| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
21 Dec 2005 10:18:04 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-4349FF.13092720122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <0OedneKZaaBB3TXeRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-87B2DD.15044319122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <NqKdnft0K_6hazvenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
You are mistaken.
The following proves Septic WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!
"... the argument that there MUST be a First Cause
That is the theist hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture).
That is theists "must be" belief
'There must be a God/Creator/First Cause' is conjecture
So you claim, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
19 Dec 2005 12:18:02 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134767003.970747.223900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-CBD57F.22133714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <fbudnTlGQIq2Hz3eRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583194.259046.233220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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.
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
It's true.
Then why does Russell specifically say otherwise?
He doesn't.
He does
You are mistaken.
I am not mistaken, sir. Four bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 06:10:54 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583194.259046.233220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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.
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
It's true.
False, sir. Three bags full, Septic.
And Septic demonstrates yet again the fact that he remains the
completely refuted, fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot
fool lying losing repeater of alt.atheism, as always. Ho hum.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 04:55:08 PM |
|
|
OS XI 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,
Yes sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 04:57:35 PM |
|
|
OS XI 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
And Russell does indeed demonstrate that the argument from first cause
contains a logical fallacy -- although the logical fallacy it contains
is actually that of infinite regress, rather than special pleading.
However, as DotSix has been told many times, the existence of a
fallacious argument in support of a proposition does not constitute
logical disproof of that proposition. If it did, I could make a
fallacious argument for the idea that the Earth turns on its axis, and
thus prove that the Earth does not do so.
Of course, DotSix has not addressed this; and he will not do so.
Instead, he'll snip the content from this post and append one of his
poorly-digested block quotes.
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: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 02:40:51 PM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:zfnnf.7943$TU6.1622668@twister.southeast.rr.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote
... you've never shown that there was a logical fallacy inherent in
the idea of the existence of God. Nor did Russell ...
The fallacy of special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause is that
God/Creator/First Cause is special, in that everything must have a
cause, except God/Creator/First Cause who is somehow special and
doesn't require one. (So the idea is rejected for failing to be
logically consistent throughout.)
This logically fatal issue Russell explains in "Why I Am Not A
Christian" http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
And Russell does indeed demonstrate that the argument from first cause
contains a logical fallacy -- although the logical fallacy it contains
is actually that of infinite regress, rather than special pleading.
You could not be more wrong, it is the special pleading for God, God is
special and does not need a cause like everything else does, that is the
issue. See here:
" ... there cannot [note: absolutely CANNOT] be
any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an
elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said,
'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the
subject.' The argument is really no better than that." -- Russell
So it is summarily rejected, for cause (fallacy of special pleading).
Your cure for that fatal illness (special pleading) goes here:
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 03:26:51 PM |
|
|
In article <iL2dnQW4nuhYrALeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:zfnnf.7943$TU6.1622668@twister.southeast.rr.com...
OS XI 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
And Russell does indeed demonstrate that the argument from first cause
contains a logical fallacy -- although the logical fallacy it contains
is actually that of infinite regress, rather than special pleading.
You could not be more wrong, it is the special pleading for God, God is
special and does not need a cause like everything else does, that is the
issue. See here:
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 08:45:04 AM |
|
|
Malibu Skipper wrote:
OS XI 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 ...
That is correct. Russell's (rejected) "idea" is "there must be a god
as first cause", not "God exists" as Septic fallaciously (equivocation)
says.
And Russell does indeed demonstrate that the argument from first cause
contains a logical fallacy -- although the logical fallacy it contains
is actually that of infinite regress, rather than special pleading.
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only). Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause, although Septic completely
misrepresents (Strawmans) that argument. Russell does point out a
special pleading which, however, does _not_ refute the possible
_existence_ of a first cause, but rather merely refutes that any such
first cause (if there is one) must be a god. The key quote from
Russell (of which Septic demonstrates a complete misunderstanding) is,
"might as well be the universe as God".
The argument for first cause starts with the premise (almost always
strawmanned): Anything (everything) _which_begins_to_exist_ has a
cause. Now the caveat in there can only be rejected on pain of either
infinite regress (everything has a cause; turtles all the way down),
nihilism (nothing exists), or the absurd "everything is past-eternal"
("no thing had a beginning"). And of course the whole premise can be
rejected by rejecting the idea of causation itself (accepting that some
(mundane, non-eternal) things' existence can be uncaused). But
accepting the premise as is, and avoiding infinite regress,
necessitates a conclusion that at least one thing is an eternal first
cause (could be more than one, interestingly enough). The assertion
that any such thing must be a god is in fact Special Pleading, but the
necessity of _some_ such first cause follows from the premise (and
again, the premise needn't be accepted either, as above).
