| 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: God no |
15 Dec 2005 06:43:59 PM |
|
|
In article <dMadnes3RZuaWDzenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-ACE331.16493411122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <Fu-dnZ4_MdXkBwHenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of 'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem,
which
destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet
AARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM again!
who argues that inherent
logical fallacy is not grounds for rejecting a statement?
That may be the way Septic construes logic, but no one else does.
A logical fallacy argued in support of a statement is insufficient, by
itself, to warrant rejecting the statement. If it were, any statement
could be rejected merely by producing such a fallacious argument in
support of it.
See!
Well there you go then, to be logically consistent, you must agree that
you were wrong, my tiny logical fallacy of calling you a moron does not
"destroy his argument" as you said above! Thank you.
One can destroy an argument without rejecting the conclusion of that
argument. Septic's argument WAS destrotyd by his fallacy!
The rejection of Septics false conclusion followed from other things.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
11 Dec 2005 07:37:32 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of 'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem, which
destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet
You're projecting again, Septic. You ought to have that looked at, by
a competent professional.
who argues that inherent
logical fallacy is not grounds for rejecting a statement?
Fallacy does not inhere in statements, dodo, only in arguments.
Complete Fallacy of Strawman from Septic. Fallacy of an _argument_ is
not grounds for declaring its conclusion _false_. Anyone is free to
_reject_ a statement that has not been proved true. So Fallacy of
Equivocation from Septic also (between "reject" and "declare false").
Do try to read for understanding next time, Septic, lest you make
yourself look stupid again.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 01:41:16 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134351452.367808.144290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of 'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem,
which
destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet
You're projecting again, Septic. You ought to have that looked at, by
a competent professional.
who argues that inherent
logical fallacy is not grounds for rejecting a statement?
Fallacy does not inhere in statements, daddy, only in arguments.
That's a distinction without a difference, isn't it, son? Your
statement/argument that there might be a God/Creator/First Cause because
everything must have a cause except that one thing, which is special and
does not require a cause, has an inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading), does it not?
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained 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.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that 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. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 06:51:50 PM |
|
|
In article <yJydnSp4yJt8WzzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134351452.367808.144290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of 'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem,
which
destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet
You're projecting again, Septic. You ought to have that looked at, by
a competent professional.
who argues that inherent
logical fallacy is not grounds for rejecting a statement?
Fallacy does not inhere in statements, daddy, only in arguments.
That's a distinction without a difference, isn't it, son?
That Septic is blind to a difference has never b een evidence that there
was none. He conflates thing all the time, like agnosicism and theism,
for example, or saying "must be" with saying "might be" for another.
Your
Septic's [since no one else says that]
statement/argument that there might be a God/Creator/First Cause because
everything must have a cause except that one thing, which is special and
does not require a cause
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 06:47:28 PM |
|
|
In article <yJydnSp4yJt8WzzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134351452.367808.144290@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.gigane
ws.com.. .
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.gig
anews.co m...
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of
'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem,
which destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet
You're projecting again, Septic. You ought to have that looked at,
by a competent professional.
who argues that inherent logical fallacy is not grounds for
rejecting a statement?
Fallacy does not inhere in statements, daddy, only in arguments.
That's a distinction without a difference, isn't it, son?
NO! Septic is WRONG! GAIN! AS USUAL!
Your
statement/argument that there might be a God/Creator/First Cause
because everything must have a cause except that one thing, which is
special and does not require a cause
When did anyone except Septic make that argument? NEVER!
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
11 Dec 2005 04:24:55 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FA6D1F.02071711122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dLqdncAQytRbQwbeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-333C14.17055209122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <LN-dnZxOMJEPcATenZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134051508.305768.197200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
... theists believe that there _is_ a God ...
That is you theists hypothesis (your 'might be' theist
conjecture).
They are not our thiests
'Theists' is not possessive, moron, it is the plural of 'theist'.
Then Septic is guilty of the fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem, which
destroys his argument.
Aren't you the same Jeff Young sock puppet who argues that inherent
logical fallacy is not grounds for rejecting a statement?
No, no, DotSix -- the sock puppets are yours, and you've never shown
that there was a logical fallacy inherent in the idea of the existence
of God. Nor did Russell; his claim was only that there was a logical
fallacy inherent in the argument from first cause. Do you see the
difference? Will you now trim this post so as to avoid responding to it?
