| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Scott Erb" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2005 01:14:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Atheism a Safe Bet? |
This response didn't get seem to arrive so I'm re-sending it
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> wrote in message news:...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:11ms509au2k773d@corp.supernews.com...
Scott Erb wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131249862.012526.200870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SquareKnot wrote:
chris.holt wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
No, I'm saying the nature of the puzzles suggest there must be
a force outside space-time that is beyond our understanding
which brought
space-time into existence (via the bi g bang). This force
could be
impersonal or have consciousness of some sort. There is no
inherent reason to privilege an impersonal force over the
possibility of a
conscious force. Ergo, logically, there is an equal
probability that there is a 'god' (not the typical religious
notion of god) that is conscious or that the force of nature is
impersonal.
You might want to rethink your idea of what constitutes an
equal probability. If you don't know, that doesn't mean
that all the alternatives you can think of are equal.
Plus the fact that arguing as Scott and friends do, that there
might be a God (Creator of the universe) because there is no proof
that hypothesis (that 'might be' conjecture) is false, is logical
fallacy, argument from ignorance, argument _ad ignorantiam_.
No, if that were the case every scientist who speculates would be
commiting a logical fallacy.
Most of modern physics, including Einstein's idea of relativity,
started with a reflection on the evidence and then, "it might be the
case..."
In any event, I'm simply noting: a) space-time is the realm of
science; b) the big bang created space-time, anything previous to or
causal of the big bang was outside our space-time universe, and thus
not in the realm of current science, and in fact beyond our
understanding;
Not true....
Why do you say that? At one point you tried to use space-time references
as
a way to deny that anything could be out of space-time, which is an error of
reasoning.
We can't know what is or can be outside space-time because we are
psychologically enslaved by it. Mathematics is perhaps the only possible
key to unlocking that, but even with things as complex as string theory,
we're still only trying to get a grip on what the nature of space-time is --
except it is our limited universe, and it is an entity (the Newtonian view
of time as the progression of events and space as the stage on which reality
is played out has long been pushed aside, of course).
.
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:47:07 AM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:8FDmf.1434$eD5.541023@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... OS XI, if he is consistent, will attack you on this point,
Straw man. I am not attacking you, I am merely trying to reason with
you, I am taking exception to the logical fallacy you are posting.
Please try to learn the difference. And if you do not want your logical
fallacy pointed out, then don't post it here in Usenet.
because teapots are known to exist while gods are not. Or something
like that.
Or something which is nothing like that. What I actually did was take
exception to you arguing that there might actually be a God because
there is no more proof there is no God than there is proof that there is
no teapot in orbit around the sun. That is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_) for which theists have been famous for hundreds of years:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain
peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his
critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative,
'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:35:27 PM |
|
|
In article <yJKdnXvQ-O6N-wHenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:8FDmf.1434$eD5.541023@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... OS XI, if he is consistent, will attack you on this point,
Straw man. I am not attacking you, I am merely trying to reason with
you, I am taking exception to the logical fallacy you are posting.
That looks remarkably like an attack to everyone except Septic himself.
Septic has a form of double vision that judges his own postings by quite
different standards than he applies to anyone else's.
What I actually did was take
exception to you arguing that there might actually be a God because
there is no more proof there is no God than there is proof that there is
no teapot in orbit around the sun.
Thus Septic takes exception to valid statements with remarkable
frequency.
That is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_) for which theists have been famous for hundreds of years
I have yet to see any theist argue on the basis of whether there is or
is not a teapot in orbit around anything, so if such arguments are
centuries old, they have been remarkably well concealed, and can hardly
be called famous.
Also, it is not an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, or any other kind of
fallacy to speculate that something which is no known to be impossible
might actually occur.
That Septic wants it to be a fallacy and claims it to be one does not
make it so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
10 Dec 2005 02:07:51 PM |
|
|
In article <8FDmf.1434$eD5.541023@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Malibu Skipper <mad@my.mama> wrote:
Mani Deli wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:13:06 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
That there is reason to doubt any paaticular god's existence is
insuficient justification to claim to KNOW that that god does not exist.