However, as DotSix has been told many times, the existence of a
fallacious argument in support of a proposition does not constitute
logical disproof of that proposition.
Absolutely correct.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 11:40:05 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/CreatorFirst Cause; it suffers from an inherent fatal logical
problem (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause) so that it comes
in DOA (dead on arrival), as Russell points out.
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 Jeffie and friends talk about anything except the
real issue, the special pleading for God/Creator/First Santa Claus who
allegedly gave us the gift of existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 02:50:52 PM |
|
|
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/CreatorFirst Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one can
prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT BE one
is open.
Russell's take on the issue is
"... 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 |
14 Dec 2005 03:13:09 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-6AB7DA.13505214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might
be a God/CreatorFirst Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one
can
prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT BE one
is open.
That is still argument _ad ignorantiam_. When will you learn that is
logical fallacy, moron?
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 11:23:27 PM |
|
|
In article <geidnUZOMaRLFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-6AB7DA.13505214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this
one particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what _supports_ the
argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might be a God/CreatorFirst Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one
can prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT
BE one is open.
That is still argument _ad ignorantiam_.
Does Septic claim that refusal to decide (leaving the question open) in
the absence of decisive evidence is a logical fallacy? It appears so!
That is a very Gnostic attitude, that knowledge and certainty can be
found without any evidence.
, moron?
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
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 |
15 Dec 2005 05:59:11 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FDF423.22232714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <geidnUZOMaRLFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-6AB7DA.13505214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this
one particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what _supports_ the
argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one
can prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT
BE one is open.
That is still argument _ad ignorantiam_.
Does Septic claim that refusal to decide ...
I don't CLAIM anything.
It is a fact that "refuse to accept" is synonymous with "reject" on this
planet, moron. See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reject
It is also a fact that your argument that there might be one because
there is no proof that hypothesis is false is still argument _ad
ignorantiam_ for which you theists have been famous lo these hundreds of
years, as Copi points out:
<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 theist conjecture, a
speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 10:31:09 PM |
|
|
In article <_JGdnVmtP-Wjnj_enZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FDF423.22232714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Does Septic claim that refusal to decide ...
I don't CLAIM anything.
You just did claim something, Septic!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 06:06:55 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-FDF423.22232714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <geidnUZOMaRLFz3enZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-6AB7DA.13505214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this
one particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what _supports_ the
argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one
can prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT
BE one is open.
That is still argument _ad ignorantiam_.
Does Septic claim that refusal to decide ...
I don't CLAIM anything.
So you claim. Self-refute much, Septic?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 05:58:09 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-6AB7DA.13505214122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <3d2dnR8m_pB7xT3enZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might
be a God/CreatorFirst Cause;
Nothing can support the claim that there MUST BE one, but until one
can
prove that there CAN'T be one, the issue of whether there MIGHT BE one
is open.
That is still argument _ad ignorantiam_.
False, sir. One bag full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 12:03:15 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, Septic.
<snip Septical knee-jerk "God" reaction>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 02:35:09 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583395.778186.23050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, Septic.
<snip Septical knee-jerk "God" reaction>
Jeff
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause; it suffers from an inherent fatal logical
problem (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause) so that it comes
in DOA (dead on arrival), as Russell points out.
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 Jeffie and friends talk about anything except the
real issue, the special pleading for God/Creator/First Santa Claus who
allegedly gave us the gift of existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 11:12:20 PM |
|
|
In article <9fSdnaJKAaVwHD3enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Except that, it cannot be shown to be false.
Only proof of impossibility can rule out possibility, and no such proof
exists.
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 02:47:21 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-371EEA.22122014122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <9fSdnaJKAaVwHD3enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might
be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Except that, it cannot be shown to be false.
Argument _ad ignorantiam_.
Here's what Copi says:
From *Introduction to Logic* by Irving M. Copi, 5th edition, p. 91.
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued
that
a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved
false ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
16 Dec 2005 09:44:03 PM |
|
|
In article <j-mdnTJ_Zelbuj7enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-371EEA.22122014122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <9fSdnaJKAaVwHD3enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Except that it cannot be shown to be false.
Argument _ad ignorantiam_.
To argue the proposition that there is a god because it has not been
proved that there is not would be an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
To argue that that (or any) proposition MIGHT BE true because that
proposition has not been proven false is simple tautology.
Here's what Copi says:
From *Introduction to Logic* by Irving M. Copi, 5th edition, p.
