| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Roger Roaster" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2003 05:32:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Septic messes up on MIGHT versus MUST |
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-840250.20042225072003@blade.randori.com>...
In article <b0ef066.0307251325.386c2043@posting.google.com>,
roaster4001@hotmail.com (Roger Roaster) wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-586563.00434025072003@blade.randori.com>...
I know that the difference is way too subtle for Septic Sophy's
sensibilities, so he has missed the point of those remarks.
Your constant reliance on Argumentum ad Hominem (All you seem to know how to
write) is what is supremely predictable, son. You need to do some work on
your style. Ever thought of trying reasonable argument for a change?
I am merely emulating Septic, the master sophist of sci.skeptic.
When he posts something reasonalbe, I shall feel constrained to
follow.
All there is is a one-sided assertion with no basis in fact from you and
your nitwit pals. The actual state of affairs is that you and your pals are
trying to sell the idea that atheism and agnosticism are religions, just like
Christianity, or any other belief (faith in the truth of a proposition, as
the tenets of a religion, not supported by logical proof or material evidence).
Argumentum ad Hominem like that does not support in any way the alleged
truth of your proposition that a god really exists and legislated the laws
of the universe. It is simply logical fallacy. See :
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some god
really exists, but I have not done that.
Septic Sophy says that his magic invisible sky pixies do not exist
and thta no one else's conception of gods does either. In support of
this claim septic the Capon offers no evidence.
Your presumption is unreasonable, illogical, as I have explained before, in
that you ignore the prohibition (Pettitio Principii) against presuming the
very thing that is to be proven, the existence of your alleged god, while
the existence of it is in question.
Where in my statement have I presumed that any god existed?
You brought it up, not me. Right here:
For an example of Septic's sophistry, and an example of Septic's
argumentum ad hominem, he (you) accuses me of claiming that some
god really exists, but I have not done that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip irrelevant argument ad hominem]
No. I think Huxley was exceptionally clear headed, unlike the brain
damaged Septic.
As usual, Gerbil does not understand what is being discussed, so he just
tosses some _ad homenim_ arguement into the thread. Just empty allegations,
and slander, and you know it, Gerbil. The true-believers like you are forced
to present argument _ad hominem_, becuase they cannot present sound reason for
thier beleifs (their publicly stated faith in the truth of) their unsupported
propositions. And please stop calling me "septic", you *****-shovelling
whoremonger. That is just more of your argument _ad hominem_, and doesn't
support your argument in any way, as you know.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
Stop changing the subject and deal with the following questions, knucklehead:
Who brings the existence of invisible sky-pixies into question in the first
place, theists or atheists?
Who has the full burden of proof in the matter of their alleged invisible
sky-pixies, the true-believers, or the non-believers?
Are there any invisible sky-pixies in evidence?
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:27:57 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Zzp5b.260912$It4.121908@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309030917.385262fb@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<%D85b.256529$Oz4.67519@rwcrnsc54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309020953.547448c6@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified?
You have modified "scientific" to "logical", and "assuming" to "must
presume" ...
How many times
You've tried to pass off ...
Except that I have not
Yes you have. As demonstrated countless times in alt.atheism,
archived in google.
You have modified actual principles and actual quotes and tried to
pass the modified versions off as the originals. You continue doing
so to this day. And you continue to lie about it. Tsk, tsk.
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum; again>
Septic remains the completely mendacious, fallacious, and discredited
old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Demonstrated daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:49:44 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040727.4feb3306@posting.google.com...
Yes you have.
I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
How many times do we have to go over this same ground?
I plead not guilty. I have "modified" nothing, as you allege.
It is a basic principle of logical, scientific investigation that the only
reasonable presumption concerning any existential proposition like "An
invisible something may in reality exist," where there is no such thing in
evidence, is a default presumption that the proposition is false, there is
no such thing as proposed. Can't have a default presumption that the theory
in question is true by default. That would be begging the question.
Any questions on this point, sir, or do you just want to continue snipping
and ignoring the truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 09:02:19 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0309040727.4feb3306@posting.google.com...
Yes you have.
I have not "tried to pass off" anything,
You have. It's demonstrated fact.
<snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum; again>
Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, refuted, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Demonstrated daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:42:38 PM |
|
|
In article <saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Any questions on this point, sir, or do you just want to continue snipping
and ignoring the truth?
