| 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 |
13 Dec 2005 03:09:12 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134428642.272764.85460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... there is no evidence to negate it.
trying to get away with the logical fallacy
False
You are mistaken,
I am not mistaken.
logical fallacy.
False, sir. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 03:24:15 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134508152.177739.172070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134428642.272764.85460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... there is no evidence to negate it.
trying to get away with the logical fallacy
False
You are mistaken,
I am not mistaken.
You are mistaken, Virgil is trying to shift the burden of proof to the
atheists, which is logical fallacy. We atheists have nothing (no thing)
to prove, you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 09:14:54 PM |
|
|
In article <ML2dnQ_jzotspgLeRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134508152.177739.172070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134428642.272764.85460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... there is no evidence to negate it.
trying to get away with the logical fallacy
False
You are mistaken,
I am not mistaken.
You are mistaken
Actually, it is Septic being misaken again , but as that is the normal
state of affairs here, it is scarcely notewothy.
Virgil is trying to shift the burden of proof to the
atheists
Septic is trying to shift the burden of proof from his gnostic
anti-theists to the neutral agnostics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
14 Dec 2005 02:42:06 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... neutral agnostics.
Agnosticism does not entail neutrality, moron. Atheist agnostics go
beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny
and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
proof. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
Your so-called 'neutrality' is to post the standard theist argument _ad
ignorantiam_ that there might be X because there ios no proof that
hypothesis is false, logical fallacy for which theists have been famous
huundreds 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 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 |
14 Dec 2005 11:16:50 PM |
|
|
In article <FJqdneK59fgXGD3enZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... neutral agnostics.
Agnosticism does not entail neutrality
In the matter of asserting things for which there is not logically
convincing evidence, agnostics don't, Septic does.
, moron.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM again, shame on you Septic.
This following is a quote from Thomas Huxley found in his letter to
Charles Kingsley (May 6, 1863).
"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against
orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible
antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school."
"The following is from Thomas Huxley's "Agnosticism: A Symposium (1884)",
interestingly never quoted by Simple Septic:
<start quote>
On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more
offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because
heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and
science, and orthodoxy does not.
<end quote>
"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything."
Letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886, in Leonard Huxley's
Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1900) vol. 2, ch. 8
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
16 Dec 2005 02:54:20 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-57447E.22165014122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <FJqdneK59fgXGD3enZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... neutral agnostics.
Agnosticism does not entail neutrality
In the matter of asserting things
Atheism is not an assertion, moron, "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have
been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." -- Gautama Shakyamuni (Buddha)
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
proof. Science is simply common sense at its best -- that is, rigidly
accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." -- Thomas
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
16 Dec 2005 09:50:31 PM |
|
|
In article <at-dnYkAOv70tD7eRVn-gQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-57447E.22165014122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <FJqdneK59fgXGD3enZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... neutral agnostics.
Agnosticism does not entail neutrality
Agnosticism entails being neutral in the absence of logically convincing
evidence favoring one side of an issue.
In the matter of asserting things
Atheism is not an assertion
Assertion is not an atheism either, but what has either to do with
anything under discussion? Such diversinalry tactics are fallacious
attempts to cover Septic's *****.
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods
and religious (Gnostic) beliefs by such as Septic in their impossiblity!
Thomas Huxley says in a letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886,
(Leonard Huxley's "Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley" (1900) vol.
2, ch. 8)
"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 07:10:33 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134508152.177739.172070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134428642.272764.85460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... there is no evidence to negate it.
trying to get away with the logical fallacy
False
You are mistaken,
I am not mistaken.
logical fallacy.
False, sir. Three bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 08:09:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:40:58 -0700, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <oMWdnWRvW4P8YgDenZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... there is no evidence to negate it.
There you go again, trying to get away with the logical fallacy
If Septic claims that there IS evidence to negate any possibility of any
gods, let him by all means present his alleged evidence.
Otherwise Septic commits simultaneously the fallacies of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad Hominem, and Straw Man.
Why not just say he's wrong you pompous *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
11 Dec 2005 07:22:34 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis. Two bags full, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 12:45:34 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is true)
if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question, 'God/Creator/ First
Cause'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 03:31:10 PM |
|
|
In article <GeWdnWfsMPTfWADeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is true)
if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question, 'God/Creator/ First
Cause'?
If one were convinced, one would not be hypothesizing, but claiming.