I know you will. Make me proud, DotSix.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 01:12:31 PM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote
... you've never shown that there was a logical fallacy inherent in
the idea of the existence of God. Nor did Russell ...
The fallacy of special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause is that
God/Creator/First Cause is special, in that everything must have a
cause, except God/Creator/First Cause who is somehow special and doesn't
require one. (So the idea is rejected for failing to be logically
consistent throughout.)
This logically fatal issue Russell explains in "Why I Am Not A
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly
Hindu hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a tortoise!
" ... 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 (fallacy of special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 03:39:16 PM |
|
|
In article <lYKdnf65DoEOVgDenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote
... you've never shown that there was a logical fallacy inherent in
the idea of the existence of God. Nor did Russell ...
The fallacy of special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause is that
God/Creator/First Cause is special, in that everything must have a
cause, except God/Creator/First Cause who is somehow special and doesn't
require one. (So the idea is rejected for failing to be logically
consistent throughout.)
This logically fatal issue Russell explains in "Why I Am Not A
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
So that Septic argues ad ignorantiam that a flawed argument for the
necessity of a first cause is sufficient to prove its impossibilty!
Russell is too clever to ever have committed this particular stupidity.
Note his statement about a first cause:
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
That statement does not say anything about the possibility of first
cause, only that there is no necessity for one.
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 04:49:29 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5E779D.14391612122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <lYKdnf65DoEOVgDenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote
... you've never shown that there was a logical fallacy inherent in
the idea of the existence of God. Nor did Russell ...
The fallacy of special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause is that
God/Creator/First Cause is special, in that everything must have a
cause, except God/Creator/First Cause who is somehow special and
doesn't
require one. (So the idea is rejected for failing to be logically
consistent throughout.)
This logically fatal issue Russell explains in "Why I Am Not A
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
So that Septic argues ad ignorantiam ...
No, that would be the straw man you are trying to create.
It is not argument _ad ignorantiam_ (it is not argument, period, it is
questioning) for Russell or anyone else to ask a reasonable question:
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly
Hindu hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) that the
world might be carried by an elephant standing on a tortoise!
" ... 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 (fallacy of special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 10:37:47 PM |
|
|
In article <urGdnYZcqIbwYwDenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5E779D.14391612122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <lYKdnf65DoEOVgDenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote
... you've never shown that there was a logical fallacy inherent in
the idea of the existence of God. Nor did Russell ...
The fallacy of special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause is that
God/Creator/First Cause is special, in that everything must have a
cause, except God/Creator/First Cause who is somehow special and
doesn't
require one. (So the idea is rejected for failing to be logically
consistent throughout.)
This logically fatal issue Russell explains in "Why I Am Not A
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
So that Septic argues ad ignorantiam ...
No, that would be the straw man you are trying to create.
Septic is too coy to admit that the authorship of that which he credits
to Russell is entirely his own work, and that Russell had nothing to do
with it.
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, and is therefore summarily rejected?
Begs the question, since even Russell objects to no more than the
argument that there MUST be a First Cause/God
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic's phony claims in tatters, and reveeals his for the
liar he is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 02:28:32 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT be a God because there
MUST be a first cause. (You still don't understand the term,
'hypothetical', so you old son?) That is the theist hypothesis (the
'might be' theist conjecture), that there MIGHT be a God because there
MUST be a First Cause. That idea is summarily rejected due to special
pleading inherent in it.
Can you caugh up any words to show a way around that issue, the inherent
special pleading for God to say that everything must have a cause except
God, who is somehow special?
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected as no better than the silly
Hindu hypothesis ('might be' conjecture) 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 (fallacy of special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Now let's watch as Virgil and friends talk about anything except the
real issue, the special pleading for God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 03:16:45 PM |
|
|
In article <29qdnbvjp8t_swLeRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT be a God because there
MUST be a first cause.
That is not what Russell says.
Does Septic get his information on Russell's intent from seances? Since
Russell's words do not say what Septic claims they say and Russell is to
dead to speak for himself directly, a seance would be the only source
for Septic's claimed knowledge that Russell means other than what he
says.
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 02:42:26 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False, Septic. Do try to read Russell for _understanding_ next time.
(Hint: when you're the _only_ one who thinks he sees Russell refuting
"might be", then you're hallucinating.)