Actually, anyone except Septic the Capon doing either of these
things is practically a patent violation. Perhaps Septic the Capon
should sue?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:41:04 PM |
|
|
In article <saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you have.
I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
Septic the Capon has tried to pass off "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods" times beyond count, but has
yet to come up with that demonstration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 02:09:54 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5D81EB.11410304092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you have.
I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
Septic the Capon has tried to pass off "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods" ...
Oh? Have I miscounted? How many gods are there by your count, Verg?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
05 Sep 2003 06:41:36 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-5D81EB.11410304092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > Yes you have.
:> >
;> >
:> > I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
;>
:> Septic the Capon has tried to pass off "It is a fact (can be
;> demonstrated) that there are no gods" ...
:
;Oh? Have I miscounted? How many gods are there by your count, Verg?
We counted a number that does not imply there to be no gods.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:38:33 PM |
|
|
In article <66M5b.168701$2x.47201@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-5D81EB.11410304092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <saJ5b.168528$2x.48109@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes you have.
I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
Septic the Capon has tried to pass off "It is a fact (can be
demonstrated) that there are no gods" ...
Oh? Have I miscounted? How many gods are there by your count, Verg?
I will worry about counting when Septic the Capon can provide a
proof of his claim.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
03 Sep 2003 03:24:40 PM |
|
|
In article <Zzp5b.260912$It4.121908@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You've tried to pass off ...
Except that I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial unproved calim, "It is a fact
(can be demonstrated) that there are no gods"
How many times do we have to go over this same ground?
Until Septic the Capon acknowledges the guilt that everyone else
know he has.
I plead not guilty. I have "modified" nothing, as you allege.
A plea only justifiable by reason of mental incompetence.
It is a basic principle of logical, scientific investigation that the only
reasonable presumption concerning any existential proposition like "An
invisible something may in reality exist,"
No one but Septic the Capon has ever asserted the existence of
anything invisible, so this entire comment is irrelevant.
Any questions on this point, sir, or do you just want to continue snipping
and ignoring the truth?
As no one has seen truth from Septic the Capon, it is more likely to
be savored than snipped, supposing it is ever found.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-03EA0C.14243903092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Zzp5b.260912$It4.121908@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You've tried to pass off ...
Except that I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial unproved calim, "It is a fact
(can be demonstrated) that there are no gods"
"calim"?
How many gods are there by your count, sir?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:42:08 PM |
|
|
In article <6cK5b.267312$Oz4.70109@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-03EA0C.14243903092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <Zzp5b.260912$It4.121908@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
You've tried to pass off ...
Except that I have not "tried to pass off" anything, sir.
How about Septic the Capon's perennial unproved claim, "It is a fact
(can be demonstrated) that there are no gods"
How many gods are there by your count, sir?
When Septic the Capon comes up with a proof, I will come up with a
count.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 11:17:52 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
;news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
:
;
:> ... You took a real
;> principle and modified it ...
:
;What do you believe I have modified? All I have done is simply post the
:following, verbatim. See where it says in the last sentence that assuming
;(not arguing) that something like your existential proposition, "God exists"
:is false until proved true is a basic scientific principle?
;
:"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
;occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
:has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
;something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
:is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
;true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
:http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
;
:
;And why is it a basic scientific principle? Because it is the right thing to
:do, knucklehead.
Nope. Because scientists know full well they can't prove a theory true, and
so they must do the unreasonable thing of presuming the opposite to be
true, just so they can try to prove it false. It says right there
in "(Note that this is not the same....)"
;The burden of proof is always on those who are a party to
;any asserton like yours, "God exists."
He asserted god exists? When? Certainly not in the article he once
wrote that says "if you are atheist, then god exists". So where did
you see it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 02:57:14 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:binubg$7tn@neptune.myri-local.com...
... scientists know full well they can't prove a theory true ...
Can't prove a theory true? What an absurd idea. Anybody could prove the
theory, "ETs may in reality exist" is true simply by demonstrating some ETs.
That's what always stands in need of proof, that the theory in question is
true. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, under any
pretext, as you are always trying to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:36:55 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:binubg$7tn@neptune.myri-local.com...
:
;
:> ... scientists know full well they can't prove a theory true ...
;
:Can't prove a theory true? What an absurd idea. Anybody could prove the
;theory, "ETs may in reality exist" is true simply by demonstrating some ETs.