Yes indeed!
That there is reason to doubt any particular Santa Clauses existence
is insuficient justification to claim to KNOW that that Santa Claus
does not exist.
I do not KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist. However I believe he
doesn't, because there are good reasons which you might investigate.
There is no god and nobody is his prophet.
"I think that in philosophical strictness at the level where one
doubts the existence of material objects and holds that the world
may have existed for only five minutes, I ought to call myself an
agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do
not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than
the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another
illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between Earth and
Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but nobody
thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in
practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."
[Bertrand Russell]
From " Is There a God?"
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine, in 1952)
Russell's teapot analogy expresses my opinion on the subject pretty
well, and I've used it myself in this very thread. You need to be
careful, though -- DotSix, if he is consistent, will attack you on this
point, because teapots are known to exist while gods are not. Or
something like that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 07:35:16 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be'
False by inspection. Didn't you notice the "must be" in there,
Septic??
Fallacy of Strawman from Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 10:57:25 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178515.925920.164710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture)
False by inspection. Didn't you notice the "must be" in there
There is no logical necessity demonstrated here, dunderhead, it is
merely theist conjecture that reasonable people reject (do not accept),
for cause (inherent fallacy of special pleading), as Russell points out:
'It is MAINTAINED [hypothesized, 'might be' conjectured by theists] that
everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the
chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God. ... There cannot [note:
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT] be any validity in that argument [due to the inherent
special pleading for God]. It is exactly of the same nature as the
Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant
rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?"
the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really
no better than that. ... Therefore, I need not waste any more time on
the argument.' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 01:42:31 PM |
|
|
In article <F9adnQZLI7L3xwHeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178515.925920.164710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture)
False by inspection. Didn't you notice the "must be" in there
There is no logical necessity demonstrated here
Theist claim there MUST BE these things.
That Septic disagrees is irrelevant to what they claim.
Absence of proof satisfactory to Septic does not affect the wording of,
nor the meaning of what theists claim, it can only affect the legitimacy
of their claim.
Septic is trying to conflate the wording of theist claims with their
legitimacy, which is the same straw man fallacy that he has been
promulgating for years.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 03:40:45 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
By whom? Does Russel think that his is the only intellect in the
Universe?
as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view,
"Exactly" is a strange word for mathematician.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 05:08:55 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy. You might look into it.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
By whom?
As Russell has proven, all reasonable people are compeled to reject it
due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it. Google the
logical fallacy of special pleading. Are you a reasonable person?
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
See www.m-w.com
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view,
"Exactly" is a strange word for mathematician.
This is not an issue of mathematics, son, it is an issue of informal
(ordinary language) logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 06:21:51 PM |
|
|
In article <4tadnT1J9PEckwfenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy.
AND we note that Septic does it frequently. But special pleading, even
for Septics falalcies, does not make the things pled for wrong, it
merely leaves them unproven and still unsettled either way.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
By whom?
As Russell has proven, all reasonable people are compeled to reject it
due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it.
Then why does Russell say directly the opposite in:
"Essay: Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?" by Bertrand Russell (1947)
<BEGIN QUOTE>
Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me.
Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place
they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say
"Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of
you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a
purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself
as an Agnostic, BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE
ARGUMENT BY WHICH ONE PROVE THAT THERE IS NOT A GOD.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the
ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist,
because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought
to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods
of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a
logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them
did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such
proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely
philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking
popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that
we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think,
take exactly the same line.
There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the
existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the
Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric
gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an
alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious
consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that
they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although
it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and
sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.
<END QUOTE>
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 12:02:05 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-544728.17215109122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <4tadnT1J9PEckwfenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy.
AND we note that Septic does it frequently.
