone genius surrounded by an implacable conspiracy,
or he's the most remarkably persistent troll I've ever run across.
Persistence can be a virtue. Look what it did for Einstein,
or Bozo the Clown.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
15 Nov 2005 03:32:27 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
OS XI wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
That's not an argument a.i. ...
Yes it is, it is identical to the example of argument _ad ignorantiam_
in Copi's _Introduction to Logic_:
No it is not.
Yes it is. Read for understanding:
I read it, I understood it, and it's clear that you do not.
Sorry, I'm going to have go with everyone else; you don't
understand the distinction between possibility and necessity.
If you've done any modal logic, I can describe it in those
terms. If you haven't, it can be done using the ordinary
universal and existential quantifiers in predicate logic
over possible worlds. But when you say:
---
<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.]
See it now?
You're still ignoring "is in fact".
If the leading astronomers of his time had argued that there
*might*be* such a thing because Galileo could not prove it
false ...
That is precisely those theists' argument.
No. You've misread your own quote.
"And this HYPOTHESIS Galileo could not prove false!" (emphasis added)
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture.
Hypothesis, conjecture, and guess are all synonyms. See your nearest
thesaurus.
Duh.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: I | | | | | | | |