Explain
1) What constitute a demonstration of ET
Prove that
2) Such a demonstration proves ET really exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 09:24:09 PM |
|
|
In article <ueO3b.226843$Oz4.61019@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:binubg$7tn@neptune.myri-local.com...
... scientists know full well they can't prove a theory true ...
Can't prove a theory true? What an absurd idea. Anybody could prove the
theory, "ETs may in reality exist" is true simply by demonstrating some ETs.
That's what always stands in need of proof, that the theory in question is
true. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, under any
pretext, as you are always trying to do.
Septic is conflating again. he rally ought to stop such antisocial
behavior. A hypothesis and a theory are not identical notions in
science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
30 Aug 2003 08:25:45 PM |
|
|
In article <EW84b.309403$Ho3.43833@sccrnsc03>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-0DDAA3.20240929082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <ueO3b.226843$Oz4.61019@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:binubg$7tn@neptune.myri-local.com...
... scientists know full well they can't prove a theory true ...
Can't prove a theory true? What an absurd idea. Anybody could prove the
theory, "ETs may in reality exist" is true simply by demonstrating some
ETs.
That's what always stands in need of proof, that the theory in question
is
true. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, under any
pretext, as you are always trying to do.
Septic is conflating again. he rally ought to stop such antisocial
behavior. A hypothesis and a theory are not identical notions in
science.
"The gods" are hypothetical (speculative, 'may be') imaginings with no basis
in fact. There are no facts in evidence to support your theory that magic
invisible gods may in reality exist. You are just blowing smoke,
knucklehead.
Smoke screens, like the one above, are a patented device of Septic
the Capon's for diverting attention from his multiple fallacies.
What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
Septic the Capon's own hypotheses about what other people are, and
what they think, are hypothetical (speculative, 'may be') imaginings
with no basis in fact. In fact, facts are remarkably rare in Septic
the Capon's writings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 02:34:37 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F037E6.19254530082003@news.newsguy.com...
What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
Your memory is awfully short, knucklehead. Better have that looked at.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 12:32:07 PM |
|
|
In article <hyh4b.312335$YN5.213817@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F037E6.19254530082003@news.newsguy.com...
What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
Your memory is awfully short, knucklehead. Better have that looked at.
Does Septic the Capon see the word "magical" or the word "invisible"
in "gods may exist"? Or are they Septic the Capon's own additions
and entirely from his own diseased imagination? Note that the
reference dictionary , the on-line Meriam Webster, does not use
these words (see below).
That Septic the Capon's Dictionary of Delusional Definitions may
contain these words in Septic the Capon's definition of "gods" does
not mean that they are a part of anyone else's definitions, and
Septic the Capon must presume that others will not have access to
Septic the Capon's Dictionary of Delusional Definitions for their
own definitions.
If Septic the Capon expects others to use Septic the Capon's
definitions, he must first publish "Septic the Capon's Dictionary of
Delusional Definitions".
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
From www.m-w.com,whose definition of "god" in its entirety, see
below, does not contain either the word "magical" or the word
"invisible"
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being
perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator
and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal
divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one
controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 01:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6CCBB7.11320731082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <hyh4b.312335$YN5.213817@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F037E6.19254530082003@news.newsguy.com...
What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
Your memory is awfully short, knucklehead. Better have that looked at.
Does Septic the Capon see the word "magical" or the word "invisible"
in "gods may exist"?
What is this hypothetical "god" thingy that you are championing, that you
insist may in reality exist because there is no proof that it false, if it
is not an imaginary magic invisible sky pixie? The ball is in your court.
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
I am asking what is this "god" thingy you are championing? You aren't
specifying anything to look for.
How do you expect anyone to agree that it is known to be true that there may
exist gods if you cannot specify precisely what it is that you are insisting
may in reality exist?
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net>
wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
From www.m-w.com,whose definition of "god" in its entirety, see
below, does not contain either the word "magical" or the word
"invisible"
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being
perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator
and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal
divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one
controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Disregarding 3 and 4, since that is obviously not the kind of god you are
championing, precisely what are they, what would one of those beings be if
not a magic invisible sky pixie? What are they, precisely? Can you specify
precisely what there is that you observe that convinces you that it must be
true that these magic invisible beings may in reality exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:57:37 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-6CCBB7.11320731082003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <hyh4b.312335$YN5.213817@sccrnsc01>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-F037E6.19254530082003@news.newsguy.com...