You do not note any such thing, else you would be posting proof. Now
stop treying to create a diversion, it is not any logical fallacy of
mine that is the issue here, it is the inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in the theist idea that there might be a
God/Creator/First Santa Claus who gave us existence.
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot [note: ABSOLUTELY CANNOT!]
be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the
subject.' The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Now watch as Virgil and friends try to divert attention away from this
issue of inherent special pleading again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 03:06:35 PM |
|
|
In article <svidnRxVb9oP9AHeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-544728.17215109122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <4tadnT1J9PEckwfenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy.
AND we note that Septic does it frequently.
You do not note any such thing, else you would be posting proof.
Every time Septic pleads for the falsification of any possibility of any
god existing without any proof that gods cannot exist, he is special
pleading.
(special
pleading) inherent in the theist idea that there might be a
God/Creator/First Santa Claus who gave us existence.
As no theist ever special pleaded for only the possibility of a god,
there is no such special pleading to object to.
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
As easily as the impossibility of gods when the the very idea of such a
thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it?
As Russell points out, the very idea of it [the necessity of a first
cause] is summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu
hypothesis that the world might be carried by an elephant standing on
a turtle!
Russell's argunment was scuttled by NASA, and is no longer valid.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Now watch as Virgil and friends try to divert attention away from this
issue of inherent special pleading again.
It is Septic's inherent special pleadings that are the issue, trying to
say that special pleading for any idea is sufficient to justify
accepting its negation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 01:19:48 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-544728.17215109122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <4tadnT1J9PEckwfenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First
Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy.
AND we note that Septic does it frequently.
You do not note any such thing,
Yes, we do, sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 07:27:11 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy.
There is no special pleading
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
False. Only the _necessity_ of God as first cause is rejected. Do try
to read Russell for understanding next time, Septic.
By whom?
As Russell has proven,
False.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
False. You are equivocating, Septic. Russell is rejecting a
_necessity_, not "the very idea".
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view,
"Exactly" is a strange word for mathematician.
This is not an issue of mathematics, son, it is an issue of informal
False. Russell's point is not informal.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:54:15 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178031.462590.240740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
False. Only the _necessity_ of God as first cause is rejected.
This is not an issue of logical necessity here, dunderhead, it is
merely theist conjecture that reasonable people reject (do not accept),
for cause (inherent fallacy of special pleading), as Russell points out:
'It is MAINTAINED [an idea hypothesized, 'might be' conjectured by
theists] that
everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the
chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God. ... There cannot [note:
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT] be any validity in that argument [due to the inherent
special pleading for God]. It is exactly of the same nature as the
Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant
rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?"
the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really
no better than that. ... Therefore, I need not waste any more time on
the argument.' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:55:03 PM |
|
|
In article <QLGdnWQa0c5d-gHenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178031.462590.240740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
False. Only the _necessity_ of God as first cause is rejected.
This is not an issue of logical necessity here, dunderhead
It is an issue of CLAIMED necessity, dunderhead.
Theists CLAIM actuality.
Anti-theists like Septic CLAIM impossibility.
We agnostics declare a murrain on both your houses, and do not reject
the possibility of either being in the wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 01:18:25 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178031.462590.240740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
False. Only the _necessity_ of God as first cause is rejected.
This is not an issue of logical necessity
Russell's argument _only_ refutes logical necessity (of God as a first
cause). Do try to read Russell for understanding next time, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
09 Dec 2005 05:45:17 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy. You might look into it.
I know what a special pleading is. The joke is that Atheists redefine
deism and then do battle with their own straw god. The argument has
wandered far from logic, truth, and deism.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
By whom?
As Russell has proven, all reasonable people are compeled to reject it
By law, no doubt.
due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it.
Rather, I think it is due to the straw-god you choose to oppose.
Google the
logical fallacy of special pleading. Are you a reasonable person?
I do not want to argue for the special straw-god you have told me I
must support. Refusing to support your straw-god is not a special
pleading. There is no fallacy in this argument but yours.