Septic does it all the time. So if what one claims is only hypothetical,
all Septics claims are mere hyppotheses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 05:03:16 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5F5B8B.14311012122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <GeWdnWfsMPTfWADeRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is true)
if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question, 'God/Creator/ First
Cause'?
If one were convinced, one would not be hypothesizing, but claiming.
Are you claiming you are not free to believe that the hypothesis
'God/Creator/ First Cause'
is true even though it is still hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture)? Did the atheists pass a bill prohibiting that? Call the
ACLU right away! They will help you file suit for protection of your
constitutional right to be a sheep of one of the religions.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is true)
if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question, 'God/Creator/ First
Cause'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 10:47:22 PM |
|
|
In article <_7-dnZCWIcU1nAPeRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5F5B8B.14311012122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <GeWdnWfsMPTfWADeRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is
true) if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question,
'God/Creator/ First Cause'?
If one were convinced, one would not be hypothesizing, but
claiming.
Are you claiming you are not free to believe that the hypothesis
'God/Creator/ First Cause' is true even though it is still
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)?
While I am free to believe anything, I willingly choose, as an agnostic,
not to declare belief in anything for which there is logically
satisfactory evidence. This means that I do not declare a belief either
in the existence of any gods nor, unlike Septic, in the impossibility of
any gods.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is true)
if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question, 'God/Creator/ First
Cause'?
I am convinced of the virtue of the agnostic principle which Septic so
hypocritically claims to follow while simultaneously flouting it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 02:10:57 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5FE1D3.21472212122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com.gnresend...
In article <_7-dnZCWIcU1nAPeRVn-gA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5F5B8B.14311012122005@comcast.dca.giganews.
com...
In article <GeWdnWfsMPTfWADeRVn-tw@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced (believe is
true) if not the hypothesis (conjecture) in question,
'God/Creator/ First Cause'?
If one were convinced, one would not be hypothesizing, but
claiming.
Are you claiming you are not free to believe that the hypothesis
'God/Creator/ First Cause' is true even though it is still
hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)?
While I am free to believe anything, I willingly choose, as an
agnostic,
not to declare belief in anything for which there is logically
satisfactory evidence.
What's your issue with accepting things known to be true, for which
there is logically satisfactory evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
13 Dec 2005 03:07:31 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5FE1D3.21472212122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m.gnre send...
In article <_7-dnZCWIcU1nAPeRVn-gA@comcast.com>, "OS XI"
<oessxi@nospam.net> wrote: Are you claiming you are not free to
believe that the hypothesis 'God/Creator/ First Cause' is true even
though it is still hypothetical ('might be' theist conjecture)?
While I am free to believe anything, I willingly choose, as an
agnostic, not to declare belief in anything for which there is not
logically satisfactory evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
12 Dec 2005 01:25:42 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134350554.250714.55090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134328319.724725.44150@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134178711.035505.18180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI 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
Belief is not hypothesis.
"There is a god" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
"There is a God" is hypothesis
"Belief that there is a God" is not hypothesis.
Of what are you going to say that you are convinced
The _proposition_ "there is a God", Septic.
<snip Septic fallaciously (Equivocation) equating "proposition" with
"hypothesis">
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 08:50:11 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist there is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity of a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing, Septic. He rightly rejected
only the _necessity_ of a first cause, just as Virgil says. Try
reading Russell for comprehension next time, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 11:14:58 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to. It is established by the fact that God/All
Mighty/Creator/First Cause is no less hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) than the Hindu's elephant standing on a tortoise holding up
the world!
It's all hypothetical ('might be' conjecture), moron, certainly not
logical necessity. You have a modal problem going there.
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 |
07 Dec 2005 01:49:29 PM |
|
|
In article <zeudnV8h_7MThQreRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to. It is established by the fact that God/All
Mighty/Creator/First Cause is no less hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) than the Hindu's elephant standing on a tortoise holding up
the world!
The tortoise theory has been explicitly and totally disproved, by NASA
among others, so that the existence of gods is less hypothetical than
something known to be false!
Septic, as usual, hangs his conclusions on failing arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 05:16:35 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-A021E7.12492907122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <zeudnV8h_7MThQreRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article
<1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist
there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The
fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can
not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator
of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity
of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove
the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to. It is established by the fact that God/All
Mighty/Creator/First Cause is no less hypothetical ('might be'
conjecture) than the Hindu's elephant standing on a tortoise holding
up
the world!