;> >
:> >
;> > > What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
:> > > statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
;> >
:> >
;> > Your memory is awfully short, knucklehead. Better have that looked at.
:>
;> Does Septic the Capon see the word "magical" or the word "invisible"
:> in "gods may exist"?
;
:What is this hypothetical "god" thingy that you are championing, that you
;insist may in reality exist because there is no proof that it false,
No one is insisting that. It may in reality exist because we can
prove it true. A probability is a number between 0 and 1 inclusively. QED.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
31 Aug 2003 10:08:49 PM |
|
|
In article <Osr4b.318705$uu5.66149@sccrnsc04>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6CCBB7.11320731082003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <hyh4b.312335$YN5.213817@sccrnsc01>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F037E6.19254530082003@news.newsguy.com...
What facts support Septic the Capon's theory that I have made any
statement about magical invisible anythings existing? None!
Your memory is awfully short, knucklehead. Better have that looked at.
Does Septic the Capon see the word "magical" or the word "invisible"
in "gods may exist"?
What is this hypothetical "god" thingy that you are championing, that you
insist may in reality exist because there is no proof that it false, if it
is not an imaginary magic invisible sky pixie? The ball is in your court.
How can Septic the Capon claim that something that he doesn't know
anything about cannot exist? What is it that he is talking about if
he claims he doesn't know what a "god" is?
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
I am asking what is this "god" thingy you are championing? You aren't
specifying anything to look for.
And I am asking what sort of a thing it is about which Septic the
Capon keeps claiming "I know, somehow, that it is a fact that this
thing that I know absolutely nothing about cannot exist."?
How do you expect anyone to agree that it is known to be true that there may
exist gods if you cannot specify precisely what it is that you are insisting
may in reality exist?
How can Septic the Capon expect anyone to agree that it is known to
be true that there can be no gods if Septic the Capon cannot
specify precisely what it is that Septic the Capon is insisting does
not in reality exist?
My most extreme claim is that there is no proof of impossibility. If
there were such proof, one may reasonably presume that it would
describe what it proscribes.
On or about Saturday, August 23, 2003 "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net>
wrote in
message
news:vmhjr2-FB0320.16322823082003@news.newsguy.com...
When I say "gods may exist", what I mean is that there is no proof
that they can't.
"There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true, or
Septic the Capon would be reproducing those proofs ad nauseam.
From www.m-w.com,whose definition of "god" in its entirety, see
below, does not contain either the word "magical" or the word
"invisible"
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being
perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator
and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal
divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one
controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Disregarding 3 and 4, since that is obviously not the kind of god you are
championing, precisely what are they, what would one of those beings be if
not a magic invisible sky pixie?
As the above dictionary definition does not contain the words
"magic" or "invisible" or "sky" or "pixie", one can only presume
that the use of these words by Septic the Capon is a fallacy of
diversion.
What are they, precisely? Can you specify
precisely what there is that you observe that convinces you that it must be
true that these magic invisible beings may in reality exist?
What I have not observed was evidence that any of the definitions of
"god", as given by www.m-w.com, are impossible to instantiate.
It is the absence of such observations justifies my position
completely.
On the other hand, Septic the Capon's position, that it is a fact
(has been proven) that any instantiation of "gods" is impossible, is
singularly lacking the required proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Sep 2003 02:38:22 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1FD48D.21084931082003@news.newsguy.com...
"There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true ...
"The gods" are just theist delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired
contact with reality, believing that one's imaginings are real),
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
02 Sep 2003 11:58:41 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-1FD48D.21084931082003@news.newsguy.com...
:
;
:
;> "There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true ...
:
;
:"The gods" are just theist delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired
;contact with reality, believing that one's imaginings are real),
:knucklehead.
Prove it to be true that gods are just theist delusional disorder.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
01 Sep 2003 02:13:13 PM |
|
|
In article <OHC4b.319611$o%2.145861@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1FD48D.21084931082003@news.newsguy.com...
"There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true ...
"The gods" are just theist delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired
contact with reality, believing that one's imaginings are real),
knucklehead.
"No gods" is an unproven hypothesis, assuming it without proof is no
less of a delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired contact with
reality, believing that one's imaginings are real), than assuming a
gnostic hypopothesis without proof.