The
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
See www.m-w.com
Apparently, the proof is to fill your mouth with marbles and then utter
the longest sentence you can concoct. I am not impressed.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view,
"Exactly" is a strange word for mathematician.
This is not an issue of mathematics, son, it is an issue of informal
(ordinary language) logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
"Exact" is exact in logic or mathematics. And Russell's statement is
fallacious on the face of it. Prima feces, we might say.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:28:14 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134171917.616709.223560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
... Russell's statement is
fallacious on the face of it.
It is not logical fallacy to point out the logical fallacy in the
argument of others, dunderhead. Russell is showing the inherent logical
fallacy (special pleading) in you theists hypothesis ('might be
conjecture) of a God/Creator/First Cause. The fallacious argument is
that everything must have a cause except God/Creator/First Cause,
because God/Creator/First Cause is special.
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:25:31 PM |
|
|
In article <SoSdnXuMs6E4_AHenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134171917.616709.223560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
... Russell's statement is
fallacious on the face of it.
It is not logical fallacy to point out the logical fallacy in the
argument of others, dunderhead.
Russell is showing the inherent logical
fallacy (special pleading) in you theists hypothesis ('might be
conjecture) of a God/Creator/First Cause.
To denigrate honest agnostics by calling them theists is the fallacy of
Argumentum ad Hominem.
The fallacious argument is
that everything MUST HAVE a cause except God/Creator/First Cause,
because God/Creator/First Cause is special.
But it is not an argument that we Agnostics ever make.
On the other hand, that the argument for a first cause is a fallacy does
not prove it false, either, despite Septic's false arguments that it
does.
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
Yes! Logic is not biased the way that Septic is.
Special pleading FOR a first cause no more proves Septic's impossibility
of gods that Septic's special pleadings AGAINST it establishes a first
cause.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the ideathere might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:59:52 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134164445.419278.57160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause
when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it?
There is no fallacy.
Special pleading is logical fallacy. You might look into it.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
By whom?
As Russell has proven, all reasonable people are compeled to reject it
due to the logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in it. Google the
logical fallacy of special pleading. Are you a reasonable person?
Proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement,
or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation
from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
See www.m-w.com
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view,
"Exactly" is a strange word for mathematician.
With apologies to Kevin Kline... I can't help but think of the
terminally stupid Otto character in 'A Fish Called Wanda' when I read
Skeptic/Dot six/...
Wanda: "Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not
'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political
movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
Otto: "Don't call me stupid!"
Wanda: "To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've
known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but
you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"
Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"
Nuff said.
Goober.
This is not an issue of mathematics, son, it is an issue of informal
(ordinary language) logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:12:19 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngpsc$501$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
With apologies to Kevin Kline...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:05:36 PM |
|
|
In article <3uGdnXz_JM50wAHenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngpsc$501$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
With apologies to Kevin Kline...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
Not all of the theists' special pleading arguements for the existence of
god(s) makes god(s) impossible nor do all of Septic's special pleading
arguements for the impossibility of god(s) make any god actual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 01:36:21 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngpsc$501$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
With apologies to Kevin Kline...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
He's already refuted you, Septic. Recap: the _only_ thing which
Russell shows is special pleading is the _necessity_ of a god as first
cause. Remember "it [a first cause] might as well be the universe as
God"?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the ideathere might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 04:56:24 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngpsc$501$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
With apologies to Kevin Kline...
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
Yes: you demonstrate not the slightest understanding of Russell's
argument. By (humourous) analogy, you demonstrate as much understanding
from reading Russell as an ape does from reading Nietzsche.
Have you anything to say to that issue?
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the ideathere might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:43:02 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:NYVlf.52$eD5.135248@twister.southeast.rr.com...
... there must be a First Cause ...
That is the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
Why do you pretend to be too stupid to understand the difference between
"there must be a First Cause" and "there might be a First Cause"?
Goober.
The question you have yet to answer is:
How could there possibly be such a thing as God/Creator/First Cause when
the very idea of such a thing has a fatal logical fallacy (special
pleading) inherent in it? As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly Hindu hypothesis that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a turtle!