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 11:48:53 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true. It's all hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), and
summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading for God/Creator/First Cause ==> everything must have a cause
except God/Creator/First Cause because He is special and doesn't require
one).
[God/Creator/First Cause] " ... 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>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 02:54:02 PM |
|
|
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say only
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Which suggests that Russell has o qyarrell with the possibility that
there MIGHT BE a firsy cause.
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which indicates that Russell does not agree with gnostic Septic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 03:11:38 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
It's all hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture), and
summarily rejected because it has an inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading for God/Creator/First Cause ==> everything must have a cause
except God/Creator/First Cause because He is special and doesn't require
one).
[God/Creator/First Cause] " ... 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>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand Russell's own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
And in 'A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas' by Bertrand
Russell (1947), he says:
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 can
prove that there is not a God.'
Which leaves Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's phony claims in tatters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
16 Dec 2005 02:56:49 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand Russell's own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis ('might be'
theist conjecture), and that hypothesis is summarily rejected due to the
inherent logical fallacy (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause -
everything must have a cause except for God who is special). Get it now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
16 Dec 2005 09:51:58 PM |
|
|
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand Russell's own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no doubt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
20 Dec 2005 11:51:05 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0532B.20515816122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to
that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand Russell's
own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT
BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no doubt.
The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron.
See http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Are you arguing that God/Creator/First Cause is definitely known to be
real, because there is proof, or is it still just hypothetical ('might
be' theist conjecture), when looked at objectively?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
20 Dec 2005 02:30:03 PM |
|
|
In article <NNKdnSD1Hdsa2TXeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0532B.20515816122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to
that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand Russell's
own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT
BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no doubt.
The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron.
And those theists are not making "might be" conjectures, of which they
are not certain, but stating what they believe to be plain truths.
Unless Septic is implying that they are as hypocritical about their
beliefs as he is about his.
Are you arguing that God/Creator/First Cause is definitely known to be
real
No, I am saying that the theists really believe what they say they
believe. Get it right this time, sonny boy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
21 Dec 2005 02:46:25 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-EA4031.13300320122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <NNKdnSD1Hdsa2TXeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0532B.20515816122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a
First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to
that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do
not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand
Russell's
own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT
BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no
doubt.
The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron.
And those theists are not making "might be" conjectures
What are you arguing, that theist stuff is all known to be real?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
21 Dec 2005 03:45:16 PM |
|
|
In article <a-SdncXH0ZuAIjTeRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-EA4031.13300320122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <NNKdnSD1Hdsa2TXeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0532B.20515816122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a
First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity to
that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do
not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand
Russell's
own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not "MIGHT
BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no
doubt.
The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron.
And those theists are not making "might be" conjectures
What are you arguing, that theist stuff is all known to be real?
It is known to be really believed in!
I am stating that when people declare that they believe something to be
true, then we should accept that they believe it (though not necessarily
that it is true), at least until we have as much evidence of their
hypocrisy as we have of Septic's.
That does not imply that what anyone declares he believes in need be
accepted as true without proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
22 Dec 2005 03:48:00 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-403331.14451621122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <a-SdncXH0ZuAIjTeRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-EA4031.13300320122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <NNKdnSD1Hdsa2TXeRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E0532B.20515816122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <t8GdnYi_hMdjtD7eRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-74700D.22190714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <m_CdnSmRc_DmFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3E23C.13540214122005@comcast.dca.giganews
.co
m..
.
In article <b-idndTHm9Zrxz3enZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134506546.131593.282170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
Russell objects to the argument that there MUST be a
First
Cause/God
Russell objects to the argument that there MIGHT
False
It's true.
Then why does Russell say
Russell says there cannot, absolutely cannot be any validity
to
that
argument, moron. Is there something about cannot that you do
not
understand?
What I cannot understand is why Septc cannot understand
Russell's
own
words:
What Russell said was [note Russell said "MUST BE, not
"MIGHT
BE"]:
"... the argument that there MUST BE a First Cause is one
that
cannot
have any validity." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
God/Creator/First Cause is the theist hypothesis
Theists do not hyppothesize about things of which they have no
doubt.
The term, 'hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron.
And those theists are not making "might be" conjectures
What are you arguing, that theist stuff is all known to be real?
It is known to be really believed in!
So what? Does that make it any more real, any less theist conjecture
with no known basis in fact?
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