On the other hand, It is a fact that theere is no evidence that gods
cannot exist and equally no evidence that they can exist" is a
simple true statement about what evidence exists.
Since it is a denial of existence, Septic the Capon must either
embrace it or give up his PoVA(L)s, since his version of PoVA(L)s
supports it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 10:46:50 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-C6FA97.13131301092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <OHC4b.319611$o%2.145861@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1FD48D.21084931082003@news.newsguy.com...
"There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true ...
"The gods" are just theist delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired
contact with reality, believing that one's imaginings are real),
knucklehead.
"No gods" is an unproven hypothesis ...
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead. There is a basic
principle that the burden of proof cannot be shifted. Didn't your daddy
teach you the basics?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
The only rasonable default presumption is "False, there are no gods." Can't
have a presumption the theory is true by default. That would be begging the
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 11:18:29 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-C6FA97.13131301092003@news.newsguy.com...
:> In article <OHC4b.319611$o%2.145861@sccrnsc02>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-1FD48D.21084931082003@news.newsguy.com...
;> >
:> >
;> >
:> > > "There is no proof that gods are impossible" is clearly true ...
;> >
:> >
;> > "The gods" are just theist delusional disorder (psychosis of impaired
:> > contact with reality, believing that one's imaginings are real),
;> > knucklehead.
:>
;> "No gods" is an unproven hypothesis ...
:
;The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But of course "no gods" is not a denial, or the disclaim, of a claim.
"Can't say there is god" is the disclaim.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 12:59:31 PM |
|
|
In article <K7J5b.267396$It4.124095@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something, so Septic the Capon is
arguing that no statements ever need proof.
The principle which Septic the Capon is trying to mangle is that
whenever anyone proposes any new hypothesis, of any form, without
accompanying proof, one should also consider the negation of that
hypothesis as provisionally true until proof of the original is
forthcoming. But if someone else proposes that negation, neither it
nor the original can be assumed true until proven. Note that such a
negation or default hypothesis is only accepted provisionally and as
as long as no one else is proposing it.
Given a room full of men and women, someone hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a man and someone else hypothesizes that the
first to leave will be a women. It is clear that neither can be
presumed true and the other false. Though this is exactly what
Septic the Capon wants to insist on!
It is the true principle, as explained above, which Septic the Capon
is fighting so hard against, since that means that his favorite
hypothesis, "It is a fact (can be demonstrated) that there are no
gods" is as much in need of proof as any theist's or gnostic's.
And Septic the Capon has no such proof!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 01:56:27 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6347F2.11593104092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <K7J5b.267396$It4.124095@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something ...
False.
See the difference? You made an assertion, I posted the denial, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
04 Sep 2003 04:40:10 PM |
|
|
In article <vVL5b.267432$Oz4.70084@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-6347F2.11593104092003@news.newsguy.com...
In article <K7J5b.267396$It4.124095@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The denial never stands in need of proof, knucklehead.
But every statement is a denial of something ...
False.
See the difference? You made an assertion, I posted the denial, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial.
But, as everyone, Septic the Capon excluded, can see, the denial is
false and the original is true in this case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Fact : there are no gods in evidence |
29 Aug 2003 06:31:11 PM |
|
|
In article <KfK3b.226178$It4.108036@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0308290613.5261ef25@posting.google.com...
... You took a real
principle and modified it ...
What do you believe I have modified? All I have done is simply post the
following, verbatim. See where it says in the last sentence that assuming
(not arguing) that something like your existential proposition, "God exists"
is false until proved true is a basic scientific principle?
But that assumption of false remains an assumption. If anyone tries
to pass it off as a fact or a truth, then that person is obligated
to provide proof. Without such proof, it is no more than an unproven
hypothesis, only presumed, but not known, to be true.
Since Septic the Capon argues not just that there are no gods but
that, and I quote, "It is a fact that there are no gods", he
forfeits the right to the "presumption" status, and it becomes a
proposition requiring proof.
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
And why is it a basic scientific principle? Because it is the right thing to
do, knucklehead. The burden of proof is always on those who are a party to
any asserton like yours, "No God exists."
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
O.k., Septic the Capon, we know you have the words, now learn the
music!
That last sentence says that you, Septic the Capon, may not assume
that "there are no gods" is true unless proven onterwise.
Are you so tone deaf that you do not hear that music?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