" ... there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the
subject.' The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Now watch as Skipper and friends try to divert attention away from this
issue of inherent special pleading again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 11:18:45 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngosm$4nk$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... the difference between "there must be a First Cause" and "there
might be a First Cause"?
It is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation) any way you look at it.
There is no logical necessity demonstrated here, dunderhead, it is
merely theist conjecture that reasonable people reject (do not accept),
for cause (inherent fallacy of special pleading), as Russell points out:
'It is MAINTAINED [hypothesized, 'might be' conjectured by theists] that
everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the
chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God. ... There cannot [note:
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT] be any validity in that argument [due to the inherent
special pleading for God]. It is exactly of the same nature as the
Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant
rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?"
the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really
no better than that. ... Therefore, I need not waste any more time on
the argument.' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:13:53 PM |
|
|
In article <vMmdnT9PWdj3wgHenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngosm$4nk$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... the difference between "there must be a First Cause" and "there
might be a First Cause"?
It is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation) any way you look at it.
WRONG! Theists do not say "MIGHT BE", and agnostics do not say "MUST BE".
Septic is conflating the form of the statement with its provability.
All statements about whether gods exist or not are unprovable, but they
are not all logically equivalent.
There are, for example , situations in which, "there is an X" can be
false but "there could be an X" can be true. So to argue, as Septic
does, that they must be logically equivalent is false logic.
But Septic is vary handy with false logic, it is virtually the only kind
he ever comes up with.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the idea there might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 02:07:45 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngosm$4nk$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... the difference between "there must be a First Cause" and "there
might be a First Cause"?
It is theist conjecture
False, Septic. Theism is characterized by belief, not conjecture. And
theism is characterized by belief in God, not belief in a First Cause.
And theism is characterized _only_ by the belief "there is a God" and
_not_ by the belief "there might be a God" atall atall, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: is religion a con job? |
11 Dec 2005 02:56:13 PM |
|
|
Hundreds of superstition corporations now sell different brands. Each
competing brand tries to use the best psychological advertising
techniques to sell consumers a set of gods which they claim will only
treat them well for an exclusive allegiance to their particular
products.
Successful branches of this oldest of business must be able to keep
you frightened and repressed by filling your mind with guilt, threats
of torture along with comforting fairy tales which you are expected to
accept as reality. Salesmen will also do their best to get your kids
to consume there products well before they reach an age of reason.
All brands of the superstition business must convince the consumer
that serious questioning of its origins, its instruction manuals,
past business transactions, or accounting practices will damage his
relationship with them.
All superstition corporations require brand loyalty from faithful
consumers who are lead to believe that they are part of a unique lot
chosen for unique favors from the imaginary CEO.
A loyal customer faithfully believes that life without allegiance to
his favorite brand is dangerous and that products sold by other
superstition corporations are inferior because they aren't backed by
truly valid after-life insurance policies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Russell points out the inherent special pleading in the ideathere might be a creator |
11 Dec 2005 04:39:38 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dngosm$4nk$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
... the difference between "there must be a First Cause" and "there
might be a First Cause"?
It is theist conjecture ('might be' speculation) any way you look at it.
There is no logical necessity demonstrated here, dunderhead, it is
merely theist conjecture that reasonable people reject (do not accept),
for cause (inherent fallacy of special pleading), as Russell points out:
'It is MAINTAINED [hypothesized, 'might be' conjectured by theists] that
everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the
chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and
to that First Cause you give the name of God. ... There cannot [note:
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT] be any validity in that argument [due to the inherent
special pleading for God]. It is exactly of the same nature as the
Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant
rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?"
the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really
no better than that. ... Therefore, I need not waste any more time on
the argument.' -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
<snip off topic comments>
Have any of you anything to say about the issue raised here, the
inherent special pleading?
Yes I do: why are you pretending to be too | | | |