The tortoise theory ...
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world could never be
called a theory, moron. It does not lead to any testable predictions. It
was 100% hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) at the time, just like
there might be a God/Creator/First Cause still is now, and is summarily
rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in
it, as Russell established decades ago:
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 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>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 10:11:55 PM |
|
|
In article <rPydneeJxM7S8AreRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world could never
be called a theory. It does not lead to any testable
predictions.
Sure it does, submoron, and NASA has tested them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
08 Dec 2005 02:04:17 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5C8930.21115507122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <rPydneeJxM7S8AreRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world could never
be called a theory. It does not lead to any testable
predictions.
Sure it does, submoron, and NASA has tested them.
So NASA looked around and didn't find any elephant in evidence? Did they
find a God in evidence?
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world was 100%
hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) at the time, just like
there might be a God/Creator/First Cause still is now, and is summarily
rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy (special pleading) inherent in
it, as Russell established decades ago.
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 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>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
08 Dec 2005 02:10:17 PM |
|
|
In article <kcmdnUPsJrtgdQreRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5C8930.21115507122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <rPydneeJxM7S8AreRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world could never
be called a theory. It does not lead to any testable
predictions.
Sure it does, submoron, and NASA has tested them.
So NASA looked around and didn't find any elephant in evidence? Did they
find a God in evidence?
They found evidence of no earth supporting elephants did not find any
evidence of no gods! So one theory oout but the other still moot.
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?
The POSSIBILITY of gods can only be summarily rejected by those who make
claims without evidence. The claim of any NECESSITY of any gods can be
rejected as unproven.
This is Russell's position:
"... 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 |
08 Dec 2005 08:05:48 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-5C8930.21115507122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <rPydneeJxM7S8AreRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
An elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world could never
be called a theory. It does not lead to any testable
predictions.
Sure it does, submoron, and NASA has tested them.
So NASA looked around
That's right, submoron. And your previous statement is thus proven
false.
Septic demonstrates yet again the fact that he remains the completely
fallacious, duplicitous, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool
submoron of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 03:06:20 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to.
You certainly have not established any such thing either, Septic. And
neither has anyone else. So your assertion is summarily dismissed.
<snip Septic simply repeating his unestablished assertion -- Fallacy of
Argumentum ad Nauseum, Septic>
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 05:19:06 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133989580.024171.311000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article
<1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist
there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The
fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can
not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator
of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity
of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove
the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to.
You certainly have not established any such thing either
Russell didn't have to, and neither do I.
It is established by the fact that God/All Mighty/Creator/First Cause
is no less hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) than the Hindu's
elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world!
It's all hypothetical ('might be' conjecture), moron, certainly not
logical necessity. You have a modal problem going there.
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 |
07 Dec 2005 10:16:27 PM |
|
|
In article <bJCdnbqzkZR78AreRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133989580.024171.311000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m...
In article
<1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist
there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The
fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can
not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, the idea of a creator
of
the
universe is summarily rejected due to the fatal logical fallacy
(special pleading) inherent in it:
Actually, that is a flat out lie. Russell rejecte the necessity
of
a
first cause and creator, but never claimed to be able to prove
the
impossibilty
It's all hypothetical
False. Russell established no such thing
Russell didn't have to.
You certainly have not established any such thing either
Russell didn't have to, and neither do I.
It is established by the fact that God/All Mighty/Creator/First Cause
is no less hypothetical ('might be' conjecture) than the Hindu's
elephant standing on a tortoise holding up the world!
Septic must have been sleep when all those men went to the moon without
reporting any elephants or tortoises on the way.
So that elephant and tortoise stuff is totally disproved, but the
existence of gods is not.
Thus according to Septiology, totally disproved hypotheses are of the
same level of aceptability as those whichj are not disproved.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God no |
07 Dec 2005 09:13:58 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133989580.024171.311000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133967011.338642.117640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-DDD58A.20170806122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article
<1133898151.896519.141110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@gmail.com> wrote:
Smith Computer wrote:
I am often amused, yet seldom misled by those who insist
there
is
no
Creator, because THEY do not recognize the evidence. The
fact
remains that
individuals can certainly have a fever even while they can
not
locate the
thermometer. In truth there are far too many variables in
evidence
and
satisfied by our biosphere for there NOT to be an intelligent
Creator.
The Smitty
As Bertrand Russell established long ago, | | | | | |