91.
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued
that a proposition IS true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false ...
And a tautology is committed whenever it is argued
that a proposition MIGHT BE true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 05:57:10 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> said:
In article <9fSdnaJKAaVwHD3enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause;
Except that, it cannot be shown to be false.
Only proof of impossibility can rule out possibility, and no such proof
exists.
If it is true of any assertion, it is true of an assertion of
possibility, that it needs to be ruled in.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 06:00:46 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583395.778186.23050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, Septic.
<snip Septical knee-jerk "God" reaction>
Jeff
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, sir. Three bags full,
Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 07:10:58 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134604846.684912.265420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583395.778186.23050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this
one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, Septic.
<snip Septical knee-jerk "God" reaction>
Jeff
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, sir. Three bags full,
Septic.
Jeff
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause; it suffers from an inherent fatal logical
problem (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause) so that it comes
in DOA (dead on arrival), as Russell points out.
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 Jeffie and friends talk about anything except the
real issue, the special pleading for God/Creator/First Santa Claus who
allegedly gave us the gift of existence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 12:25:27 AM |
|
|
In article <06adncmS0OYOXz3eRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there might
be a God/Creator/First Cause
Nothing has to. Possibilities can only be ruled out by proof of
impossibility. Absent such proof, one is free to consider (hypothesize)
such possiblities as much as one wants.
As Russell points out, the very idea of it is
summarily rejected
That's a lie!
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: aa - "Agnostic" (ha ha) Quote Of the Month Nomination [was Re: God no] |
15 Dec 2005 05:51:30 PM |
|
|
Nominated part:
Possibilities can only be ruled out by proof of impossibility.
Seconds?
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B9E1B4.23252714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <06adncmS0OYOXz3eRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might
be a God/Creator/First Cause; it suffers from an inherent fatal
logical
problem (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause) so that it comes
in DOA (dead on arrival), as Russell points out.
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!
Nothing has to support it. Possibilities can only be ruled out by
proof of
impossibility.
That is just the same old argument _ad ignorantiam_ for which you
theists have been famous lo these hundreds of years, as Copi points out:
<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 theist conjecture, a
speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - "Agnostic" (ha ha) Quote Of the Month Nomination [was Re: God no] |
15 Dec 2005 06:10:25 PM |
|
|
In article <ntSdnQ3nHcPtnD_eRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
Nominated part:
Possibilities can only be ruled out by proof of impossibility.
Seconds?
Does Septic then claim that possibilities CAN be ruled out without proof
of impossiblity?
One may deem a thing improbable if there is no evidence that it actually
exists, but to deem anything impossible without proof of its
impossibility is a pure act of faith, more in the nature of Theism's
unwrranted beliefs than of logic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - "Agnostic" (ha ha) Quote Of the Month Nomination [was Re:God no] |
15 Dec 2005 06:54:14 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Nominated part:
Possibilities can only be ruled out by proof of impossibility.
Hmm. Anything that isn't impossible is, by definition, possible, isn't
it, DotSix?
Seconds?
Well, unfortunately, the nomination seems to be invalid. It appears
you've been banned from making such nominations. You seem to get banned
a lot, DotSix. Ever wonder why?
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B9E1B4.23252714122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <06adncmS0OYOXz3eRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
NOTHING can prop up (support) the fallacious argument that there
might
be a God/Creator/First Cause; it suffers from an inherent fatal
logical
problem (special pleading for God/Creator/First Cause) so that it comes
in DOA (dead on arrival), as Russell points out.
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!
Nothing has to support it. Possibilities can only be ruled out by
proof of
impossibility.
That is just the same old argument _ad ignorantiam_ for which you
theists have been famous lo these hundreds of years, as Copi points out:
<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 theist conjecture, a
speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - "Agnostic" (ha ha) Quote Of the Month Nomination [was Re: God no] |
15 Dec 2005 06:08:42 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
Nominated part:
You don't get to nominate anything, Septic. You're banned.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
15 Dec 2005 07:43:49 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134604846.684912.265420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134583395.778186.23050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote
Much as I'd like to resist, I have to agree with Septic on this
one
particular point (only).
Stop the presses! 8^)
Avoiding infinite regress is actually what
_supports_ the argument for a first cause ...
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, Septic.
<snip Septical knee-jerk "God" reaction>
Jeff
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress actually _supports_ the argument for _a_
first cause, as I demonstrated and you snipped, sir. Three bags full,
Septic.
Jeff
NOTHING
Avoiding infinite regress, sir. Four bags full, Septic. Go for five.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
